The warrant didn't list them seizing any guns. It will be interesting to hear why they shot him.

12/7/2006 1:09:01 PM

Quote :

"or maybe checking to see if these people actually owned weapons instead of pulling up a website maybe no one would have gotten shot"

How exactly were they supposed to check that? See if he has any registered to him? That sounds really effective.

Quote :

"it's to protect and serve the people, not go around wearing BDU's, toting sub guns"

Well I don't really understand the purpose of BDU's, but in general I don't give that much of a shit what they wear. As for the submachine guns...shit, I don't care if they carry around bazookas. They could've killed the kid just as dead with a normal 9 mm. The problem isn't the weapons, it's that they're supposed to be trained not to have an itchy trigger finger. Similarly, I don't have a problem with the fact that a SWAT team (or something similar) was used -- I have a problem with the fact that, from the information I've seen so far, they're not terribly good at their job because they shot the motherfucker first of all, and that they shot in such a fashion as proved lethal secondly.

Quote :

"if the government took everything we said or posted on a message board seriously they'd arrest all of us"

True, but that's different from what they did here. If someone went around TWW saying, "If the cops ever come to my house, I'll go down shooting," and they got arrested for saying that, I'd be pissed. But if the cops were going to be going over to his house for something else and they saw that, I couldn't blame them for taking precautions.

12/7/2006 1:24:36 PM

Quote :

"whats gonna happen when they pull some shit like that on someone that hasn't done anything?"

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=447025

12/7/2006 1:42:15 PM

Quote :

"I have a problem with the fact that, from the information I've seen so far, they're not terribly good at their job because they shot the motherfucker first of all, and that they shot in such a fashion as proved lethal secondly."

Grumpy, I completely agree with what you've said except the second part of this line.

Our police force are trained to shoot to kill. The problem is that they used force when it wasn't necessary, NOT that the end result was death. The end result SHOULD be death when they've decided to use their weapons, unless we change their training.

12/7/2006 2:01:30 PM

this thread seems like a whole bunch of worrying for no reason

i dont do anything illegal so i dont have anything to worry about

12/7/2006 2:05:57 PM

^^ agree

I have no problem with LEOs doing what they to do to protect themselves, there are people that would kill them just because they wear a uniform...

but, the problem is, thats a small percentage of the population

I know how you're trained, everyone is a potential threat and all that

but like I said, discretion, use it

12/7/2006 3:33:59 PM

^so the website itself isn't a problem? i thought you said earlier that the thread wasn't about the incident itself, but the website.

12/7/2006 3:36:14 PM

are you going to add to the thread or just try and troll me?


the thread was not about the "incident", but was moreso about the use of websites like that to acquire evidence that could lead to incidents like this again

they found a myspace photo of him holding a gun, dude doesn't even own a gun, but they show up gung ho like the dude was hiding osama and capped him in the head

so yeah, when a website is used to determine something that has to deal with life or death, I say I have a problem with it being the ONLY source of info

and like I said, I also have a problem with the potential for abuse by LEOs concerning things that happen outside of their job

12/7/2006 3:41:31 PM

Quote :

"so yeah, when a website is used to determine something that has to deal with life or death, I say I have a problem with it being the ONLY source of info"

do you have any evidence of that AT ALL?

esp. considering the guy had a previous violent record.

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2006 3:48:30 PM

I don't, but apparently it was enough to bring out the heavy shit



I find it laughable that if this had nothing to do with guns, and was about something like pot, you probably would be all up in arms about rights and victims and all that other feel good shit


weren't the liberals all fired up about the information that the government could access concerning the patriot act and privacy and all that stuff?


or was it because apparently suspected terrorists deserve better treatment than a college kid that did something really dumb?

12/7/2006 3:54:34 PM

Quote :

"I find it laughable that if this had nothing to do with guns, and was about something like pot, you probably would be all up in arms about rights and victims and all that other feel good shit"

pot doesn't rip people's bodies apart with bullets.


AND THIS INFORMATION IS PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2006 4:05:48 PM

Quote :

"Our police force are trained to shoot to kill."

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. In most cases where police open fire, it is to disable rather than to kill.


Can y'all stop making logical fallacies?

also, the fact that they shot the kid in the head is the most worrisome of it all.

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2006 4:08:20 PM

Quote :

""Sir, we have a report of noise in the area. Should we just carpet bomb them to be safe?" "

lmfao

12/7/2006 4:17:54 PM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250 All American 48053 Posts user info edit post it's not that incident that I'm even referring to it's the fact that they have a site that they can dig up anything someone has put on the internet thats what bothers me the incident has been discussed over and over again thats for another thread "

just wanted to point out that this thread seems to no longer be about what it was originally

[Edited on December 7, 2006 at 4:24 PM. Reason : .]

12/7/2006 4:23:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure this isn't true. In most cases where police open fire, it is to disable rather than to kill."

If that's the case, it's no wonder you always hear about how police used 50 rounds to bring one guy down. It's a hell of a lot harder to hit a moving arm, leg or other extremity than it is to hit center mass. The police should always be shooting to kill. If you don't need to kill, you don't need to shoot. When you pull the trigger, you should be reasonably certain that someone is going to die.

12/7/2006 5:54:42 PM

once again you miss the point of this.

12/7/2006 6:39:04 PM

Quote :

"In most cases where police open fire, it is to disable rather than to kill."

yeah, disable by killing.

12/7/2006 6:57:58 PM

Quote :

"they came over with a swat team and ended up killing a dude because of a picture of him holding a gun that he didn't own, they didn't even find guns in the house"

No, they did not come over with a swat team because of a picture on the internet. They came with a swat team because of the picture

Quote :

"plus charges of assault with a deadly weapon plus charges of breaking and entering plus charges of armed robbery plus a felony charge of assault causing serious injury from several months ago"

The picture on the internet was only one reason. It was not the only reason. Hell, given this guy's recent violent history, the picture may not have even been the main reason.

How were the cops supposed to know that the guns weren't his? You are aware that there are unregistered guns, right?

And I still don't think that you understand that the internet is a public place. If you don't want the cops seeing you doing something stupid, don't put it on the internet.

12/7/2006 7:22:10 PM

Quote :

"it's the fact that they have a site that they can dig up anything someone has put on the internet thats what bothers me"

you mean google?

12/7/2006 9:16:07 PM

I just figured that with the array of nonlethal weapons they have at their disposal, the tendency would be to incapacitate, but if that's not the case, fine, just run with the first part of my statement.

The only problem I have with anything the police did is that they shot a guy who, by all appearances, didn't need shooting.

12/7/2006 9:47:41 PM

Yeah, the outrage over using the Internet I don't get at all. Just because it's not printed on photo paper doesn't mean the Internets is fantasy land where nothing is real. The photos don't justify the force used but they do justify precautions and procedures when they showed up at the dude's place.

Photos of suspects being armed are a perfectly viable reason to think that the suspects might be armed.

But there is plenty to worry about in this case, like why they apparently shot him through the freaking door. Obviously there is not a legit procedure in place that explains that.

12/7/2006 11:56:24 PM

Cops looking at pictures of you being a dumbass on the internet don't have a right to then take the precautions neccessary to ensure their saftey since they have public information that you yourself provided to the world?

This is no different than if the cops came to your house to investigate you, saw that you had guns on a bookshelf near your un-curtained window, and decided to take more precaution because of that.

You
Provided
This
Information
For
Anyone
(Including
Cops)
To
See

QQ more

12/8/2006 1:22:55 AM

12/8/2006 2:42:36 AM

The issue clearly isn't the internet capability, it's bad cops. The internet didn't change that. This is a malformed thread.

12/8/2006 6:35:21 AM

Quote :

"Detective Larry Robinson, 34, Sgt. Greg Johnson, 39, and Cpl. Christopher Long, 34, have been placed on administrative leave pending the results of investigations by the SBI and the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Sid Causey previously had declined to identify the deputies involved in the shooting, saying he feared for their safety. The department has been inundated by hate mail and threats in recent days, he said. After all three deputies had moved their families, Causey asked their permission to identify them. He refused to identify the other six deputies who were at the house at the time of the shooting. "It's just a black cloud over all (of us), over the entire office," he said. "It's just a bad situation.""

Quote :

"One of the New Hanover County lawmen under investigation in the shooting death of a Durham native has been fired. According to a statement from Sheriff Sid Causey, Cpl. Christopher M. Long, 34, was dismissed from employment with the department on Friday. While Causey supplied the date of Long's termination in accordance with state law, he said that the reason for the action is not public record."

[Edited on December 9, 2006 at 1:28 AM. Reason : And that's the end of that...]

12/9/2006 1:26:00 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure this isn't true. In most cases where police open fire, it is to disable rather than to kill."

That's what I thought when I was a n00b, but everybody tells me otherwise.

Apparently, the idea is that if a person is dangerous enough to use firearms against him or her, he or she needs to be killed.

[Edited on December 9, 2006 at 2:14 AM. Reason : sss]

12/9/2006 2:14:00 AM

Saying cops shoot to kill isn't quite correct. They shoot to stop. This generally requires serious wounds, but handguns rounds are far from universally fatal.

12/9/2006 10:52:28 PM

Whether or not the rounds prove fatal is irrelevant though. What matters is the intent is to kill, which is why the discharging of a firearm, regardless of purpose is considered deadly force.

12/10/2006 1:24:49 PM

I still say the intent is to stop, not to kill. As you say, whether the rounds are eventually fatal doesn't matter. It's deadly force because it does have a fair chance of killing.

12/10/2006 3:52:33 PM

^^ I think he's talking about within the context of the law

I left this thread alone because after reading more on the case, I've determined that the officers were right in using what information they had in assuming that he could be violent

I still feel however, that the cops fucked up, as his firing shows

and that this kid was a bad kid and he might have deserved street justice for what all he had done, but it's not a LEOs place to dispense street justice

as for the site, I'm still iffy on being able justify swat teams because of internet pictures and banter

but, in this case, I understnad why they brought out heavier stuff (past record etc etc)

12/10/2006 3:56:28 PM

Either way, shooting to disable is a pretty silly idea. Cops can barely hit anything as it is, aiming for the center mass. With rifles, cops have sometimes tried the shoot to disable thing, but, IIRC, it has a checkered history.

12/10/2006 4:03:18 PM

Quote :

"WILMINGTON, N.C. -- A grand jury on Monday indicted a former New Hanover County deputy in connection with the shooting death of a Durham teen during a raid on a Wilmington home. Cpl. Christopher Long, 34, who was fired Friday by the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office, was indicted on a charge of second-degree murder. The charge stems from the Dec. 1 death of 18-year-old Peyton Strickland. Strickland, a Cape Fear Community College student, was shot to death at his Wilmington home by deputies serving arrest and search warrants. Strickland and two friends were charged with assaulting a University of North Carolina at Wilmington student last month and stealing two PlayStation 3 consoles from him. UNC-W police asked for support from the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office during the arrests of the suspects in the case because of the potential that the suspects were armed and dangerous, authorities said. Strickland had an earlier arrest on a felony assault charge. Nine heavily armed deputies accompanied UNC-W police to Strickland's home to serve the warrants. Three deputies fired shots into the home, and sources close to the case believe several shots were fired before Strickland opened the door. Strickland, who was unarmed, died of a gunshot wound to the head. Detective Larry Robinson, 34, and Sgt. Greg Johnson, 39, have been placed on administrative leave pending the results of investigations by the State Bureau of Investigation and the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office. A second suspect in the case, Ryan David Mills, 20, of Durham, had a loaded shotgun and a ski mask in his car before his arrest, UNC-W Police Chief David Donaldson told WRAL. Investigators also found pictures of Mills on the Internet posing with guns. Mills and Braden Delaney Riley, 21, of Apex, have been charged with armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and breaking and entering a motor vehicle, according to warrants. Both were arrested after the Dec. 1 raid on Strickland's house."

http://www.wral.com/news/10511332/detail.html

12/11/2006 4:37:45 PM