digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Cop who shot PS3 thief freed on paperwork error

cnn.com — Officials dismissed a murder charge Tuesday against a sheriff's deputy accused of shooting and killing an unarmed teenager who authorities believed had stolen video game consoles. A grand jury foreman said he had checked the wrong box on the indictment paperwork, triggering the dismissal.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • bsongo, on 10/12/2007, -38/+9that's just dirty
    • Monolith2, on 10/12/2007, -30/+42Welcome to a world where we dont bypass laws "just because it's right." If you want to live in that kind of a place, move to China or North Korea.

      Forcing people to follow a strict guideline for prosecuting people for murder (and every other crime) is what keeps us from becoming a totalitarian state.

      And please, spare me the 50 unrelated comments about how bush has already gotten us there.
    • nicerobot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+32@Monolith2 Whoa! Welcome to the world where a "simple", admitted clerical _mistake_ can't be corrected. If I make a mistake on a official form, I can change it, initial it and it's corrected. This issue is entirely different than other problems that can arise in court that can't simply be corrected.
    • 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -20/+9welcome to Wilmington NC,

      home to

      backward and corrupt police
      +
      wanna-be thug stoner theif's
    • strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25"backward and corrupt police
      +
      wanna-be thug stoner theif's"
      +
      diggers who don't know about the word "thieves"
    • gcauthon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@nicerobot

      They'll just convene a new grand jury. Hopefully the next group doesn't elect an idiot for their foreman. People need to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

      How fast did this moron just fly through the form? He got to the boxes that basically state "indictment" or "no indictment" and then he checked the one for "no indictment". Instead of asking for a new form he crossed out his check mark, checked the other box and initialed it.

      What does he think, this is as insignificant as a typo on a $10 check? It's a murder indictment for crying out loud! Get a new f**king form!

  • NikoKun, on 10/12/2007, -36/+59Thats just bs... you can't let a murder off just because of a paper error!!! That doesn't changed the fact that someone was killed...
    • Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+102the paperwork inaccurately said that the grand jury voted to charge the cop with murder when, in fact, the grand jury voted AGAINST charging the cop.

      If the jury foreman had filled out his paperwork correctly, the cop would never have been charged with murder in the first place.

      Whether that's right or wrong is a separate question.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -5/+69Wolfboy is correct.

      And the article is horrendously written, if not intentionally deceptive. The text under the cops picture reads:

      "A murder charge against Deputy Christopher Long was dismissed when a New Hanover grand jury made a paperwork error."

      when actually, the cop was indicted when the jury made a paperwork error. He was released when it was realized that he was only indicted because of an error.

      Mind you, I think the cop should be shot. But he wasn't released because of a paperwork error. He was held because of the paperwork error, and released when it was realized that he was being held because of an error.

      So this is inaccurate.
    • r00tus3r, on 10/12/2007, -30/+14Here's a thought, don't become a criminal, don't get shot!
    • WillyWonka, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17How do you know the kid was a criminal? He never had his day in court. Do you believe everything you hear on the news?
    • dime, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1"A copy of the indictment filed as evidence Tuesday shows a check next to "true bill" indictment, with a heavy mark made through "not a true bill," followed by what appears to be the foreman's initials and Tuesday's date.

      When a grand jury wants a murder indictment, it returns a "true bill." When it decides it does not want to issue an indictment, it returns "not a true bill.""

      Where do you guys get that they didn't want an indictment? From my reading, they wanted to return a true bill (ie indictment), as the checkmark was next to true bill. The paperwork error came when he crossed out "not a true bill" - which, I'd assume was done to reinforce that they wanted to return a true bill.

    • 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10at least in NYC you get killed by the cops for

      1. reaching for your wallet and ID

      2. leaving a strip club


      something must be done about vengence a badge and a gun...
    • rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@dime

      They checked true bill, realized it was a mistake, and made a heavy check mark by 'not a true bill' and initialed it. The article is misleading as they just say a "heavy mark" implying that a pen had somehow accidentally made a very heavy random mark or something.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@dime

      "McGuinness said there is no need for prosecutors to reconsider the case because the grand jury has already "made a substantial decision" not to charge Long with murder.

      The only mistake was in reporting that decision, he said."


    • gcauthon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I thought the defendant was innocent until proven guilty.
  • KryptoniteKid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Seriosuly, though: if a cop is going to (mistakenly?) kill someone during a police raid, at least it's for a property crime and not for...

    alleged drug activity
    (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/11/22/woman.shot.ap/index.html)

    or having wagered a little too much on a few sporting events.
    (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6374)
  • zenmouse, on 10/12/2007, -30/+15This is the reason regular police officers should not carry guns, especially to serve a warrant. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

    Sorry but "I thought I heard gunshots" doesn't sound like a good enough reason to kill an unarmed kid.
    • wild, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Its not a good reason to shoot the kid, but cops should carry guns. The criminals carry guns. Pretty much that simple.
    • strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Serve a warrant without guns? Wow. Yeah, good luck with that one.
    • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Maybe the criminals carry guns because their scared the cops will just try to kill them.

      Look at the Waco, TX thing. The leader Koresh had been arrested before and "peacefully" went with the arresting officers. Instead of knocking on the door, and saying "hey, we've got a warrant" which worked perfectly well before. We get soldier wannabe cops charging in with tanks and helicopters, and black uniforms. What ever happened to police uniforms?
      This thing with the kid is no different.
      Whats wrong with just simply knocking on the door. Its a freaking college kid.
      Maybe the 'gunshot' heard when the battering ram hit the door, was THE BATTERING RAM HITTING THE DOOR.
      Why the f*** did they need a battering ram anyway?
    • zaid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1maybe the gunshots was the victim playing Resistance...
  • uptown, on 10/12/2007, -19/+10Police also shot and killed Strickland's dog. Deputy Christopher Long does a killer job!
  • ih8regs, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9The blue line protection racket is a fine oiled machine. After all, "accidents" happen.
  • Face3000, on 10/12/2007, -23/+4My only qyestion is was the kid Black and or classified as white trash ? A.k.a a troule maker with a past record? Reason being that this may be the very reason for the elusive debacle of this whole senerio ...mY opinion is that it was purposly screwed up form the start
    and will not end here !
    • voidofmind, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1oh gee, you must be white.
    • Face3000, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3ACTUAL NO I AM MIXED A HAVE A WHITE MOTHER AND A BLACK FATHER. My statments were clear as to point out the bias in Amercian Policing. As pointed out many times in these uneventual situations. I was pointing out the prediuce in American Culture *****.

      Also someone already pointed out that posing on the net with GUNS and the HOUSE was full of GUNS! Not to mention the fact he answered the door with a PS3 controller in hand arguing with the Sheriff , the Sheriff could have also easily have mistaken this as a weapon!

      Another opinion of mine in the scenerio of what happened. So what are you going to come to the conclusion i'm raciest against Sony Products? or profiling the PS3 now ( sarcasm )

      YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT !
    • FinalSolution, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0"Raciest"? Are you ***** kidding me?

      Looks like YOU are the idiot. Must be your father's side coming out...
  • jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -11/+29If you play with guns and have photos of yourself with them on the internet.

    Then you Mug someone and steal his goods.

    And when the police arrives at your home to arrest you, you have holding something in your hand, that in a split second may look like a gun.

    It's a series of event leading to ones death, but I wouldn't call this unfortunate as the kid has control over an assault and robbery. The accidental was due to his crime, i dont feel sorry for him.
    • MiddleGirth, on 10/12/2007, -25/+4jlebrech, I must say that yours is, by far, the worst post I have ever read. That is all.
    • mitrovarr, on 10/12/2007, -21/+13"And when the police arrives at your home to arrest you, you have holding something in your hand, that in a split second may look like a gun."

      This is also true if you happen to be the guy who lives next door to the guy the cops are actually after. Which has happened multiple times.

      This was just a case of shoddy police work. They should have used surveillance and intelligent tactics to surprise him outside of his apartment, not stupid brute force. The cop should go to jail, whoever ordered the raid should go to jail, and the whole department should probably be overhauled.
    • FinalSolution, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Yeah, we should fire the whole department for shooting a drug abusing criminal who savagely beat someone to steal Playstation 3's.

      No one should feel sorry for this kid. He was a punk, stoner kid and a bully.
    • 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6if it wasn't a wireless controller,

      he would of had to set it down to walk to the door

      sony's fault, lawsuit pending
    • spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"And when the police arrives at your home to arrest you, you have holding something in your hand, that in a split second may look like a gun...."

      long live the second ammendment!
  • bigamil, on 10/12/2007, -37/+13"Police believed they would be at risk when serving the search warrant, and used a police battering ram to break down the door." My personal opinion is that this sheriff should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!!! he took someone's life i dont care if it was an accident or not he should face the consequences for his mistakes.

    Hell you get pulled over for a traffic violation and the damn officer's got his hand on his gun half the time and the other hand on his flash light. WTF for all i care most law enforcement are fuk tards with a gun anyways. Just people that never had power so they join law enforcement so they can feel above everyone else.

    So yet again Blu-Ray claims another life. Great job Sony!!!!!
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12Comments like this, and the fact that it is standing at +2 instead of -100 is the reason why Kevin Rose will never own a home or furniture.
    • elliam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17Cops have their hand on their gun because they don't know if the jackass in the car is going to shoot them to get out of a ticket. If you walked around with a giant target on you all the time you'd get a bit jumpy, too.
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -9/+0I thought the "Blu-ray claims another life, good job Sony" indicated the post is completely facetious.
    • airiox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17I had a knife in my car in plane view when I was pulled over. It was just a steak knife that had been there for a while. When he mentioned it I didnt go all crazy, I didnt get offended I didn't think much of it. Why? Because I didnt do anything wrong and he wasn't accusing me of anything. He was just doing his job.

      What do you care if a cop has his hand on his gun? Don't be a moron and don't break the law and he'll have no reason to use it.

      This guy did those two exact opposites. He was a moron and he did break the law.

      I can guarantee that if you were a cop and you were going to storm someones house that you thought was armed and dangerous and when you storm in and he has a black object in his hand that is the size of a gun, you too would shoot.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Actually, putting your hand on your weapon is pretty much standard police procedure.

      With the way their holsters are made and when an officer has his hand in a certain place, it's damn near impossible to take his weapon and shoot him/her. It's more for their safety than an aggressive move.
    • spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3and i always thought cops just liked to shoot people...
    • fuggo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@airiox

      You had a knife in "plane view". Jeez, just how big was that knife?
  • jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -19/+6In other words police are now all 00 agents with a license to kill for whatever reason.
  • Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2So ***** rub it out and tick the right box, then!
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's what they did. In the future, please RTFA before commenting.
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15That is basically what they did. Did you not read the article? The Grand Jury voted NOT to indict. The wrong box was checked and he was indicted wrongly.

    So...when the error was discovered they "rubbed it out and checked the right box" To NOT indict.
  • Hydraulix, on 10/12/2007, -25/+5***** the police.
    • r00t3r, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18***** the bastards who follow people home from the store and rob them of everything and their PS3's that they worked for the money to buy.

      And btw, ***** You for being a dumbass cop hater.
    • shakebabies, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10"***** this!" "***** that!" blah blah blah....

      can't we come up with better ways to say things?
    • Kale, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@shakebabies, "Attempt to impregnate" doesn't have the same ring to it.....
  • Aciid, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4USA is such an corrupted country u cant wipe this kind of things under rug.
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10I guess in your corner of Ethnicistan, they would have beheaded the foreman for making the mistake, beheaded the police officer for shooting, and beheaded the already dead criminal for stealing, and beheaded the guy who bought the PS3 for squandaring so much money that he could have given to the glorious democrotatorship that is Ethnicistan.
  • lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2Cops are above normal people, they are GODS to you.

    Learn that and live with it.
    • elliam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19They are normal people who risk their lives every day.

      If they feel they are in a situation where it's them or the other guy, they will act decisively. Bad things will obviously happen sometimes.
    • khafra, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4On the one hand, police will sometimes kill innocent people. On the other hand, that should never be ok, regardless of its inevitability: It's equally inevitable that ordinary citizens will murder others in crimes of passion.
    • spliffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3it takes a "special" sort of man to put himself in that position everyday.
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1in democracies people pay with their money out of their pockets to have their self protected by security agencies. if they do the opposite, the people, in democracies, replace them or update them.
  • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Buried as inaccurate. The title is misleading-- the copy was not "freed on [a] paperwork error", he was *indicted* on a paperwork error. The text of the submission is also misleading, in exactly the same way.

    • shakebabies, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3here's a thought, instead of burying things as inaccurate and thinking your doing some great service to this community by spamming the fact, go watch/read news sources you know to be credible. so the option to bury something as inaccurate exist?-- it doesn't mean you have to ***** broadcast it to everyone on the page.
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@shakebabies

      "so the option to bury something as inaccurate exist?-- it doesn't mean you have to ***** broadcast it to everyone on the page."

      I disagree. It is useful to let people know the nature of the inaccuracy, so that they can see for themselves (as can be seen here). Burying it as inaccurate is not effective unless many people do it. Many people might do it if it is pointed out to them.

      "instead of burying things as inaccurate and thinking your doing some great service to this community by spamming the fact, go watch/read news sources you know to be credible."

      and the great service you do by posting this is ... what? who ever said each comment must be a "great service"?

      This story is inaccurate, and from reading the comments, it is apparent many have been misled by it. The cop did not get off because of a technicality or paperwork error. He got off because a jury decided not to indict him. The paperwork error was that it was mistakenly thought they did indict him. They did not do so, and did not intend to do so.
    • shakebabies, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yes indeed, whoever said that every comment must be a great service? i certainly didn't, nor do i claim to. listen, while you bring up valid points, i was merely expressing an annoyance with the practice of branding something inaccurate and then telling everyone what you did. i don't think it needs to be pointed out to people. i think people should make that call on there own and i don't think it calls for a comment.

      i can agree to disagree, and i apologize if my wording hurt any feelings. it wasn't my intention. it's early. i was in a pissy mood. i'm sorry.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This isn't inaccurate. It's inflammatory.

      The whole article and this post were designed to put pressure on the Grand Jury and the DA 's office so that they will go back in and INDICT him as that's what the paper and the submitter would like to happen.

      There should be a special button to tag something as just flat out inflammatory, incite-ful, etc...
    • caketank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@shakebabies

      As nepawoods pointed out, I didn't post to tell everyone that I personally buried the submission as inaccurate and hurrah for me. I posted to tell people *how* it's inaccurate, because a lot of people commenting were obviously as misled by the submission as I was, and obviously hadn't read the article themselves. I assume my reasoning was the same you used when you (probably) buried my comment and then told me why.

    • shakebabies, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@caketank

      i don't bury your original comment. i responded by saying i didn't think it was necessary to do that, admitedly in somewhat of a rude way. now that i understand your reasoning i guess i can see where you are coming from. jeez.... i already apologized. i get it.
  • compubomb, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5The fact that the cop brandished his weapon because of somebody stealing something is unthinkable in my book. Theft is not life threatening to a cop, and if somebody is running away with a stolen piece of merchandise the cop should run after the punk, not shoot to kill him unless he brandished a similarly deadly weapon. If he pulled a knife on the cop, and the cop had a gun, the guy is a moron for trying to cut the cop, either way, it seems as though it's another case of cop not knowing how to be a peace keeper vs. soldier. Oh, i forget, peace keepers actually need a brain. go figure.
    • red7ine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"The fact that the cop brandished his weapon because of somebody stealing something is unthinkable in my book." Then maybe you should actually try thinking, then. He wasn't shot for stealing something, he was shot because the cop allegedly heard gunfire as they were using a battering ram on the door.

      My advice would be to read the article as opposed to spouting some nonsense rhetoric about "cops and peace keepers". Might save you from seeming like a total f-tard.
    • End_Joy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4OK... this guy was not running from the cops he was at his house where the police were serving a warrant. And this "kids" has been charged with assault before. So he is not all that innocent. He has broken someones jaw. Now he and 3 friends attack and mug this kid on a school campus at night after following him home from Walmart? Looks like he was starting his life of crime to me. While theft is not life threatening, assault may be... They do have guns in the house and he has been charged with assault before, could end up as a gun fight.
    • willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...allegedly heard gunfire as they were using a battering ram on the door"

      Wonder if that sound was actually the battering ram?
  • orbit1979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What is truly sad is what is behind all this in the first place...a ***** toy! What is even more pathetic is this is not an isolated case, that being crimes committed for a toy.
    If people put a quarter of the effort they put into these toys into their friends, family, relationships, helping others, I can ONLY IMAGINE what kind of world this would be.
  • Face3000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Lets not forget the Sheriif said he heard Gun Fire.

    Which constitutes the thief's, AND YES I SAID THIEF(ARMED ASSAILANT)WAS PLAYING RESISTANCE:FALL OF MAN AND THE SOUND WAS COMING THREW THE STEREO ( NO DOUT ALSO STOLEN) .WHICH IS WHERE THE GUN FIRE SOUNDS WERE COMING FROM )

    YES LEST NOT FORGET THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY AND ARMED THEFT OF THE PS3 the person did to OBTAIN the PS3's! And a history of breaking the law, along with the unregistered and some were loaded guns in the house that weren't locked out and the fact the dog attacked the officer and was promptly shot to defend himself in the process!

    Reports are saying it was a bull terrier type boxer breed! no doubt vicious ! as it did attck the sheriff
    • FinalSolution, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Thought it said they were playing Tiger Woods. You know, because it's worth stealing a PS3 since that game is an exclusive and all...
    • 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4you'd need a massive stereo to simulate real gunfire
    • FinalSolution, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2While I agree that this kid had it coming, the parent of this thread has the English skills of a 4th grader.

      Where does it EVER say that the animal is a bull terrier? Everything I have read clearly says "German Shepherd".

      Learn to read.
    • strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"you'd need a massive stereo to simulate real gunfire"

      You've never fired a gun, have you?
  • Face3000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1I see this no different than punks stealing , killing for NIKE Sneakers( Air Jordans) Starter Jackets all back in the early to mid 1990's. Kids being beat up and or killed in North America for PSP's and DS hand helds.

    Or kids being killed and or beat up when Pokemon ' cards became famous ! Same difference. The moral of the story is you ***** with the BULL you get the HORNS!

    He was a known criminal and everyone makes it seem it was a basic routine check up ! To the gusy house. Sorry this individual was a repeat offender and he not only was armed but beat the people fopr the PS3 systems he stole !

    He was no saint and he got what he deserved. Why cause he threatened and attack the Sheriff as did his dog when they entered the house ! PERIOD end of DRAMA

    And the ass clowns that blame Sony need their freaking heads examined
  • aaaleman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And that is why we need Rorschach.

    Who Watches the Copmen?
    • Jagdhund, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think anyone else is going to get the reference.

      Also, I think Rorschach would kill the druggy/assailant/theif in a horrible way too, like dropping him down an elevator shaft.
  • p51d007, on 10/12/2007, -10/+0Nice to see the police getting off on a technicality for a change. I've read too many times
    where the bad guy gets off for stupid reasons like this.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5No, he was INDICTED by an error in paperwork. He was not RELEASED due to an error in paperwork.
    • saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Nice to see you didn't RTFA.

      He was held due to a technicality. Released when they finally figured out the error and realized that he wasn't being charged.
  • 46and2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Maybe the cop was a xbox fan.
  • RADED, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Wow a cop getting off for murder like that isn't new. This "mix up in paper work" was a lie to get him out of the Senates for killing some one,just because your cop doesn't mean you can go around killing people.
    • thcobbs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Once again:

      He was INDICTED by an error in paperwork. He was not RELEASED due to an error in paperwork.
  • Legopirate, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0can someone link to an artical that proves the kid was guilty of these things?
    it's pretty easy to place the blame on a a dead guy.. but i want evidence
  • nwkeeley, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Seriously who here agrees with what is happening?

    http://www.pollburner.com/takePoll.php?id=4d11c6444f2a
  • s-m-a-c-k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6after RTFAs, you know whats ***** up... after reading the linked article about the shooting the sheriff said "If this boy would've come to the door, opened the door, we probably wouldn't be talking," the sheriff said Sunday.

    This article reports, "Police believed they would be at risk when serving the search warrant, and used a police battering ram to break down the door. Long opened fire, hitting the unarmed Cape Fear Community College student in the head and near his right shoulder, an autopsy found."

    Sounds like there was no opportunity to come and 'open' the door...

  • UltimaNut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The foreman learned about the mistake after other jury members heard about it from media reports."

    WTF? I thought that jurors couldnt watch media reports?
    • Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2once a jury disposes of a case, it is allowed to watch the media reports.

      This grand jury voted on the case on Monday afternoon. It watched the news on Monday night.
    • r81984, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They can after their job is done.
    • End_Joy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1this was the Grand Jury, they are setup differently here. They meet to review evidence to see if it is worth going ahead with a conviction. This was not a real trial, just the Grand Jury
  • r81984, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The grand jury (after viewing all the evidence) even said the Cop was justified in the shooting, a paper work error was the only reason he has charges brought on him. They realized their error and let him go.

    As for shooting him in the head, police are trained to shoot in the middle of a target, ie. head, chest, belly. They do no risk their lives by aiming at the smallest parts of the body like the arms and legs. If they miss they know they are dead, so they shoot where its harder to miss.

    Guility or not, they had probable cause that the kid was guilty and armed and dangerous (approved by a judge). If anyone of you were in the same situation you would have shot the kid too.
    Mistakes happen, have any of you ever made a mistake at your job?

    This Cop is hero and its sick that some of you hate this cop, he is doing his job and doing it well. Also, how do you think this cop feels right now with assholes like you making fun of him and making death threats, he is a human being just like us. I hope someone comes and steals all of your christmas presents and the cops tell you to go ***** yourselves when you want to make a report.
    • Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The cop could not see the kid when he fired. He shot through a closed door. The bullet went through the door and hit the kid in the head.

      The cop fired because he thought he heard a gunshot. What he actually heard was the sound of the police battering ram bashing the kid's front door. The other officers with him did not shoot.

      Yes, people do make mistakes at work. How likely is it that your mistakes at your job will result in someone dying? The cops are supposed to train to avoid such mistakes.
    • 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4killing someone is not heroic

      forgiving someone it much more a heroes virtue

      btw wilmington cop's are some of the most corrupt police, you've lived in wilmington for how long?
    • dthacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24NDr01D...Yes, it is true that Wilmington cops have had some SERIOUS corruption problems, but that was many years ago and things have improved greatly. I have lived in Wilmington on and off for my entire life. I live here now, and I know that they are some of the worst I have ever seen even after they have cleaned up their act. However, there are a couple of important things you are missing here. 1- We are talking about a sheriff - which is VERY different than a city cop. and 2 - A law enforcement officer's job is not to forgive, his/her job is to enforce the law. Period. There is no "law of forgiveness".

      If you want the forgiveness factor to play, then by that logic you suggest that the kid who was brutally beaten for his PS3's should have "forgiven" that community college F-up. and just not Pressed Charges...

      Is that what you suggest?? Because that is F'in retarded!
  • MSX2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A case of bad karma returning to the kid who stole the PS3. What have we learned here? Don't steal PS3's! Buy them!
  • Trat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Suits that thief fine...
  • kutaone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This article is really poorly written. I didn't quite understand what really happened until I got here to the comment page.

    What a sad story...mistake after mistake after mistake...one house was raided, apparently a mistake...one person died, due to a mistake and one person has had their life ruined, due to a mistake.

    How sad...
  • colmenar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I think that some of you guys are confusing the "reason" for some cops to be trigger-happy-paranoid with it being an "excusable" not-punishable behaviour.

    That is, if I am scared ***** walking down 125th street at midnight is not an excuse for me to shoot all passers by on my side of the street. dig it?

    I understand many cops being paranoid but If they can not do their job properly then they should either quit or be reposted to do office work.

    Reasonable force ... whats the meaning of that today? I wonder.
    • kutaone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Walking down the street being scared and being scared when you are raiding a house are two different things. You aren't comparing apples to apples. I agree you must be held accountable for mistakes, but how many people work in a situation where if they make a mistake you go to jail? If you hear gun shots you hear guns shots...you don't wait to make sure you see the bullets or the gun...you just shoot...not saying this is right...this is just how it is.
    • colmenar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kutaone
      Yes. That is the way it is. And it is wrong. And should be illegal. As wrong as the extreme example guy at 125th. The "reasons" are different, the fact that both are inexcusable-behaviors isn't. How about intelligent alternatives such as jumping for cover until situation is assessed?.
  • superfly007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3completely innaccurate headline. I can't believe people let this get to the front page.

  • thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"He based his decision on his law enforcement training," McGuinness said Tuesday. "The fact that he shot was not a mistake. It was based on his belief that he was being fired upon."

    It was a total mistake. This cop shot two unarmed people, and a dog because he "thought he heard a gun", when he was breaking into their apartment to arrest them. And, even if they did steal the PS3, our justice system is based on a standard of innocent until proven guilty.

    What I gathered from this article is that if you're sitting at home watching a movie or something, and a cop bursts into your place without warning, "thinks he hears" a gunshot, it would be A-OK if he shot you in the head.

    That seems pretty ***** to me.
    • MeekSpiffinton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@thatgirlismine

      I'm going to edit your statement just a bit

      And, even if this cop shot two unarmed people, and a dog because he "thought he heard a gun", our justice system is based on a standard of innocent until proven guilty.

      So the cop's innocent of any crime. The street runs both ways, just food for thought.
  • spazoidspam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4While I don't think murder would be the correct charge, I think Involuntary Manslaughter would definitely fit here. This cop needs to serve some time, just because the kid was probably guilty of armed robbery doesn't mean he deserved to die without a trial. There is no excuse for killing him.
  • marcomc2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3im so glad cops get to kill teenagers for stealing.
    i feel so safe and righteous.
  • SOBofIT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Hey. These kids used violence to beat up a college kid who didn't do anything wrong and steal from him. I find it somewhat justified in a karmic kind of way. One less Darwinian Award winner on the streets and one less threat to society. Whether or not the cop was justified to kill the kid.

    How do you think the kid felt while he was being beaten and robbed?

    Spare me the whole Bush, NWO, police state. GFY. This is MY opnion. Not yours. Now you can whine and cry about my opinion. What kind of cheese would you like with that whine?
    • colmenar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You do not know that, do you?
    • thatgirlismine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah, innocent until proven guilty, ***** that! the whole cop-killing unarmed suspects in their homes deal makes the whole judicial system go much quicker.
  • daughrat00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think the person getting a PS3 should of been shot twice because ho wants a PS3 instead of a XBOX 360. Dumb ass
  • wiremonkeymommy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0thanks to the above Diggers that cleared up the misleading aspects of the article...

    before the internet and social news sites, one would barely ever here about the hideous abuses law enforcement routinely got away with...

    the only consolation my blood pressure has right now is that these stories reach many many people today and LE has a lot more eyes watching their every move.

    it appears the kid was a major league *****, but he didn't deserve to get shot to death by some trigger happy psycho cop, he deserved a trial!
  • qsqueeq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It seems everyone has forgotten about due process, and the fact that the 'kid' was never even given the chance to defend himself. This post's title is inaccurate due to the fact that this person shouldn't be considered a thief until convicted. He never got his day in court. They have yet to release all the details and prove he was an accomplice in the armed robbery.
  • qsqueeq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How did they see a black object in his hand when they shot through the door? RTFA. The cop shot because he thought he heard gunshots. These 'gunshots' turned out to be the damn battering ram that was used right in front of the ignorant cop. The medical examiner confirmed the bullet hit something before Strickland, and the DA said that the bullets went through the door.
  • SebG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, this wasnt done on purpose
  • qsqueeq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1guess I have been following this closer than some...
    Here are some older articles
    The pathologist who performed the autopsy on Strickland said "some of the bullets went through intervening targets, probably the door," before hitting the teen, the Wilmington Star-News reported Wednesday. Two bullets passed through Strickland's head and shoulder before lodging inside the house, Dr. Charles Garrett said.
    http://www.wral.com/news/10475060/detail.html

    Long, 34, told investigators he mistook the sound of a battering ram officers were used to break open the front door to the house as gunfire.

    Nine heavily armed deputies accompanied UNC-W police to Strickland's home to serve the warrants. Three deputies fired shots into the home, and evidence showed some shots were fired before Strickland opened the door.
    http://www.wral.com/news/10525619/detail.html

    An autopsy report said the fatal bullet hit Strickland in the head after hitting another object. Strickland also was shot near his right shoulder.

    Officers also shot Strickland's German shepherd, which bled to death outside the house.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235919,00.html

    On Monday, David said Long mistook the hammering of a battering ram at the front door for the blast of a gun and opened fire at an unarmed Strickland through his door. David told the judge that Long's action's were reckless.
    http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/520945.html

    Shall I go on?
    Sam

  • Yout, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The officer should be sued in civil court for wrongful death.

    I have no reason to doubt that he followed correct procedures, but it was still his incompetence that lead to the victim's death.
    • Wolfboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the officer is likely protected from suit by sovereign immunity. the parents might try a civil rights angle, but that's challenging. the dead man's father is a lawyer, so he's likely aware of his options.
  • 4ster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think this mistake won't be a problem...see Rules of Criminal Procedure--

    Rule 36. Clerical Error............."After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or omission."
  • ASSASSYN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CONSPIRACY!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.