Police break into house and kill suspected PS3 thief.

[Julius Seeker]

If this report is accurate, then this is insane savagery.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/748/748949p1.html


December 4, 2006 - The PlayStation 3's launch on November 17 was marked by long waits, crowded lines, and a few injuries. Now the new system has claimed its first life. Last Friday, police in North Carolina shot and killed a teenager who was accused of stealing two PS3s.

The shooting occurred at the home of suspect Peyton Strickland, 18, which he shared with three roommates. Police had been sent to the home to arrest Strickland, but according to New Hanover County Sheriff Sid Causey, the teenager refused to open the door and officers had to break it down.

One of Strickland's roommates said the shooting victim was about to open the door when police broke it down, and that he was unarmed but holding a PlayStation 3 controller at the time. Strickland's dog, a German shepherd, was also shot and killed.

[Zeus]

Motherfucking cops should be kneecapped and stuck in a cell with a large man named Bubba who's in the middle of his 25-year sentence and has been without a roommate the entire time for killing that beautiful animal. German Shepherds are awesome dogs and it didn't deserve to die, dammit!

[Lox]

Motherfucking cops should be kneecapped and stuck in a cell with a large man named Bubba who's in the middle of his 25-year sentence and has been without a roommate the entire time for killing that beautiful animal. German Shepherds are awesome dogs and it didn't deserve to die, dammit!

I wonder why they shot the dog. That makes me sad.

At least if the guy was holding a black PS3 controller, it could have been mistaken for a gun. And, besides, he beat up someone to steal from them and then refused to open the door (I don't care what his roommates say. Yeah, he was "about to open it". Whatever). I'm not upset over the outcome with him.

But the poor dog!

[Julius Seeker]

I think you are jumping to too many conclusions. If the article is accurate, then government employed officers just murdered a civilian.

Anyways, to jump to a conclusion of my own; the dog was probably seen as a threat, since dogs are known to defend their masters.

[Lox]

I think you are jumping to too many conclusions. If the article is accurate, then government employed officers just murdered a civilian.

Anyways, to jump to a conclusion of my own; the dog was probably seen as a threat, since dogs are known to defend their masters.

I'm jumping to conclusions? I think you're way ahead of me there.

All the article did was give a brief summary of the possible order of events (since it's pending an investigation) and you automatically assume they went in and brutally murdered this guy. You called it "insane savegery" and said that they "murdered a civilian". Let's wait until more info surfaces before condemning them. I've noticed that a lot of people on this board will automatically assume that the police are at fault way before they'll adhere to the innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

They may have used unnecesary force. If so, they deserve to be punished severely. But from that short article, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until more facts surface. All I did in my post above was try to imagine myself in their shoes. I'm not saying that they did think the controller was a weapon, but I can see how that might be possible.

[Julius Seeker]

I think you are jumping to too many conclusions. If the article is accurate, then government employed officers just murdered a civilian.

Anyways, to jump to a conclusion of my own; the dog was probably seen as a threat, since dogs are known to defend their masters.

I'm jumping to conclusions? I think you're way ahead of me there.

All the article did was give a brief summary of the possible order of events (since it's pending an investigation) and you automatically assume they went in and brutally murdered this guy. You called it "insane savegery" and said that they "murdered a civilian". Let's wait until more info surfaces before condemning them. I've noticed that a lot of people on this board will automatically assume that the police are at fault way before they'll adhere to the innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

They may have used unnecesary force. If so, they deserve to be punished severely. But from that short article, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until more facts surface. All I did in my post above was try to imagine myself in their shoes. I'm not saying that they did think the controller was a weapon, but I can see how that might be possible.

Notice how I said "if the article is accurate" whereas you said "refused to open the door (I don't care what his roommates say. Yeah, he was "about to open it". Whatever)."

[Lox]

I think you are jumping to too many conclusions. If the article is accurate, then government employed officers just murdered a civilian.

Anyways, to jump to a conclusion of my own; the dog was probably seen as a threat, since dogs are known to defend their masters.

I'm jumping to conclusions? I think you're way ahead of me there.

All the article did was give a brief summary of the possible order of events (since it's pending an investigation) and you automatically assume they went in and brutally murdered this guy. You called it "insane savegery" and said that they "murdered a civilian". Let's wait until more info surfaces before condemning them. I've noticed that a lot of people on this board will automatically assume that the police are at fault way before they'll adhere to the innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

They may have used unnecesary force. If so, they deserve to be punished severely. But from that short article, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until more facts surface. All I did in my post above was try to imagine myself in their shoes. I'm not saying that they did think the controller was a weapon, but I can see how that might be possible.

Notice how I said "if the article is accurate" whereas you said "refused to open the door (I don't care what his roommates say. Yeah, he was "about to open it". Whatever)."

Sorry. I'll take the word of the police over the word of the roommates any day before there is more evidence to show which is true. That's all that meant. Even if the article is accurate, there is still no justification to say that they murdered a civilian. There is nothing in the article to offer insight into either point of view really. You leapt to the conclusion that they maliciously killed this guy and I'm saying that there's no way you can know that yet.

Like I said, if the facts reveal that they were wrong, then they deserve punishment. Until then, I'll withhold judgment on either party.

[Julius Seeker]

I'm jumping to conclusions? I think you're way ahead of me there.

All the article did was give a brief summary of the possible order of events (since it's pending an investigation) and you automatically assume they went in and brutally murdered this guy. You called it "insane savegery" and said that they "murdered a civilian". Let's wait until more info surfaces before condemning them. I've noticed that a lot of people on this board will automatically assume that the police are at fault way before they'll adhere to the innocent until proven guilty philosophy.

They may have used unnecesary force. If so, they deserve to be punished severely. But from that short article, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt until more facts surface. All I did in my post above was try to imagine myself in their shoes. I'm not saying that they did think the controller was a weapon, but I can see how that might be possible.

Notice how I said "if the article is accurate" whereas you said "refused to open the door (I don't care what his roommates say. Yeah, he was "about to open it". Whatever)."

Sorry. I'll take the word of the police over the word of the roommates any day before there is more evidence to show which is true. That's all that meant. Even if the article is accurate, there is still no justification to say that they murdered a civilian. There is nothing in the article to offer insight into either point of view really. You leapt to the conclusion that they maliciously killed this guy and I'm saying that there's no way you can know that yet.

Like I said, if the facts reveal that they were wrong, then they deserve punishment. Until then, I'll withhold judgment on either party.

OK, I can agree with this. Though I still think the whitness statement is significant. We can wait and see what happens, but likely we'll forget about it in a week =P

[Lox]

Notice how I said "if the article is accurate" whereas you said "refused to open the door (I don't care what his roommates say. Yeah, he was "about to open it". Whatever)."

Sorry. I'll take the word of the police over the word of the roommates any day before there is more evidence to show which is true. That's all that meant. Even if the article is accurate, there is still no justification to say that they murdered a civilian. There is nothing in the article to offer insight into either point of view really. You leapt to the conclusion that they maliciously killed this guy and I'm saying that there's no way you can know that yet.

Like I said, if the facts reveal that they were wrong, then they deserve punishment. Until then, I'll withhold judgment on either party.

OK, I can agree with this. Though I still think the whitness statement is significant. We can wait and see what happens, but likely we'll forget about it in a week =P

I will probably forget about this in about 15 seconds simply because...

Wait, what were we talking about???

Yeah, the witnesses may end up being very important here as long as they can be trusted. I just hope that justice prevails, whether the officers were wrong or not.

[Nev]

Obviously, the cops screwed up. But I sympathize. I doubt you've ever had a loaded gun pointed at you - I haven't (at least I think the shotgun my friend was pointing at me, for which he later went to jail, was not loaded) - but as I have had a non-loaded one pointed at me, I understand what the feeling is like.

When you see something in someone's hand that may or may not be a weapon, you have probably a tenth of a second to decide whether deadly force is warranted before, if the item is a weapon, you're likely to be shot and killed yourself. A PS3 controller is obviously not capable of shooting anyone, but held the wrong way, it certainly could be mistaken for a gun, as Lox said.

Also - this is just a thought - why was he holding a black PS3 controller when he went to answer the door in the first place? Do you usually bring your game controllers with you to answer the door (particularly when it's not a knock, but a shouted "Open the door! Police!")? Remember, chances are pretty high that this is not a good guy - this is someone who already brought a friend along to beat someone else up and steal his property, assuming the other student's statement is accurate. Is it out of the realm of possibility that he actually brought the PS3 controller along on purpose to masquerade as some sort of weapon? I mean, it's definitely a long shot, but when you're dealing with the kind of mentality that has already committed one violent crime, that kind of thinking isn't outside the realm of speculation.

I do sympathize with the dog's death as well, but many times violent owners (assuming that this guy really did beat up the other student) raise violent animals, and often said animals are not well cared for, and may have rabies or other health hazards.

Obviously, the cops screwed up. The chances are also very high that they will lose their jobs or have highly severe demotions as a result of the incident. What I don't think we need is for people to jump the gun on this and start using a lot of emotionally-based language to inflame sentiments against police brutality, especially given that all we have is what's likely a third- or fourth-hand account.

[Lox]

Also - this is just a thought - why was he holding a black PS3 controller when he went to answer the door in the first place? Do you usually bring your game controllers with you to answer the door (particularly when it's not a knock, but a shouted "Open the door! Police!")?

I was wondering that too actually. If I hear someone knocking and I'm playing the Wii, I put the controller down and walk to the door. Maybe he just loved it so much he couldn't bear to release it from his hand.

[Nev]

What's to love? Have you seen the reviews on the PS3 launch titles?

[Julius Seeker]

I doubt you've ever had a loaded gun pointed at you

I have actually. About 5 years ago I worked the door at one of those clubs that charge 2 bucks to get in, and have $2.50 drinks. Where a lot of bouncers are needed to throw drunken idiots out. A guy drove up and pulled a gun on me; I froze. I literally froze.

[Nev]

So you've worked in enforcement. Why the cop hate then? Do you think you would have handled it better?

I'm not being sarcastic, just asking honestly...

[Julius Seeker]

So you've worked in enforcement. Why the cop hate then? Do you think you would have handled it better?

I'm not being sarcastic, just asking honestly...

Answer to the first question: Because I grew up listening to NWA and Ice-T. Got me paying attention to all the corruption on the police force most of my life. Though, ironically, I fucking love the movie LA Confidential.

Could I have handled the situation better? Very likely I would have. I think mostly all police would have.

[Nev]

As I said, they fucked up. The guy who beat up another human being for some video games did too, though I doubt he needed to die for it. But we don't know what happened...I just felt like some of your language was a little strong.

[Nev]

And Jesus. It's Ice-T. Not Iced Tea.

[Julius Seeker]

And Jesus. It's Ice-T. Not Iced Tea.

I humbly apologize =P

And it is Dolph, not Jesus.