Local News

Grand jury clears federal corrections officer in fatal shooting

Posted January 19, 2010

— A Granville County grand jury on Tuesday declined to indict a federal corrections officer involved in a fatal weekend shooting outside a Butner restaurant last month.

District Attorney Sam Currin wanted Uriah Metcalf indicted on a voluntary manslaughter charge.

Police said Metcalf, 30, and Gwynn Basinger, 36, who both work at the Federal Correctional Center in Butner, were at Taste of Fuji, at 1515 N.C. Highway 56, on Dec. 27 when they got into an argument with two men.

The fight with Ronald Dewey Anderson Jr., 45, and Warren Farrell Owen, 44, continued outside, where shots were fired, police said.

Anderson and Metcalf both fired weapons, police said. Anderson was killed, and no one else was wounded.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Freedom Defender Jan 21, 2010

    If you feel so strongly that the police or prosecutors are going to such lenths to cover things up to protect one the boys then perhaps you should speak with an attorney on the matter. Or even see if one of the local news agencies would do an investigative report.
    I think it is more likely the reason the last story is so short is because the officers were cleared and the media wasn't going to get to paste the mug shot of a federal officer on t.v. so they lost interest as usual. Did you notice that as soon as it happened it was "Breaking News" and a top story. But when these fine servants of the community were cleared you almost had to go out of your way in looking to find the brief report on it. And as far as I know this site is the only place covering it at all. The fact is there wasn't a story there that would capture the publics attention.

  • findoutthefacts Jan 21, 2010

    " And if all four were in two seperate motorcycle charters. Why were the names of these charters never mentioned? I believe it is because it was later found out that both were inaccurate."

    HELLO...you don' think the police did all they could to prevent the name of a motorcycle GANG that one of their own was a member of from being released....?

  • findoutthefacts Jan 21, 2010

    Read all three articles prior to this one....they all give the same information.

    Actually, they give a little more information in the second one...

    "Owen said investigators asked him not to discuss specific details of the shooting, including what sparked the argument, until Butner police and Granville County prosecutors can determine whether to file criminal charges."

    Funny how all stories give the same account until the last one that gives very little information other than to say the corrections officers have been cleared.

    Once again, too coincidental that law enforcement wins most every time.

  • Freedom Defender Jan 20, 2010

    Please keep in mind that both of your quotes came from the first telling of the story. Often times inaccuracies are given early on. That is why there is a thorough investigation. So it is a good chance that neither of the above were true. But at the time was the best information the news agency had so they went with it. Again I would like to think that if any of what was in the original report were true that the Grand Jury would have been privileged to that information. However note that only two persons were ever identified on each side of the altercation not a third as claimed in the first telling of the story. And if all four were in two seperate motorcycle charters. Why were the names of these charters never mentioned? I believe it is because it was later found out that both were inaccurate.

  • findoutthefacts Jan 20, 2010

    more from the first story...

    "Anderson and Owen are said to be part of a motorcycle charter, while Metcalf and Basinger are part of a different motorcycle charter, according to authorities"...

    Once again, this was a personal situation and not some guy defending his life because someone came out of nowhere...

  • findoutthefacts Jan 20, 2010

    From the first article on this story....

    "He got into an altercation inside the restaurant with three people and gunfire was later exchanged in the parking lot just before 12:30 a.m., Grissom said."

  • Freedom Defender Jan 20, 2010

    I was not there when and where the incident occurred. However, It is my understanding that Mr. Metcalf and his associate left the inside of the establishment first. They were then followed by Mr. Anderson and his associate. Mr. Anderson At some point drew a handgun and began firing at the other two FIRST. Mr. Metcalf then RETURNED fire killing Mr. Anderson. At no point have I seen or heard anything that would suggest that both parties mutually decided to "Take it outside." If that were the case I hope that would have came before the Grand Jury during their investigation.
    And in response to "Corrections Officers aren't Law Enforcement." That is very true for state Correctional Officer. They are considered Peace Officers. But under federal law federal Correctional Officers are considered Law Enforcement Officers under Title 18 of U.S. Code. They receive law enforcement pay, benefits, and retirement.
    And sir. "as many times as I wanna shoot them." is never an excuse.

  • findoutthefacts Jan 20, 2010

    Well...it would depend on the circumstances. If I were minding my own business and someone threatened me out of nowhere...it's me or him.

    If it were like this case where the two parties were arguing inside and then decided to take it outside, that is not a case of self-defense. That is a case of deciding to blow someone away and then use the guise of "i'm an LEO (sorry but a corrections officer is not an LEO) and used my "as many times as I wanna shoot them" excuse.

  • Freedom Defender Jan 20, 2010

    Yes, Findoutthefacts. It can still be considered self-defense if you unload your weapon. There is no limit to the number of rounds that can be fired before the situation becomes something other than self-defense. Law Enforcement personel are typically trained to shoot until they feel the threat has ceased. If that only takes one or two shots. Great! But if it requires an entire magazine and a reload then that's fine too. The threat must be stopped. That is the goal when shooting in self-defense.

  • Medic1 Jan 20, 2010

    Yes, self defense could constitute emptying your weapon..most LEO/military training with weapons teaches you to discharge your weapon until the threat is eliminated or ceases. Therefore, if the threat is still upright and facing towards you, you would continue to fire until the threat is eliminated. It may take one shot or it may take 20 shots, depending on the situation. Let me pose a question...if someone shoots at you..how many times do you discharge your weapon with return fire to secure your safety? And if you give me an exact number, please explain how you got that number.