Quote :

"Sheriff apologizes to Strickland family; county to pay $2.45 million By Veronica Gonzalez Staff Writer veronica.gonzalez@starnewsonline.com More than a year after a law enforcement officer’s mistake left a teen dead and a family in grief, Peyton Strickland’s parents finally have found closure. That closure came on Tuesday evening with a settlement of $2.45 million and a public apology from New Hanover County Sheriff Sid Causey. Additionally, Causey agreed to an independent review of the heavily armed team responsible for Strickland’s death. The settlement will go toward a charitable foundation to provide need-based scholarships and fund other causes, said Strickland family spokeswoman Joyce Fitzpatrick. “The Stricklands were not interested in money,” she said. “That cannot bring their son back.” A settlement reached in Durham between both parties avoids a lawsuit, Fitzpatrick said. Strickland’s parents, Durham lawyer Don Strickland and his wife, Kathy, had two years from the time of their son’s death on Dec. 1, 2006, to file suit. Former New Hanover County Sheriff’s Cpl. Christopher M. Long was not charged with a crime, leaving Strickland’s family without closure. On Wednesday, Causey released a taped statement recapping the settlement agreement. “I am profoundly sorry,” Causey said against a backdrop of the United States and North Carolina flags. “I cannot begin to imagine the immense sorrow the Strickland family must continue to feel, but they will forever be in my thoughts and prayers. It is my hope that the Strickland family will accept this apology and know that it is offered with compassion and sincerity.” Long shot Strickland to death in the process of a raid. The sheriff’s Emergency Response Team was in the process of arresting Strickland for armed robbery. Long mistook the sound of a battering ram for gunshots. His gear included a hood, earpiece and helmet that he said muffled his hearing. Strickland and two of his friends had been wanted for a November robbery of two Sony PlayStation 3 game consoles. A physical copy of the settlement agreement was not made public on Wednesday. County spokesman Mark Boyer said it was handwritten on notebook paper and he didn’t have a copy. The settlement will be available at the county commissioner’s meeting on March 10. Long’s attorney, J. Michael McGuinness, responded in an e-mail statement that his client was not in a position to make a statement on Wednesday because a copy of the settlement is not public yet. Meanwhile, the sheriff accepted responsibility for his former employee. “I acknowledge one of my officers made a mistake as to the existence of a deadly threat,” Causey said. “Cpl. Long fired his weapon because he perceived a threat. In hindsight, we know that was a mistaken belief on Cpl. Long’s part. Peyton Strickland was not armed.” The county’s insurance will pay for the settlement, but taxpayers will foot the bill for a $25,000 deductible, Boyer said. The county’s law enforcement liability insurance covers up to $2 million per incident, Boyer said, and an additional excess liability insurance policy caps at $3 million. That means settlement money will come from the two policies, Boyer said. The law enforcement liability insurance costs the county $246,902 a year, while the excess liability policy costs $108,265, Boyer said. None of that was important to Strickland’s parents, whose primary goal was independent oversight of the sheriff’s office Emergency Response Team. “We believe Peyton’s death would have been prevented if the Sheriff’s department had better Emergency Response Team policies and procedures,” the family said in a statement. “We are therefore gratified that Sheriff Causey has agreed to have his department’s ERT policies and procedures evaluated and that he is committed to identifying and implementing changes that may help save lives.”"

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080228/NEWS/437090684

3/2/2008 12:19:17 PM

good

3/2/2008 12:21:05 PM

Quote :

"The settlement will go toward a charitable foundation to provide need-based scholarships and fund other causes, said Strickland family spokeswoman Joyce Fitzpatrick. “The Stricklands were not interested in money,” she said."

call me a cold-hearted bastard, but this is pretty hard to swallow

3/2/2008 12:21:34 PM

The charitable foundation that is being funded:

3/2/2008 12:24:39 PM

mis-use of deadly force = pwnt

3/2/2008 12:25:24 PM

hah I love Seinfeld

3/2/2008 12:27:21 PM

Quote :

"Long shot Strickland to death in the process of a raid. The sheriff’s Emergency Response Team was in the process of arresting Strickland for armed robbery. Long mistook the sound of a battering ram for gunshots. His gear included a hood, earpiece and helmet that he said muffled his hearing. "

Excuses.

Anyone with the authority to use deadly force should be held accountable for mistakes that result in an unjustified death. Criminally. Just as a citizen would be if they mistook the cops busting in for a robber and fired.

3/2/2008 12:45:15 PM

The guy still committed a crime. Too bad he died, but next time don't steal.

3/2/2008 12:53:34 PM

The guy still committed a crime. Too bad he died, but next time don't steal.

3/2/2008 12:55:00 PM

Quote :

"The guy still committed a crime. Too bad he died, but next time don't steal."

he may not have deserved to die, but he surely didnt help his position by stealing...that kid is still partly responsible as well

3/2/2008 12:56:36 PM

That is great logic.

So what if you knew him, had no idea he robbed somebody, and stopped by for a minute and happened to be the one that stood up to answer the door.

I guess everyone on TWW would be like "The guy still was hanging out with someone that committed a crime. Too bad he died, but next time don't be at the wrong house."

3/2/2008 12:58:13 PM

We said "Too bad he died" but obviously if the kid had not stolen the PS3 he would not have had the cops raid his apt and kill him.

3/2/2008 1:01:26 PM

Quote :

"The guy still committed a crime. Too bad he died, but next time don't steal."

DEAR FUCKING IDIOTS

and yes i said idiots, because you are all somehow in college and don't understand this basic fucking principle that my 4 year old cousin can tell you about. innocent until proven guilty.

HE NEVER GOT A DAY IN COURT BECAUSE HE GOT SHOT TO DEATH BY A COP

JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY ON TV THAT YOU ARE ACCUSED DOES NOT MAKE YOU GUILTY.

you should all be smacked in the face

3/2/2008 1:02:56 PM

What's your point? It's not like we advocated shooting him.

3/2/2008 1:10:23 PM

I AGREE WITH JACKLEG

3/2/2008 1:10:26 PM

I DONT

HE WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EVENTS THAT HAPPENED...HE PROBABLY DIDNT DESERVE TO DIE, BUT HE SET THE BALL IN MOTION COMMITTING A FELONY

I DONT STEAL SHIT, I DONT EXPECT THE COPS AT MY FUCKING DOOR WITH THEIR GUNS DRAWN

3/2/2008 1:12:14 PM

but it could easily happen, as proven by this.

3/2/2008 1:13:47 PM

oh im sorry, i didn't know you were a direct witness to the alleged crime and you saw the guy who is too dead to defend himself committing a felony.

i'm sorry dude, how stupid of me to not consider that you were there. i just assumed you heard it on the news and jumped on the stupid ass redneck bandwagon

HE'S ON TEE-VEE. HE DID IT!!1

3/2/2008 1:15:21 PM

Quote :

"Long shot Strickland to death in the process of a raid. "

So, what do you think jackleg? Should they wait until someone sees the gun to start shooting? Should they should wait until someone gets shot to start shooting?

3/2/2008 1:16:50 PM

hi, thats not the argument i was making. perhaps you should re-read what i posted before you engage me on something i've not talked about

3/2/2008 1:18:52 PM

look

its a sad thing...no one should die over a fucking playstation

and youre right, he didnt have his day in court

since you are taking on this cause jackleg, what do you propose is the best way to handle this kind of stuff?

how do you eliminate human error?

[Edited on March 2, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : your != youre

3/2/2008 1:19:43 PM

but i will go ahead and answer, just because you asked my opinion

i think that if you're inexperienced to the point where a battering tool hitting a door doesnt sound like just that, then you shouldnt be at the front of the action with a gun drawn.

3/2/2008 1:20:55 PM

Quote :

"since you are taking on this cause jackleg, what do you propose is the best way to handle this kind of stuff?"

easy. the only cause i'm taking on here is against ignorance

and my solution to handle that is to require the news media to post this text on any photo of anyone accused and not convicted of a crime:

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY

[Edited on March 2, 2008 at 1:23 PM. Reason : /]

3/2/2008 1:22:52 PM

i was talking about how you would prevent the kid getting shot by the cop but ok

3/2/2008 1:24:28 PM

i know, you were changing the subject from the one i originally commented about. I KNOW!!!

3/2/2008 1:25:00 PM

i never came in here and gave an opinion on how to handle what happened. but since everyone wants to know, i will say it more clearly this time since i've said it once

if you have an inexperienced or gun happy officer, they should not be at the front of "the shit" when it goes down. anyone on a swat team who has been on multiple runs will know the unmistakable difference between a ram hitting a door and a gun firing.

if they dont have the experience, or if they have prior discharged weapon incidents, they should not be at the front, in any position to have a shot at an alleged criminal.

thats off the top of my head since people were asking. but i dont want to get baited away from the original point i came to make. that he wasnt guilty. and never will be.

3/2/2008 1:28:00 PM

nah i originally was on a different subject than you were

MY BAD YO

3/2/2008 1:28:06 PM

Quote :

"INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"

So, if you see someone get shot should you not shoot back since the shooter is innocent until proven guilty?

3/2/2008 1:28:11 PM

no you should shoot them when you hear a loud noice, duh

3/2/2008 1:28:46 PM

Okay, he probably committed a crime.

3/2/2008 1:30:48 PM

Quote :

"So, if you see someone get shot should you not shoot back since the shooter is innocent until proven guilty?"

once again, you're taking me off my point, but i will go... again.

if someone shoots at a fucking cop, then the cop should definitely shoot back. that's an unfortunate case where the cop has to be the judge right then. i also didn't realize that the dead 18 year old kid was a "shooter". got a newspaper article that i don't?

back on point...

doesn't mean anyone stole a playstation

3/2/2008 1:31:44 PM

I'm just a pessimist.

3/2/2008 1:33:25 PM

Quote :

"Okay, he probably committed a crime."

why?

you should stay on top of the news, and i mean this with all seriousness. check out people who were charged with stuff "on the news" and then follow their cases. i do this a lot. you'd be surprised at the conviction rate.

i really think you'd think twice before you said "probably", i honestly do.

ESPECIALLY jury trials, you'd be way way way surprised how many of those people go not guilty

3/2/2008 1:34:01 PM

Quote :

"if you have an inexperienced or gun happy officer, they should not be at the front of "the shit" when it goes down"

Do you know this for a fact?

3/2/2008 1:34:06 PM

Quote :

"“The Stricklands were not interested in money,” she said."

Yeah right

3/2/2008 1:34:40 PM

Quote :

"Do you know this for a fact?"

did you not read the newspapers when this was going on? until you read the background info on the officer, you have no business in a discussion with me. and until you do, you are a troll.

^ we're all interested in money, obviously. the impied statment there is that they were not interested in profiting off their son's death, which they were not. as implied by where the money will be going

[Edited on March 2, 2008 at 1:37 PM. Reason : wow]

3/2/2008 1:36:04 PM

I don't see how a dumb kid who takes a PS3 should be considered armed and dangerous, but I could see how the cop would have a knee jerk reaction to the battering ram noise, and easily mistaking it for a gun shot.

It's an isolated incident.

3/2/2008 1:36:59 PM

^perhaps you've forgotten about the pictures with weapons.

and the conspiracy theory that it wasn't really him

3/2/2008 1:38:03 PM

Quote :

"Just as a citizen would be if they mistook the cops busting in for a robber and fired."

Actually, if the cops break into your house, armed, without properly announcing themselves as they're storming your place, and you shoot a cop, you can probably get off (with a good lawyer). There was a court decision to this effect some time in the past several years. From what I'd read in the article (at least a couple years back), he basically shot the cop for kicking his door in and running into his living room armed. The cop never announced himself as a police officer, so the charges were dropped (or maybe it was probation, either way he got off for what would've landed him in prison for a long time).

It's also good to see them settle the Peyton Strickland incident. I hadn't heard anything about it in a long while and thought it was swept under the rug.

3/2/2008 1:38:07 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how a dumb kid who takes a PS3 should be considered armed and dangerous, but I could see how the cop would have a knee jerk reaction to the battering ram noise, and easily mistaking it for a gun shot. It's an isolated incident."

the ignorance out there is far from isolated, as proven by the first part of your post.

3/2/2008 1:38:34 PM

as easy as it is to call it an 'isolated incident', given the background on the Officer it's just as easy to say 'he should have never been there in the first place'.

There should NEVER be a knee jerk reaction when a person's life in in question.

[Edited on March 2, 2008 at 1:39 PM. Reason : eh, just read jackleg's post. REITERATION!!1 .]

3/2/2008 1:39:11 PM

Quote :

"It's also good to see them settle the Peyton Strickland incident. I hadn't heard anything about it in a long while and thought it was swept under the rug."

thats the beauty of lawyers and the secrecy of ongoing process. when you hear the least about a case, especially from the "victims", thats usually when the most is going on

3/2/2008 1:39:52 PM

yeah it would have been hard for him to have threatened the cop through a closed door

the bullets that hit him went THROUGH the door so obviously the cop had no idea
a) that a gun was inside
b) that the person behind the door was a suspect
c) if innocent parties were present
d) that the sound he heard was shots

If you guys want to keep defending the cop go ahead. I was under the impression that the good guys don't usually go around shooting indiscriminately in to occupied homes. This is not even a situation where the officer mistook something in the guys hand for a weapon, the officer in question had not even laid eyes on the target before he began firing. The bullets went through the closed door and killed the suspect.

If you want to defend that action have fun with it, I just always assumed it was a basic rule to have a target in your sight before you shoot first in to a residence.

3/2/2008 1:41:22 PM

Quote :

"until you read the background info on the officer, you have no business in a discussion with me. and until you do, you are a troll."

No, I didn't bother reading the background info on the officer. Why bother? That's not going to undo what happened. Obviously someone higher up thought he was qualified enough to be there. It would be great if every raid could be carried out completely by experienced veterans, but I don't think that can be done.

3/2/2008 1:43:20 PM

JACKLEG

ATTORNEY AT LAW

LET HIM FIGHT FOR YOU

3/2/2008 1:43:46 PM

Quote :

"t would be great if every raid could be carried out completely by experienced veterans, but I don't think that can be done."

Why can't that be done? Every other industry manages to put their best and most experienced on critical tasks. How would you feel if you were having open heart surgery and no one had made sure the surgeon was qualified and experienced enough to do it? I guess later someone could argue that they were short staffed that day and its not the hospitals fault if you die.

3/2/2008 1:44:01 PM

Yeah, it can.

At the very least some trigger happy fucker can be in a position where he doesn't have the authority to go shooting people

3/2/2008 1:44:42 PM

Quote :

"No, I didn't bother reading the background info on the officer. Why bother?"

oh, i dunno.... cause you're arguing the side of "a kid deserved to die at his hands"

and on that note, you are in the troll pile and will be ignored from here on out

3/2/2008 1:45:12 PM

Quote :

"JACKLEG ATTORNEY AT LAW LET HIM FIGHT FOR YOU"

i like it how people start up with the jackleg/lawyer stuff. (who wants a jackleg lawyer anyways, ha ha)

the funny part is because they call me a lawyer or a lawyer wannabe (depending on whether or not they like/believe me) just because i simply come into threads and distinguish fact from fiction. its not like im citing statutes constantly and posting the constitution into this thread.

im just stating what i learned in elementary school

3/2/2008 1:48:01 PM

isn't that what a lawyer does, distinguish fact from fiction (supposedly)

thus my statement is correct

[Edited on March 2, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : sp]

3/2/2008 1:49:19 PM