Murder charge dropped for PS3 suspect shooter, paperwork blamed

On Monday we heard that deputy Chris Long, who was blamed for the shooting death of Peyton Strickland while serving a search warrant over a suspected PS3 theft, had been dismissed from the New Hanover County Sheriff's Office, and that he was to go on trial for second degree murder. Turns out that the murder charges were due to a clerical error, and that the grand jury had in fact "made a substantial decision" not to charge Long with murder. At this time it's still unclear if this error will prevent prosecutors from refiling charges against Long, but it does cast a large shadow over this already murky case. According to Long's attorney, the deputy believed he was being fired upon as the police knocked down the door with a battering ram, and opened fire on the unarmed Strickland based on his law enforcement training. Other officers who were with Long claim to have not heard gunfire. The family of Peyton Strickland have asked for an investigation into the court errors.

[Via Joystiq]

[optV @ Dec 13th 2006 11:36AM]

Big oops there, gotta love bureaucracy .

[Rick @ Dec 13th 2006 11:39AM]

Who cares. I certainly don't.

[Tonicboy @ Dec 13th 2006 12:18PM]

@Rick

Clearly, some things mean more to some than others. But I would certainly hope that an unjustified and possibly malicious shooting of a citizen by a police officer is pretty high on your high list. Personally, not being killed for no apparent reason is a top priority of mine.

[Jesse @ Dec 13th 2006 11:41AM]

Who the hell is training and dispatching these officers? That is the craziest thing I've ever heard... not only did they fire on an unarmed teenager, but they broke down the door of a suspect who was only known to have used a "blunt object" to commit his crime, for a video game system no less. Scary, scary times we are living in...

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 11:51AM]

According to the story, the charges can't be refiled unless there is substantial new evidence found to support the charges.

The story says that the Grand Jury voted not to indict, but that the clerk checked 'indicted' inadvertently. The correction only has the effect of correcting the paper trail, not altering the decision of the grand jury.

So the whole story is that the Grand Jury did not indict the cop, and a paper error is thrown in as a distraction from the story?

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 13th 2006 11:51AM]

Sometimes I hate living in the US, where Police have free reign.

[Timmah!!! @ Dec 13th 2006 12:43PM]

hey andir....

...Then leave. The sooner the better.

How do you get off saying something like that, when it was this punk that committed the real crime. Good riddance.

[Mike @ Dec 13th 2006 10:50PM]

Yeah, the real crime was stealing something, not the murder.

[TheCount @ Dec 13th 2006 11:51AM]

Only police officers can get away with crap like this. If the guy inside had shot in a panic thinking his house was being broken into by robbers, they would charge him with all sorts of crap and throw his ass in jail.

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 13th 2006 11:54AM]

Sometimes I wish I could pull over the cops and give them a ticket for speeding without their lights on, turning their lights on and going through an intersection to turn them off on the other side and all the other stupid stuff I see them do.

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 11:53AM]

edit: lesser charges are possible on the same evidence (involuntary manslaughter), but we should have gotten that news with this decision.

[Preston Ursini @ Dec 13th 2006 6:19PM]

Andir: Sometimes cops will go through an Intersection with their lights on, and then turn them off afterwards because they need to get to a scene fast but don't want to run Code 3 the whole time for whatever reason. Sometimes it is so that suspects do not hear them approaching, or sometimes it is because they are at a greater risk at getting into a wreck the more their lights are on. At the fire department, the same happens when a fire alarm is activated. All units run Code 3 (lights and sirens), but will drop to Code 1 if they find out there is not a real problem. It probably confuses the hell out of people, but it's how it goes.

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 11:56AM]

Then move to some other country without a police presence and renounce your US citizenship. I hear sub-Saharan Africa is a nice place this time of year. I guess you're only good for elitist speech though right, not action.

[caleb @ Dec 13th 2006 12:10PM]

So you think its OK for the police to shoot unarmed citizens?

[Dave @ Dec 13th 2006 12:13PM]

Police officers are supposed to protect life and property. That is their primary function. Even suspected criminals have rights--and chief among those rights is the right to live. I don't think there's any doubt that police officers have a difficult job--and one that should be respected when entered into with good intentions. However, an officer that shoots an unarmed man deserves scrutiny. You seem to be suggesting that the only two options are living in an anarchy or living in a police state. Exercising free speech is a form of action--and I can't think of anything more American than openly questioning authority.

[tadghostal @ Dec 13th 2006 12:09PM]

Ooooooohhhh - watch it guys. You might hear the gentle tap of a battering ram on YOUR door if you're not careful.

Man, am I glad our forefathers left that oppressive British government! hehehehehe

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 1:06PM]

caleb @ Dec 13th 2006 12:09PM
So you think its OK for the police to shoot unarmed citizens?


Yes, if they're named caleb.

[embee @ Dec 13th 2006 1:31PM]

Caleb, it's not what anyone thinks other than the people called to sit in judgment as part of a jury.

When an officer shoots an unarmed person, the jury decides whether such a shooting, under the circumstances, was justifiable. For example, was the officer's belief that the decedent was armed justifiable? Given the reported fact that the decedent had posted photographs of himself posing with automatic weapons on the internet, if the officer knew of that, then that fact would form a basis to find that the officer had a reasonable belief that the decedent was armed. That would justify the use of deadly force.

These are things to keep in mind in cases like this, or in other cases like the Diallo and Bell shootings here in NYC.

[tadghostal @ Dec 13th 2006 12:11PM]

Oops, gotta go....someone's at the door ;)

[Andfrew @ Dec 13th 2006 2:25PM]

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[010111 @ Dec 14th 2006 4:35AM]

"Personally, not being killed for no apparent reason is a top priority of mine."


your definition of "no apparent reason" is very different from my definition of "no apparent reason". but then i'm not some piece of shit who robs people.

[marc @ Dec 13th 2006 12:26PM]

I am 1000% behind law enforcement, but this is one of many reasons that no-knock raids should never be used and need to be declared unconstitutional.

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 13th 2006 12:47PM]

So if someone steals a candybar from the store, they deserve the death penalty? It's about fair punishment. Stealing a PS3 does not deserve death, and even if it was, who is the cop to declare him guilty at that very second and issue the death penalty? How do we protect the innocent from being declared guilty by any rogue cop on the street? I suppose you want to live in a society where your scared of Police and fearful of your life?

[MosquitoControl @ Dec 13th 2006 12:44PM]

Some of you haven't brushed up very much on your criminal procedure/constitutional law. Nor have you brushed up on the facts of the case.


"So you think its OK for the police to shoot unarmed citizens?"
If they reasonably believe they are protecting life, then yes. Remember that kid shot 81 times in LA? Did you see that video? The cops had every right to shoot him. He was pretending to have a gun, threatening to shoot them all, then made a very sudden movement.
In this case it isn't as clear-cut, but the grand jury seemed to think he was acting reasonably.
We can't expect officers to always wait to confirm a suspect is armed. If we do that we'd have many more dead cops and innocent bystanders. In the amount of time it takes a cop to confirm someone has a weapon they could get shots off and kill anyone around them.


"but they broke down the door of a suspect who was only known to have used a "blunt object" to commit his crime, for a video game system no less."

Read some articles about the case. The suspects had put pictures of themselves holding automatic weapons online. The cops had good reason to fear they were armed.



It's an awful situation, but some of you are giving kneejerk reactions here. What if it went down differently? What if they actually had automatic weapons and began firing, taking out two cops before anyone fired back?

[caleb @ Dec 13th 2006 12:59PM]

So your answer to my question is "Yes"?

"We can't expect officers to always wait to confirm a suspect is armed. If we do that we'd have many more dead cops and innocent bystanders. In the amount of time it takes a cop to confirm someone has a weapon they could get shots off and kill anyone around them."

I expect exactly that, as it is their job to protect and serve the citizens. That is why good cops are to be highly respected. They put their life on the line for citizens everyday.

If it went down differently then my position would be different (duh).

[Stringalong @ Dec 19th 2006 11:43AM]

automatic weapons? Do you know what the process is to attain automatic weapons? I'am sure some kid's are going to have automatic weapon's what's your defintion of Automatic? anything that has a maginzine clip? like a .22 rifle? American's love thier gun's like they love thier car's so what? So you have a pic of yourself with your hobbie, and now your a cop killer? What did the cop say? He thought he was being shot at? WTF yeah shooting a gun in a apartment at close range, it's hard to tell if it's a gun, or someone slamming a door. Yeah, a .22 is around 120 decibels that's real quiet. A deer rifle is around 170 decibels. Yeah and I'am sure they waiting a real long time for him to come out. American cops are on so many drugs legal/illegal they are completely out of control. They get tested what, once for drugs? "What if, What if", Yeah do you have stock in "big brother"?

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 13th 2006 12:51PM]

By the way, cops are supposed to be trained to identify threats. There was no claim that the victim had a weapon or that the cop had a reason to shoot. If he truly did have a weapon, it whould have been in the report, right? Instead it was stated that he had a Playstaion controller in his hand. As popular as the PS2 was, I'm sure anyone here can identifiy a PS controller given a one second look at it.

[joel.d.hall @ Dec 13th 2006 1:05PM]

You know..if I was the guy who waited in line forever to get one, spent a lot of money on one, then got my ass beat down and my ps3 stolen...I would want to kill the guy myself. I think the crook got what he deserved.

[John Doe @ Dec 14th 2006 7:08AM]

People like you are what is making this world a horrid place.

[embee @ Dec 13th 2006 1:08PM]

Before everyone goes all "f*ck the police" or "American bureacracy sux," please note that the story from CNN stated that it wasn't a bureacratic error, but rather that the foreman of the grand jury checked the wrong box on the indictment sheet.

The Constitution protects everyone, including those who serve and protect. Under the Constitution, serious crimes such as murder require a bill of indictment. A grand jury was empaneled and upon the review of the evidence, the grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to return a bill of indictment for second degree murder. Grand jury proceedings are typically sealed and confidential. Accept the fact that the grand jury had access to evidence that you did not and that upon the grand jury's review of the available evidence, the charge of second degree murder was not supportable. That is what is known as "due process of law" and every one of you enjoys that same protection.

Unless any of you have concrete evidence of a conspiracy to wrongly exonerate the officer, then accept the story as true: that a clerical error on the form led to an erroneous indictment. It's time to grow up.

[MosquitoControl @ Dec 13th 2006 1:18PM]

Caleb, the answer is, as with everything complex, "it depends."

If a cop goes around shooting everyone, no, of course it isn't ok.
If a cop shoots someone he reasonably believes is going to shoot someone else, yes, it's ok.

Hell, half of our legal system hinges on that word "reasonable." Did the cop have a valid reason to suspect the kid was armed? Did the cop have a valid reason to believe the kid was shooting?

Even if those reasons are wrong, if they're reasonable, it's ok.

If you tell cops that every time they fire their guns in mistake that they'll go to prison you'll have a gunshy police force. If you have a gunshy police force you'll have more dead cops and more dead innocent bystanders. You said if the circumstances were different you'd change your mind, but that's hindsight, isn't it?



Just remember, a ways back 4 out of 9 Supreme Court justices, including Sandra Day O'Connor, a very moderate justice, argued that cops should have every right to use lethal force to stop a fleeing suspect, even if they know he is unarmed.

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 2:26PM]

embee,

Not that anything you said is incorrect, but I have one addition:

It has been said that you can indict a ham sandwich. There is a reason for this. A Grand Jury sees ONLY the evidence that the prosecutor INTENDS to introduce at trial. This means that all exonerating evidence is left out for the Grand Jury and that incriminating evidence that the prosecutor KNOWS will not be admitted to trial may also be presented.

An indictment is not all that hard to get, even in the face of exonerating evidence like an substantiated alibi, just ask Mike Nifong.

[caleb @ Dec 13th 2006 3:02PM]

There is a big distinction for me between "shot" and "killed". A lot of people in this thread are using the two synonymously. If the officer had shot the guy and disabled him I wouldn't have an issue with it whatsoever. However, I don't understand how people can justify him being killed.

[Tom Boucher @ Dec 13th 2006 1:51PM]

One thing I'd like to know is that he was accused of stealing it, so they raided his home, stuff happened and he got shot.

But did he actually do it? did he have the stolen stuff? or did a really innocent man get killed over a misidentifcation?

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 2:21PM]

Tom,

I've been wondering that too, because it really affects how much I care about the kid that got shot (and subsequently what happens to this cop).

[funkycoldm3dina @ Dec 13th 2006 2:29PM]

what baffles me is that did the office not think of any other way to 'disarm' the suspect. personally i think that this officer was trigger happy. I sincerely hope that this officer gets taken to court all the way. the family have lost a son. Stupid,imbecile officer that he is. To all those people who say that they do not give a monkeys? what if it was your friend? i am sure you would hold a different opionion. These sorts of police officers need to be put away and to this day, why did the officer not diarm. And if he has said that he heard gunshots and the other officers say that they did not hear any gunshots, well you know someone somewhere is paying porky pies.

[tiuk @ Dec 13th 2006 2:48PM]

Okay, wait a second. The officer *thought* he was under fire, so he shot the kid? And he's getting off? Can they actually get away with this? This basically gives cops a license to kill. "Oh, yeah, thought that bus full of kindergarten children was shooting at me, sorry"

[bluedragon @ Dec 13th 2006 2:51PM]

I've been doing my best to follow this closely. Here is what I've found out so far:

1. The evidence shows that the cop fired through the door while the kid was going to go open it. The bullet entered the kid's head sideways and there are multiple bullet holes in the front door, suggesting that the bullet was tumbling after it passed through the door. This leads me to believe the officer could have shot any of the kid�s roommates, a child, a parent, anyone who happened to be opening the door could have been gunned down according to the information they have released. If the officer was able to get a visual on the suspect he would have known that the noises were not gunshots, but the door being knocked down.

2. The police also shot the kid�s dog. The dog ended up bleeding to death on the front porch. This seems a bit harsh when most police carry tasers and mace nowadays. Not that the loss of a dog�s life equals that of the young man, it just seems like it is relevant due to how quickly the incident escalated into a shootout.

3. I have seen absolutely no hard evidence yet that this is actually the kid who stole the 2 PS3s.

I�m really trying to keep myself from throwing around things like the 2nd amendment and how we need to protect ourselves� but what if they had the wrong house, what if they had the wrong guy? Even if this kid did beat up another guy and take his consoles, shouldn�t the cops be gunning down every shoplifter they see if nothing went wrong here? Part of justice is having the same rules apply to everyone consistently. The only justice that can be gained now is seeing that the people involved in this murder held accountable and not threaded through a bureaucratic loop hole. So now, every time I see another law enforcement vehicle speeding down the highway without their lights on, I have another reason to cringe. Some people feel like they are above the law and the system we have in place only serves to reinforce their twisted views.

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 3:42PM]

"caleb @ Dec 13th 2006 3:01PM
There is a big distinction for me between "shot" and "killed". A lot of people in this thread are using the two synonymously. If the officer had shot the guy and disabled him I wouldn't have an issue with it whatsoever. However, I don't understand how people can justify him being killed. "


And the other shoe drops. You're a lefty who has never thought about, handled, or shot a firearm, aren't you?

Because if you had, you'd know that shooting to 'disable' is a movie concept. Under pressure or distraction, getting all 10 shots in center mass is considered an insanely good round.

where do you propose to shoot someone to 'disable' them, what weapon are you going to use, and how do you get them to hold still?

[embee @ Dec 13th 2006 4:09PM]

In an ideal world, police would shoot to disarm. Of course, in an ideal world, there would be no "sympathetic firing" - where other officers automatically join in firing - either.

The police have to make split-second decisions and often "shooting to maim" is not an available option. Many departments do what they can to train their officers so that deadly force is only used in the rarest of occasions.

A fine example of this is in NYC, where the NYPD had the foresight to increase the pull required to fire a round, as well as trying to drill the "two-and-look" method into the cadets. As a result, there were only 9 fatal police shootings by the NYPD for all of 2005, .25 shootings per 1000 officers. For all the sturm-und-drang about shootings like this, or the Bell shooting or the Diallo shooting, I'm impressed.

"Shoot to disarm" is not generally trained, is not feasible, and offers no real advantage to a "fire-and-assess" method.

[andy @ Dec 13th 2006 3:47PM]

edit: you either shoot someone, or you don't. There is no shooting to _______. You shoot someone to kill them, or you don't shoot at all.

[Matt @ Dec 13th 2006 3:53PM]

I hear so often all the bad things that police do, but don't forget that they put their lives in harm's way almost every day of their lives. Last time I checked, cops didn't get paid as much as doctors, yet both save lives. If you were that officer and you suspected that the men inside that house might prevent you from going home to your wife and kids, would you have an itchy trigger finger?

No, I'm not saying all police are good or bad. They're human just like the rest of us and like the rest of us, they aren't perfect.

Some of you act like this guy assassinated the pope or something. This guy wasn't exactly the most innocent person in the world.

[bluedragon @ Dec 13th 2006 4:28PM]

But just like doctors we put our lives in these peoples' hands. Idealistically speaking, power equals responsibility. Looking at the evidence at hand, this person didn't act responsibly with the trust and privilege he was given as a law enforcement official. By taking the badge they should be saying, �I agree to be a model citizen and to live by the laws I enforce.� Being a police officer doesn�t give them the right to shoot first and ask questions later. I can�t do that and the police shouldn�t be able to either. Taxpayers pay them to be model citizens not the Gestapo.

[Dan Smith @ Dec 13th 2006 4:40PM]

A lot of posters (and members of the media) don't quite have a handle on all of the _facts_:

- 1 - The UNCW Police Department requested that the New Hanover County Sheriff's Emergency Response Team (essentially a low-level SWAT unit) accompany them to serve an arrest warrant for suspects in an armed robbery/assault with a deadly weapon case. Though the robbery involved a bludgeon or pipe, photos on the internet depicted one of the suspects (not Strickland) and two others with what _APPEAR_ to be an AR-15 assault rifle, a pump-action shotgun and a couple of large-caliber pistols.

- 2 - Deputy Long fired _THREE_ shots _THROUGH_ the door after other members of the ERT began using a battering ram. Those shots struck and killed Peyton Strickland instantly. The official statement claims that Strickland was seen approaching the door through the window, but had not opened it. It is unclear if the officers identified themselves prior to starting to break down the door.

- 3 - After the door was knocked down, Strickland's german shepherd moved aggressively towards the officers and was shot twice by two NHC deputies (not including Long).

- 4 - Shortly after Strickland was killed and Police were securing the scene, another suspect named in the warrant and living at the house, pulled up with a loaded, pistol-grip, pump-action shotgun in his back seat.

- 5 - The Grand Jury had listened to less than a day of testimony by the prosecutor's office. Because of the upcoming Christmas and New Year's holidays, the Grand Jury's term expired on Monday and thus, the final New Hanover County Grand Jury for 2006 was required to render a decision on the prosecutor's arguments (it could not be held over). That decision has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Deputy Long could be (properly) indicted by the Grand Jury that will convene at the beginning of 2007, either for the same charge (Second-Degree Murder) or a lesser charge, like First-Degree Manslaughter.

[endGame @ Dec 13th 2006 6:18PM]

that guy deserves to die anyway.

[quiksilver @ Dec 13th 2006 6:41PM]

Idiots. Sure, they should have shot the dumbass that stole the PS3 because he probably didn't stop when told to. But losing important paperwork like this?

[noone @ Dec 13th 2006 7:37PM]

I think this is the same Chris Long who was stationed in Puerto Rico in the Navy with the guy who killed Leo the dog (Andrew Burnett).

Figure the odds.

[Kyle @ Dec 13th 2006 8:07PM]

That is absolutly redicilous, this guy needs to sit in jail for a long time, for one he is putting a really bad rep for all of the cops that acctully want to help people, not just carry a gun and feel in power all the time. Absolutly redicilous

[Phour ZwanZig @ Dec 13th 2006 9:58PM]

Damn Dirty Cops.. All I have to say..

Whats with Cops killing un-armed ppl this year..

[bamboo @ Dec 13th 2006 10:39PM]

All of u cussing about cops, please shut up till all the facts are in.
I actually live in Wilmington, and am a grad of UNCW, and I have been following this (can't help it, it is everywhere here). As for the guy above talking about the kid dying in bed, what the hell, that is the 1st I have heard that. All the news outlets have it as he was approaching the door.
I never met the kid, but I know people who have, and they say he wasn't the little angle his parents are making him out to be. He was not a nice guy!
Don't get me wrong, I don't really like cops at all. But in this case the cops had intel saying they should expect armed resistance, and they had seen the pics of the guns, and had one in custody that gave the dead kid up.
Please check www.wect.com and the News and Observer Newspaper for the real details on this, not just what misinformed instigators are posting in this forum.
And really, after trying to clear things up from similar posts over on joystiq.com and now here, why was engadget posting on this anyway.