Teen suspect in PS3 robbery killed

[Outlaws]

#1. How could they see something in his hand through a closed door??

They must have used a wall hack.

Seriously, they kicked the door open and saw what they thought was a gun. This isn't quantum physics you know. :banghead:

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

pcosmar, again you've put your foot in your mouth without doing any research whatsoever:

1. this guy has a violent history of felonious activity-- NO he did not.. WRONG

yes he does. he had a pending court trial for aggravated assault and is accused this time of armed robbery. both are violent felonies. this is listed in this news story below:

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/517638.html

Neighbors got quite a scare this fall, Keenan said, when Strickland warned them that a fistfight he'd won might provoke vengeance on their house. "He bragged about beating up some kid, then he told me there might be a shootout at the house," Keenan recalled.

Strickland got into trouble with police in September after a UNCW student complained that Strickland popped his jaw during a fistfight, according to Wilmington Police reports. The victim, Nathan Harrington, 22, of Lee County, said Sunday that Strickland punched him in the face after he asked Strickland, a friend of a friend, to leave his apartment.

Doctors had to wire his mouth shut for six weeks, Harrington said. Strickland was arrested on a charge of assault inflicting serious injury; the case was still pending.

2. this guy has access to weapons (in fact, some news accounts said he did have a few long guns in his residence)--NO weapons found at residence.. WRONG

again you haven't read the news articles about this. read this news source:

http://starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061203/NEWS/612030440

Three unloaded guns were in the house - a hunting rifle and two shotguns - which were in Strickland's room, Rhoton said.

3. this guy demonstrated his propensity to use violence--NO prior conviction for any violence. juvy drinking&driving, missdemenor tresspass

let's try this again, read the same article quoted above:

When Raines came home to the on-campus Seahawk Village apartments after midnight with the games he bought for $641 apiece, two white men in a gold Pontiac pulled up to Raines' car, struck him with a six-inch blunt object and stole his purchases, leaving him with bumps and bruises, UNCW police said.

4. this guy demonstrated his propensity to use much more violence than needed to achieve his goal--Accused, never tried (could have been his friends)

again using the quote above, he outnumbered the victim 2-to-1 or 3-to-1, and the victim did not appear to put up a struggle. regardless they beat him with a blunt object. that did not need to be done to achieve the taking of the two PS3's.

in the other incident, someone asked Strickland to leave his property (trespassing) and Strickland's response was to break the guy's jaw. again that violence was not necessary. all he needed to do was leave. instead he assaulted the person. i'd say there is no legal justification for that.

arrests without convictions (especially when the case is still pending) do mean something when it comes to officer safety. obviously you know nothing about this, it appears to be you've never served time in any capacity whatsoever where you have had to do this type of work. an arrest for a violent felony on a case that is still pending isn't tantamount to "dismissal" or "no charges filed." you must take into consideration his prior violent history when you are going to arrest him if that information has been made available to you. you'd only be risking the lives of your fellow officers, and yourself, if were so ignorant as not to use this information to formulate your plan to execute the warrant.

5. this guy associates with other bad guys--Yes, bad choice. Should not be cause for deadly force

of course not, but it is a considering factor when you are serving a warrant that these other bad guys may be at the residence. again it puts you on a higher alert.

6. at least one of these other bad guys is known to carry a firearm-- NOT HIM, No weapons at residence

you must take into account that the guys who did this armed robbery may be together at the time the warrant is served. that is always a considering factor. and with the news quote above, you're wrong again on no firearms being at the residence.

7. it is possible these other bad guys may be at the residence. in fact one of them was. ONE WAS, and there were no weapons, arrest made.

for the 3rd time please read the news articles before spouting off. there were 3 guns recovered from the premises. before you respond again please google search the news articles.

 

[cracked butt]

The thing that suprises me the most about this whole incident is that the police got involved in lieu of the fact that the perp was on a University sports team- maybe things have changed or maybe I just happened to attend an unusually corrupt University.

When I attended University, it was pretty common knowledge that members of sports teams could get away with pretty much anything. I watched out my dorm window one night as a car full of thugs wearing The university's football team jackets pulled up to two guys who lived in my hall walking back with some pizzas, got out of the car and brutally beat the two students to take their pizzas. They were laughing as they beat them
The two students filed a report to the 'campus cops' who advised them not to go to the city police (they even lied and told them that the city police had no jurisdiction ), as they'd handle it themselves. No charges were ever filed, the university just sort of made the problem go away. A similar thing happened when a women I knew was raped at a party by a thug of the same clan- the 'campus cops' lied to her about who she could or could not make a report to and intimidated her as well.

To me, the kid wasn't shot over a Play Station, he was shot over a violent assault and his reputation for wanton violence. ometimes karma is a bitch.

 

[pcosmar]

Apparently providing links is not enough, so..

"A background check on Strickland revealed a misdemeanor for trespassing, which he pleaded guilty to earlier this year, and an underage drinking and driving citation back in 2004. But on Friday, authorities tried to arrest Strickland and his friend Ryan Mills for armed robbery and felony assault."

Bullets May Have Gone Through Door Before Killing Durham Teen

POSTED: 11:36 am EST December 6, 2006
UPDATED: 12:43 pm EST December 6, 2006

WILMINGTON, N.C. -- Some of the shots fired by New Hanover County deputies serving warrants went through a door before hitting and killing a Durham teen last week, a pathologist said.

New details emerge in fatal teen shooting

Dec 6, 2006 12:20 PM

UPDATE: The New Hanover County Sheriff's Office has released the names of the deputies involved in the shooting. Deputy Christopher Long, 34, Deputy Greg Johnson, 39, and Deputy Larry Robinson, 34, are on paid administrative leave while the shooting is investigated.

WILMINGTON -- We have new details tonight in the shooting death of an 18-year-old college student killed by New Hanover County deputies.

Today District Attorney Ben David drove to Durham to speak with Peyton Strickland's family.

A representative of Peyton Strickland's family said the DA had a lengthy conversation with Peyton's parents and they were very appreciative of him coming to talk.

Within an hour and a half of issuing a search and arrest warrant against 18-year-old Peyton Strickland New Hanover County Emergency Response deputies and UNCW police were knocking on Strickland's door, but something went terribly wrong.

Strickland's roommates didn't want to go on camera but say deputies fired 11 shots at the teen after he went to the door with a game controller in his hand.

The autopsy report says two bullets hit Peyton: one in the shoulder, the other in his head, killing him.

According to search warrants campus police began investigating Peyton and 20-year-old Ryan Mills after surveillance video and an anonymous tip linked the two to an armed robbery of two PlayStations from a UNCW student November 17.

During the investigation into Mills and Peyton internet pictures of Mills holding numerous weapons surfaced. Authorities were also told Mills is known to carry a firearm and that Peyton had been involved in a fight in September where he allegedly punched a 21-year-old in the face twice, breaking his jaw, which may be why campus police asked for county back-up.

Mills who did not live with Peyton and was at the house when the shooting happened Friday night and was arrested on scene.

A third suspect in the PlayStation robbery, 21-year-old Braden Riley, who was Peyton's roommate, turned himself in to authorities Monday night.

A lot of questions are still unanswered about the shooting, largely because the Sheriff refuses to comment on the case despite repeated requests.

We do have an update on some of the items seized during the search of Peyton's house. Apparently the Clerk of Courts accidentally left out a page on the search warrant that says authorities confiscated one PlayStation 3 system from the house.

But perhaps the most interesting item to come out of that report is what was not found at the scene of the shooting: that of course is any kind of weapon, which has many in the community questioning the need for deadly force.

SWAT teams trained for hostile situations

Dec 6, 2006 09:25 AM
News more>>
New details emerge in fatal teen shooting
Lawmaker accepts donations linked to landfill, draws complaints
SWAT teams trained for hostile situations
Arrest report hints at cause of shooting
Local media demanding names involved in shooting
Edwards needs money to stay in the top tier of presidential candidates
Funeral scheduled today for teen killed in Wilmington
Authorities tight-lipped about student shooting
Friend of accused student shown posing with guns
New fishing law will require license

WILMINGTON -- SWAT team members, like the ones involved in last week's deadly shooting, have firearms training at least twice a month. They also have extensive training on how to handle hostile situations.

Marc Benson worked with the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office and is a former SWAT team member. Benson says these agencies go through extensive training with firearms and learn basic law enforcement procedures that help guide them through hostile, even deadly, situations.

"When you've got information that the bad guys are armed, that they have firearms accessible to them at all times, you don't know," Benson said. "I mean, you've to sit there and consider the fact that they're telling the truth."

According to Peyton Strickland's search warrant, authorities believed there were firearms at the home.

In the basic law enforcement training manual authorities are taught to be cautious, act quickly and if an imminent threat of death or bodily injury is present, to incapacitate that threat.

"And that means killing someone," Benson said. "I'm not going to sugarcoat it. Neutralizing the threat means killing the threat."

[/COLOR]While authorities did not confiscate any weapons from the home, the investigation continues to determine whether the deputies involved had a legitimate threat to their lives.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

"A background check on Strickland revealed a misdemeanor for trespassing, which he pleaded guilty to earlier this year, and an underage drinking and driving citation back in 2004. But on Friday, authorities tried to arrest Strickland and his friend Ryan Mills for armed robbery and felony assault."

it depends on how this news source checked his background. if they used publicdata.com, that website only shows convictions, not arrests or pending court cases. pending court cases and arrests will show up on an official rap sheet which only LE and your defense attorney can obtain.

it appears that this news source had no information regarding his pending aggravated assault charge, but other news sources did. this news source also failed to note the three weapons found inside the house.

next time i'd suggest reading more than one news article to see what information is out there before you go telling people they are wrong. it makes you look like you failed to do your research.

 

[junyo]

by the way junyo, how many times have you personally confronted a potential deadly force encounter? just wondering how much experience you have. when you encountered the potential deadly force threat, what did you do? did you shoot? did you not shoot? did you use an alternative force option, like less lethal?

if you're busy judging the officers then perhaps you should lay your credentials out on the table so we can have a better grasp of what your qualifications and experiences are.

i'd be glad to list mine. yes, i'm calling you out. it appears to me that Coronach is a peace officer and has a pretty good amount of experience dealing with real life potential deadly force issues.

Ah, the chickenhawk card. Since I've never been on a SWAT team, I have no right or ability to question any action that the police take? Please. So I take it you don't vote since you've never been the president and therefore aren't qualified to judge the candidates job performance. You don't form an opinion on movies since you're not a professional actor and therefore can't speak to whether the performances were good or not.

List away, oh great one. Show my unqualified eye the skills and training that give you the superior analytical skills and reasoning required to properly understand such weighty matters, the superhuman expertise that is denied mere mortals. I'm touched that you've even condescended to write in a language I can understand, rather than super-secret-ninja-master code.

You're calling me out. Apparently we're 12 now.

My qualifications are a misspent youth doing a lot of stupid things, which on more than one occasion lead to a gun being stuck in my face or fired in my general direction. I handled it mostly with running, crying, wetting myself, and watching my braver friends die. Then I went to school, and I spent a lot of time studying systems and process control. I went to work and I occasionally watched people die there. And I found out over the years that true accidents i.e. unforeseenable events, are astoundingly rare, and that people or the people around those people, usually died when they were put in bad situations and had to think their way out. That what most people call accidents are in fact poor procedure, poorly executed procedure, or the utter lack of procedure. That a lot of times after someone dies, everybody finds out that somebody's been doing something in a piss poor manner and assumed that it was fine because it was less work than making another procedure, and they'd gotten away with it with minimal loss/breakage/injuries thusfar, so why stop. And then when an exception happens, a high pressure, time compressed situation occurs, sooner or later the flaws of that procedure are revealed and somebody's bleeding. And that trend is darn near universal, and affects every discipline and industry that I've been in.

But I've never been a high-speed-low-drag assault master like you Spread, so I'm sure the laws of physics, human nature, common sense and reason don't factor in Ninjaland. So I won't waste your time with feeble, human, reasoning.

That's one way to spin it. Another is to say that they chose the method that would be least likely to result in resistance due to the rapid succession of events. I think that if you look at warrant service in the US, you'll find that, statistically, this is the case. The actual outcome in this instance, while tragic, is an aberration.

I've seen this explanation before and it's flawed in that it assumes that a)resistance is if not likely, then at least a decent possibility, and b)that the arrest can be executed so rapidly that suspect/bystander reaction can be neutralized. If either of those is wrong, then it's probably not safer. And now you're executing the arrest in a manner that highly compresses the decision making time for everyone involved, whiched mixed with guns, greatly increases the risk of something bad happening. Therefore there's some point on the curve where the risk of A or B being true is high enough to de-prefer this manner of arrest. The question is, does that analysis occur? Well, you assure me that it does:

I suspect that is a debate that will never have a real answer. Suffice it to say that nearly all tactical teams, police administrators and local politicians spend quite a bit of time trying to figure out when SWAT teams can and should be used, and when they should not be. The exact policy of each department will be unique, and some places are more thoughtful/conscientious about this than others, I am sure, but the general effort is toward at matching the tool/tactic to the job at hand. It does no one any good if your SWAT team is being used improperly. If nothing else, politicians lose jobs over such things (in most places outside of Chicago, anyway), and if you want the definition of a 'feces storm', take a look at a mayor fighting for his electoral life when his PD is the percieved cause of his woes.

...But I still question that in light of "...some places are more thoughtful/conscientious about this than others, I am sure..." and "You might be frightened to know how many warrants are served in a decent-sized city. One guy on a tactical team in my PD is somewhere over the 3,000 mark for his career." I'd also love to see some actual stats backing up your point. But my WAG is if this massive load of warrants is being served, human nature would dictate that at least some of them get a pencil whipped rather than carefully scrutinized. And if one of those 'less than conscientious' decisions coincides with one of the "few isolated and highly publicized tragedies" then that's not a mistake, that's a problem.

And to your point about being a mayor, frankly if it were me, I'd err on the side of a dead citizen rather than a dead cop. Mistakes will happen either way, but as long as I'm percieved as "tough on crime" there are enough people that'll cover me. But I'd be boned if the police say one of their own died because the mayor countermanded use of a tactical team. So cynically I don't see political hacks as much of a check or a balance.

If the cop in question is not doing it, someone else will be. Those same risks apply to the next guy in the role.

But the shot/don't shoot decision is in the hands of the individual shooter, and based, above and beyond the objective risk, on his/her subjective perception of risk. A less risk averse officer many take an extra second to determine what an object is; maybe it get's them shot, maybe it saves someone's life, but it definately lowers the objective risk to the suspect.

First off, who from the PD is being flippant? If someone is talking out of an orifice on a internet forum, that's one thing. But I have yet to hear anyone from the PD in question being flippant. Second off, you can play the "was it worth a human life" angle in any sitaution save active defense of life. Fact is, they tried to arrest him, not kill him.

First my statement wasn't directed at you, the PD in question or even this specific incident, more the general dislike with being questioned on the topic. For discussing it, you're labeled as a cop hater, a libertarian, and even worse called out. Sorry, but somebody dies, somebody needs to look at it long and hard. Second, I do question the worth of shooting someone over property in any instance, not just with the police.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Junyo,

ill take your lengthy explanation that you gave as that you dont have anywhere near the same experience level as Coronach. my point is that Coronach brings up very many valid points, none of which you are willing to accept simply because you live in a bubble based upon ideals and principles that work only in a sterile black-and-white environment. the problem is that most, if not all police uses of deadly force are in an ever-changing dynamic environment. because you lack the experience of being in it, yes, id say you can definitely give your opinion, but it lacks credibility compared to someone who has the experience.

 

[gunsmith]

LOL

A Big Mac could have moved the dog.

Yeah, if your a writing a story for Hollywood

You go ahead and rely on Ronald McDonald to save you when under assault
by a dog...I'll rely on .40s&w.

If you get all your strategy and tactics from police academy 2
you'll never survive a real life situation.

I hope you don't have to learn the hard way. :banghead:

 

[pcosmar]

LOL

You all don't know anything about my real world experiences.
I have extensive knowledge of the criminal mind, I lived with some of the worst. I have also (since then) been law abiding and assisted the police. though only 1 risky entry.
I do know the difference between a "percieved" threat and a real one.
My first 3 1/2 years in maximum security several years in other places and 20 years since.
I have been to Gladiator School.

I am not against the police, but am very opposed to policies and tactics that kill unarmed or innocent people.
I have no problem with deadly force being used when there is an actual threat. I do have a problem with the excuse of a "percieved" threat. Especially when no actual threat existed.

You really don't want my kind of training, or memories. I don't want them either, but there you are.

 

[Jason M.]

Uh oh. Looks like we got an elite super duper among us. Watch out, guys.

 

[shooter503]

Spreadfire,

Although you make many valid points I think I have to challenge your "experience = expertise" claim. Most of us have seen that practically applied experience is very useful but time in the job alone does not make an expert. Ask Custer about that.

I am not questioning the experience of people on this forum such as Coronach. I just make a general point that "experience versus experience" may not be a valid argument, How many times in history have experienced generals been accused of fighting the last war? Experience they had but foresight they did not.

 

[razorburn]

you know after getting your head kicked in for no reason other then the enjoyment and profit of a thug and seeing other innocent people get the same treatment, you might end up wanting frontier justice too.

That however is not the case here

They had a warrant to serve on someone who they thought had committed a serious violent felony, that person had a dog which attacked the warrant servers, escalating the violence & had an object in his hands which easily could have been a dangerous weapon.

..in this case the cops are 100% right, correct, good guys.

I went thru a home invasion robbery in NY when I was younger, like a good liberal I co operated and didn't resist.
After they tied my hands behind my back they stabbed me and laughed about the blood

The real victims here are the cops and the doggie.

I don't care that you were assaulted. That has no bearing on anything. You're making a pointless emotional appeal. He deserved to be shot because he was accused of attacking someone else? No. I don't care if he was accused of murdering a school, 5 nuns, and kitten. Every American has a right to due process. Funny how some of you will steam at any percieved infringment on the 2nd, but casually dismiss our other rights.

Without a reasonable threat to the officers, there is absolutely no justification to shoot. Period. He may have had a video game controller in his hands, which looks nothing like any sort of weapon. He was caught off guard and killed as his home was invaded as he went to answer the door. He was unarmed and made no threat to any officer. They burst into his home and shot him.

"When you've got information that the bad guys are armed, that they have firearms accessible to them at all times, you don't know," Benson said. "I mean, you've to sit there and consider the fact that they're telling the truth." According to Peyton Strickland's search warrant, authorities believed there were firearms at the home.

Police say they saw pictures of him with guns on the internet, and that was the justification for their choices and actions. How many here have posted pictures of their guns? How many have CCW's? I hope someday that isn't used against you some lazy sunday morning, when your door is kicked off it's hinges and you're gunned down while standing in your boxers and holding your sandwich.

But better 100 innocent men get slaughtered, then 1 guilty man go free.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i figured it out!

i have solved the mystery of why the usual suspects get in a lather to convict the cops as quick as they can when there is a shooting. you gotta move fast while there is mostly speculation to work with... as time passes and those pesky facts emerge it inhibits and constricts their poetic license. spoils all the fun

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Without a reasonable threat to the officers, there is absolutely no justification to shoot. Period. He may have had a video game controller in his hands, which looks nothing like any sort of weapon. He was caught off guard and killed as his home was invaded as he went to answer the door. He was unarmed and made no threat to any officer. They burst into his home and shot him.

i agree, if this were true. im not saying it is or isnt true. what im saying is that we don't know all the facts yet but many have rushed to premature judgment.

we have no idea what occurred. we dont know if Strickland made a furtive movement along with a verbal threat, or if he tried to cooperate and answer the door and was then shot in cold blood. nobody knows yet but again many on THR have already made up their minds.

 

[razorburn]

i have solved the mystery of why the usual suspects get in a lather to convict the cops as quick as they can when there is a shooting. you gotta move fast while there is mostly speculation to work with... as time passes and those pesky facts emerge it inhibits and constricts their poetic license. spoils all the fun

Ahh, wonderful. Because all facts later come out to be in police favor, it always turns out they were right after all, because they are the noble patron saints of humanity, and their actions are always right? I love people like you.
You like to say the media is unreliable.
It's the only source of information available. Unless you like to listen to "My friend's second cousin's girlfriends sister in law's (twice removed) said....". You can either take the media, view it with a critical eye and develop your opinion based off of the best information currently available, or you can choose to believe nothing and have nothing to say whatsoever. In which case, that's fine with the rest of us who wish in engage in discussion and share our thoughts.
You like to say we haven't heard the cops full side of the story yet.
In cases like this, what we hear always first is the cops side of the story. They're the ones that lived. We haven't heard the victims side either. Consider the developments of the NYC groom shooting. Only now that the survivors are conscious do we hear that they say the undercover officer shooting at them never identified himself. We also hear from another officer that the shooting officer asked them to do a cover-up. So one officer or another is lying. Shocker. There's bad cops out there too. Most cops are good. But it's ridiculous to deny the former. Of course, this doesn't fit in with your beautiful fantasy that the cops are all just perfect, moral characters out to do good on the behalf of the public. I find it rather appalling that this sort of denial exists here, grasping at vain excuses, often built on stunningly elaborate constructed scenarios not described or hinted at in any source, or shutting down discussions like that on the basis of lack of information, although these discussions often have several times more information and sources than any other thread discussed here. I can call in to question the reliability or amount of information in any thread here. Yes, there's an element of cop bashers here, and I will call them out on it. There's also a bleating set of mindless cop worshippers who think they can do no wrong, and I'll call you out on that too. There appears to be almost a fear here, where certain people are afraid to acknowledge that cops can do wrong just like all other people. Except for batfe agents. Then they think they're always wrong, and don't go same dance with the elaborate scenario constructions, demands for more facts (which are actually just demands for something to build a postive argument for the actions), etc. Maybe that can be the next mystery you solve. If you would like, I can find some older, completed cases on these sort of scenarios to discuss.

i agree, if this were true. im not saying it is or isnt true. what im saying is that we don't know all the facts yet but many have rushed to premature judgment.

we have no idea what occurred. we dont know if Strickland made a furtive movement along with a verbal threat, or if he tried to cooperate and answer the door and was then shot in cold blood. nobody knows yet but again many on THR have already made up their minds.

Good then Spreadfire, we are in essentially in agreement, and it is only on the information on the circumstances of the shoot that are in question. Do you also agree that based on the best evidence we have, based on the information that's been made available, this looks to be a bad shoot? We will not have all the facts, and we likely never will. I believe they won't even allow many statements out until the investigation is completed. When has any court decision been made with the luxury of having all the facts available? They develop their ideas off the best evidence they have available, as we do now. There is absolutely no evidence that Strickland made any sort of threat. This idea has not been suggested by the officers, by witnesses, by nobody, and it's jumping to conclusions to make that sort of statement.

 

[Jeff White]

Enough name calling on both sides, this one's done.

Jeff