RNB65
Member
Oh, this is simply fascinating. Can you say FUBAR?
Deputy charged with murder
- Thread starter RNB65
- Start date
- Status
cassandrasdaddy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 4,206
fubar?
can you say a grand jury with acess to all the facts made a decision? and not from a keyboard in "camp livingroom"
can you say a grand jury with acess to all the facts made a decision? and not from a keyboard in "camp livingroom"
Blackfork
Member
One SWAT Team killing a week.
88 year old woman one week, a college student the next, lord only knows what this weeks kill will be. These aren't isolated incidents anymore. They are policy.
88 year old woman one week, a college student the next, lord only knows what this weeks kill will be. These aren't isolated incidents anymore. They are policy.
RNB65
Member
Let's see... SRT is called out over the theft of a video game, kid is killed thru a closed door, deputy who fired shots is fired from his job, deputy is indicted for murder, deputy is unindicted for murder 24 hours later because jury foreman apparently can't read, and a heck of a civil suit is in the making. I'd call that pretty fubar.
I am a little confused I guess....
So, college student goes to answer door (even though he strong armed the ps3), and gets shot....from the previous artical I read they believe he still had the game controller in his hand.
I do not understand how he does not get manslaughter?? He shot and killed someone who is not a threat?????
That is truely incredible, my feelings are mixed on this issue as I understand how it was ruled by the court system...yet I feel as if there would be no sympathy for a civilian who may have had the reverse situation incured...
As "college boy" goes to his door he hears the battering ram and believes it to be gunfire, He pulls out his gun and shoots, Killing the officer on the other side....??
Yah, flame on....but somehow this doesnt seem correct as the definition of manslaughter is "MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent."
He killed in a case where NONE of his collegues felt the same, whiskey tango foxtrot?
So, college student goes to answer door (even though he strong armed the ps3), and gets shot....from the previous artical I read they believe he still had the game controller in his hand.
I do not understand how he does not get manslaughter?? He shot and killed someone who is not a threat?????
That is truely incredible, my feelings are mixed on this issue as I understand how it was ruled by the court system...yet I feel as if there would be no sympathy for a civilian who may have had the reverse situation incured...
As "college boy" goes to his door he hears the battering ram and believes it to be gunfire, He pulls out his gun and shoots, Killing the officer on the other side....??
Yah, flame on....but somehow this doesnt seem correct as the definition of manslaughter is "MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent."
He killed in a case where NONE of his collegues felt the same, whiskey tango foxtrot?
semper gumby
Member
Breaking News
The foreman of the grand jury says he checked the wrong box. See story here http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061212/BREAKING/61212011
Appears that he is not charged at this time, but may still be charged at a later date. What next, is he going to get his job back and promoted to Sgt?
The foreman of the grand jury says he checked the wrong box. See story here http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061212/BREAKING/61212011
Appears that he is not charged at this time, but may still be charged at a later date. What next, is he going to get his job back and promoted to Sgt?
thexrayboy
Member
I don't believe I am alone in this belief. We simply have too many episodes
where a SWAT type team is being used to serve basic warrants. These guys spend huge amounts of time honing their skills. Unfortunately the skill that is probably given the greatest amount of emphasis is how to put deadly force on a target as completely and expediently as possible. Then when they are in a real world situation and even the slightest thing out of the ordinary happens all that training kicks in. The higher brain has been removed from the decision making process by training to a level where response is automatic and reflexive. They respond to stimuli before they have a chance to evaluate the stimuli to verify if indeed it needs a response. Outcome? Tragedy. The training for these type of units needs to be totally rethought.
Society does not need people who practice to make pulling the trigger and hitting a target the ubergoal of training. This just makes them a hair trigger weapon with the safety off. They need more training in when to do things, not how to do them.
where a SWAT type team is being used to serve basic warrants. These guys spend huge amounts of time honing their skills. Unfortunately the skill that is probably given the greatest amount of emphasis is how to put deadly force on a target as completely and expediently as possible. Then when they are in a real world situation and even the slightest thing out of the ordinary happens all that training kicks in. The higher brain has been removed from the decision making process by training to a level where response is automatic and reflexive. They respond to stimuli before they have a chance to evaluate the stimuli to verify if indeed it needs a response. Outcome? Tragedy. The training for these type of units needs to be totally rethought.
Society does not need people who practice to make pulling the trigger and hitting a target the ubergoal of training. This just makes them a hair trigger weapon with the safety off. They need more training in when to do things, not how to do them.
RNB65
Member
I was born and raised in rural, eastern NC. Folks there have some pretty old school conservative beliefs on issues of crime and punishment, so I'm not really suprised that they backed the deputy in this case and refused to indict. Had this been a big city grand jury the result probably would have been different, but in rural areas the attitude is that criminals deserve whatever they get.
Car Knocker
Member
Also can be stated as: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts looking like a nail."
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Well, now, just what has been given us as to information?
1. A robbery with assault was committed by three guys. From the article, at least one of the guys had a shotgun, which may or may not have been visible at the original scene of the robbery. Strickland had been "pictured" while posing with an EBR.
2. Later in the article is is said that Stricland had been involved in a series of assaults.
3. The cops have a warrant for a person who was alleged to have committed robbery and assault. Possibly, a deadly weapon was of concern, based on Strickland's own braggadocio with the EBR.
4. Strickland was visible through small glass windows in the door.
5. The deputy shot Strickland.
Okay? That's about it, for actual facts?
Speculate: We have the deputy's story as to why he shot. He thought he heard shots and thus fired in self defense. You believe it or you don't believe it. Nobody here, or of the investigation, can prove or disprove what he thought at that time. As near as I can tell from the article, neither could the Grand Jury.
Use of SWAT: Why not? So far as was known, Stricland was no cherry boy in robbery by assault--per the article. He was known to have some sort of EBR--per the article. This was not about embezzlement or tax fraud.
What difference does it make that the gains from the robbery were toys? As far as I'm concerned, robbery with assault is evil and bad nasty, even if all that was taken was a stick of chewing gum. Seems to me that "All they took wuz PlayStations!' is an idea that's all eat up with the simples. At least I could halfway understand if the loot was several thousand dollars...
Overall, my own personal opinion is that a reasonable and prudent person would not have been in fear of deadly harm, as the deputy claimed. But I wasn't there...
Art
1. A robbery with assault was committed by three guys. From the article, at least one of the guys had a shotgun, which may or may not have been visible at the original scene of the robbery. Strickland had been "pictured" while posing with an EBR.
2. Later in the article is is said that Stricland had been involved in a series of assaults.
3. The cops have a warrant for a person who was alleged to have committed robbery and assault. Possibly, a deadly weapon was of concern, based on Strickland's own braggadocio with the EBR.
4. Strickland was visible through small glass windows in the door.
5. The deputy shot Strickland.
Okay? That's about it, for actual facts?
Speculate: We have the deputy's story as to why he shot. He thought he heard shots and thus fired in self defense. You believe it or you don't believe it. Nobody here, or of the investigation, can prove or disprove what he thought at that time. As near as I can tell from the article, neither could the Grand Jury.
Use of SWAT: Why not? So far as was known, Stricland was no cherry boy in robbery by assault--per the article. He was known to have some sort of EBR--per the article. This was not about embezzlement or tax fraud.
What difference does it make that the gains from the robbery were toys? As far as I'm concerned, robbery with assault is evil and bad nasty, even if all that was taken was a stick of chewing gum. Seems to me that "All they took wuz PlayStations!' is an idea that's all eat up with the simples. At least I could halfway understand if the loot was several thousand dollars...
Overall, my own personal opinion is that a reasonable and prudent person would not have been in fear of deadly harm, as the deputy claimed. But I wasn't there...
Art
Someone posted a link to a kato study on the swat style raids that had gone wrong. I believe the range of years was 20 or 21. In those 21 years, the study documented between 200 and 300 deaths, wrong addresses, "non-violent" offenders, "medical drug users", etc. That's right, just a little over 10 mistakes per year. The study included stories where "regular" officers shot someone in a search and other similar situations. (I'll see if I can find that study because I'm remembering off the top of my head.) There was no mention of the average number of swat style raids per year.
Now there is nothing good about even 1 mess up like this incident, and based on the current information, I believe an indictment would have been proper. But, let's say that there are 1,000 swat style raids per year (I'm sure it's many times that amount), and grant my faded memory the 10 screwups per year. That's 1% screwup ration. How's your business sector?
Edit: here's the link to the interactive map
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
From 1985-2006, 295 incidents as listed on the study. So 20 years, 300 incidents = 15 "botched paramilitary raids" per year on average.
In the relating article, the number of raids is estimated at 40,000 per year. So, 15 screwups per 40,000 is a 0.000375 or .0375% screwup rate per year; or 1 screwup for ever 2,667 raids.
Now there is nothing good about even 1 mess up like this incident, and based on the current information, I believe an indictment would have been proper. But, let's say that there are 1,000 swat style raids per year (I'm sure it's many times that amount), and grant my faded memory the 10 screwups per year. That's 1% screwup ration. How's your business sector?
Edit: here's the link to the interactive map
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
From 1985-2006, 295 incidents as listed on the study. So 20 years, 300 incidents = 15 "botched paramilitary raids" per year on average.
In the relating article, the number of raids is estimated at 40,000 per year. So, 15 screwups per 40,000 is a 0.000375 or .0375% screwup rate per year; or 1 screwup for ever 2,667 raids.
pcosmar
member
Art Eatman
"Well, now, just what has been given us as to information?
1. A robbery with assault was committed by three guys. From the article, at least one of the guys had a shotgun, which may or may not have been visible at the original scene of the robbery. Strickland had been "pictured" while posing with an EBR.
2. Later in the article is is said that Stricland had been involved in a series of assaults.
3. The cops have a warrant for a person who was alleged to have committed robbery and assault. Possibly, a deadly weapon was of concern, based on Strickland's own braggadocio with the EBR.
4. Strickland was visible through small glass windows in the door.
5. The deputy shot Strickland.
Okay? That's about it, for actual facts."
Well no offence Art, but that is not correct. A robbery was commited by 2 people with a blunt instrument. There are 3 suspects= one of them wasn't there. Which one?
Mills was known to have weapons. Mills was considered dangerous. Mills did NOT live at the address. Mills showed up after the shooting(he was called) and he had a shotgun in his car.
Strickland had a juvy record for underage drinkingand driveing and a conviction for tresspassing. According to his Lawyer he was about to be cleared in the assault case. If he had defended himself when he broke someones jaw, he could be charged with an assault.
Being charged is not a conviction.
Was he visible through a small window? maybe.
The deputy shot Strickland through the door. He shot a suspect who was unarmed and not resisting. Strickland was going to the door.
There were NO guns found in the house.
Strickland was named by an ANONIMOUS tip. There was video af the incident( not clear) and a tip sent them to Strickland.
Those are the facts that have been presented.
Now if I was to speculate, how about this. The guy who attacked Strickland, and got his jaw broke,was about to lose his case in court. So he makes an anonomous tip to the campus police, being sure to talk up the guns.
This was yet another botched raid. That is a fact.
An unarmed suspect was killed. Guilt is not proven by an allegation.
"Well, now, just what has been given us as to information?
1. A robbery with assault was committed by three guys. From the article, at least one of the guys had a shotgun, which may or may not have been visible at the original scene of the robbery. Strickland had been "pictured" while posing with an EBR.
2. Later in the article is is said that Stricland had been involved in a series of assaults.
3. The cops have a warrant for a person who was alleged to have committed robbery and assault. Possibly, a deadly weapon was of concern, based on Strickland's own braggadocio with the EBR.
4. Strickland was visible through small glass windows in the door.
5. The deputy shot Strickland.
Okay? That's about it, for actual facts."
Well no offence Art, but that is not correct. A robbery was commited by 2 people with a blunt instrument. There are 3 suspects= one of them wasn't there. Which one?
Mills was known to have weapons. Mills was considered dangerous. Mills did NOT live at the address. Mills showed up after the shooting(he was called) and he had a shotgun in his car.
Strickland had a juvy record for underage drinkingand driveing and a conviction for tresspassing. According to his Lawyer he was about to be cleared in the assault case. If he had defended himself when he broke someones jaw, he could be charged with an assault.
Being charged is not a conviction.
Was he visible through a small window? maybe.
The deputy shot Strickland through the door. He shot a suspect who was unarmed and not resisting. Strickland was going to the door.
There were NO guns found in the house.
Strickland was named by an ANONIMOUS tip. There was video af the incident( not clear) and a tip sent them to Strickland.
Those are the facts that have been presented.
Now if I was to speculate, how about this. The guy who attacked Strickland, and got his jaw broke,was about to lose his case in court. So he makes an anonomous tip to the campus police, being sure to talk up the guns.
This was yet another botched raid. That is a fact.
An unarmed suspect was killed. Guilt is not proven by an allegation.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
That Strickland used a club is irrelevant, if he was known to have a gun.
Now, if the information about an anonymous tip is correct, I get a sour attitude about rushing off with a SWAT team with possibly inadequate information.
Speculation on my part: If Strickland was an already-known person, with a lawyer working on the case, it seems to me that it would not take much checking to get a handle on what was being faced. Or, get in touch with the lawyer to see if he could get Strickland to voluntarily show up.
But that's what I dislike about threads of this sort, from a moderator's standpoint. Way too much speculation from inadequate information. From a non-moderator standpoint, I would very rarely read beyond the opening post, if even that.
Art
Now, if the information about an anonymous tip is correct, I get a sour attitude about rushing off with a SWAT team with possibly inadequate information.
Speculation on my part: If Strickland was an already-known person, with a lawyer working on the case, it seems to me that it would not take much checking to get a handle on what was being faced. Or, get in touch with the lawyer to see if he could get Strickland to voluntarily show up.
But that's what I dislike about threads of this sort, from a moderator's standpoint. Way too much speculation from inadequate information. From a non-moderator standpoint, I would very rarely read beyond the opening post, if even that.
Art
carebear
Member
Art,
My problem with the situation is that if the police (in this situation and in so many others) had waited until Strickland was walking to his car, say in the morning on his way to work, or at lunch, or anywhere else with no EBR possibly hidden, they could have completely removed the need to worry about it.
Then a couple detectives and uniforms could have just walked up and arrested him and then made the search of an empty premises. The suspect, if armed at all, could only possibly have a handgun, but would be outpositioned and outarmed and wouldn't have the cover and assets of his own ground.
No SWAT necessary.
My way, your list changes:
#1) Who cares if he had a long gun, he doesn't have it in his pants and street clothes at work or school. If he's wearing or carrying something that might conceal one, you hold off contact for a bit. You've got the house surveilled, no one's going in and out to mess with evidence, and you know exactly where he is.
#2) So now you have 4 to 1, 6 to 1, hell, 20 to 1 odds and he's got no cover, concealment or firepower.
#3) A deadly weapon is a 24/7 concern, even doing traffic stops, but the guy is outnumbered in my plan and an EBR is impossible for him to have.
#4) Strickland would have been visible from 360 degrees, in broad daylight with his hands easily observed and no glass to restrict view or cause distorsion.
#5) The Deputy wouldn't have had to shoot anyone through a door, justified or not.
#6) No possibility of raiding the wrong house in the middle of the night and killing a pure innocent.
My problem with the situation is that if the police (in this situation and in so many others) had waited until Strickland was walking to his car, say in the morning on his way to work, or at lunch, or anywhere else with no EBR possibly hidden, they could have completely removed the need to worry about it.
Then a couple detectives and uniforms could have just walked up and arrested him and then made the search of an empty premises. The suspect, if armed at all, could only possibly have a handgun, but would be outpositioned and outarmed and wouldn't have the cover and assets of his own ground.
No SWAT necessary.
My way, your list changes:
#1) Who cares if he had a long gun, he doesn't have it in his pants and street clothes at work or school. If he's wearing or carrying something that might conceal one, you hold off contact for a bit. You've got the house surveilled, no one's going in and out to mess with evidence, and you know exactly where he is.
#2) So now you have 4 to 1, 6 to 1, hell, 20 to 1 odds and he's got no cover, concealment or firepower.
#3) A deadly weapon is a 24/7 concern, even doing traffic stops, but the guy is outnumbered in my plan and an EBR is impossible for him to have.
#4) Strickland would have been visible from 360 degrees, in broad daylight with his hands easily observed and no glass to restrict view or cause distorsion.
#5) The Deputy wouldn't have had to shoot anyone through a door, justified or not.
#6) No possibility of raiding the wrong house in the middle of the night and killing a pure innocent.
Last edited:
pcosmar
member
Art, I can see how as a Moderator you would have trouble keeping up with the story. You have a lot of threads to watch.
There have been several threads following this story. when it first broke someone posted the pictures of the guys with guns, and claimed it was Strickland. Someone else came in (a new member) and said he knew Strickland, and the pictures were not him.
The pictures were of Mills and some others. They were not Strickland.
There has been much speculation, even when facts are known.
The fact is, he was a suspect, he was in fact unarmed, he did not resist arest. He is dead.
Suspect does not mean guilty. Many have insisted on his guilt simple because he was accused.
He may have been, that is for a trial to decide.
I can not support a policy that gets unarmed people killed. Even the guilty deserve a trial.
There have been several threads following this story. when it first broke someone posted the pictures of the guys with guns, and claimed it was Strickland. Someone else came in (a new member) and said he knew Strickland, and the pictures were not him.
The pictures were of Mills and some others. They were not Strickland.
There has been much speculation, even when facts are known.
The fact is, he was a suspect, he was in fact unarmed, he did not resist arest. He is dead.
Suspect does not mean guilty. Many have insisted on his guilt simple because he was accused.
He may have been, that is for a trial to decide.
I can not support a policy that gets unarmed people killed. Even the guilty deserve a trial.
Flyboy
Member
Probably not nearly that good. Know what the difference is?
When we screw up, people don't die.
papabear47
Member
SWAT
I have had the same opinion that Carebear has expressed.Randy Weaver,David Korish and many others could have been taken into custody with sneaky pete tactics,out numbered and out gunned by LEO's in plain clothes with uniformed backup to protect any bystanders from harm.Think of all the senerios that could be used day or night....And why is it that we seldom see people of wealth or political clout treated in such violent fashion....I cannot think of any at the moment....Help me out.
I have had the same opinion that Carebear has expressed.Randy Weaver,David Korish and many others could have been taken into custody with sneaky pete tactics,out numbered and out gunned by LEO's in plain clothes with uniformed backup to protect any bystanders from harm.Think of all the senerios that could be used day or night....And why is it that we seldom see people of wealth or political clout treated in such violent fashion....I cannot think of any at the moment....Help me out.
Manedwolf
member
Uh-huh. Sure.
I wonder if it was the right box until someone...talked to him?
Justice for civilians, justice for cops. Never the two shall meet.
JohnBT
Member
"The fact is, he was a suspect, he was in fact unarmed"
Maybe on his body, but according to his friend who was there when he was killed, Strickland had 3 long guns in his bedroom. I posted the link to the quote in another thread.
I assume he already had a lawyer because he was due in court that week on a felony charge of breaking a man's jaw.
John
Maybe on his body, but according to his friend who was there when he was killed, Strickland had 3 long guns in his bedroom. I posted the link to the quote in another thread.
I assume he already had a lawyer because he was due in court that week on a felony charge of breaking a man's jaw.
John
Deputy NOT charged.
Error Clears Ex-Deputy of Charges in Strickland Shooting
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=central&id=4846275
Error Clears Ex-Deputy of Charges in Strickland Shooting
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=central&id=4846275
Spreadfire Arms
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,312
pcosmar wrote:
JohnBT was mentioning above that there were guns in fact found at the house:
this is from this news source:
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061203/NEWS/612030440
El Tejon wrote:
there's a difference between theft and armed robbery.
JohnBT was mentioning above that there were guns in fact found at the house:
this is from this news source:
http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061203/NEWS/612030440
El Tejon wrote:
there's a difference between theft and armed robbery.
Molon Labe
Member
Very true. But that's not as fun as kicking down a door and throwing flash grenades. And I'm not being factious… I'm being serious.
Much of it has to do with the JBT mindset that is instilled into many LEOs nowadays. Based on what my LEO friend has witnessed, a lot of his coworkers seem to get a real rise out of these kinds of raids. After undergoing a lot of training, they are very eager to put their training in practice.
griz
Member
Another question:
How does an officer trained to the standards of a SWAT team mistake the sound of smashing a door for gunfire? Seems it would be something he's heard before.
How does an officer trained to the standards of a SWAT team mistake the sound of smashing a door for gunfire? Seems it would be something he's heard before.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
