Local News

NCCU, Durham officers injured after hit-and-run

Posted September 24, 2014
Updated September 25, 2014

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Authorities in Durham were searching early Thursday for a newer-model white Dodge Charger that allegedly struck a North Carolina Central University police officer and a Durham police cruiser Wednesday evening.

According to N.C. Central officials, two officers approached a car that was parked illegally near the intersection of Lawson Street and Alston Avenue.

The driver of the car was uncooperative and drove off, striking one officer, officials said. The officer who was hit fired a service weapon after being struck.

The officer, whose name and condition have not been released, was taken to a local hospital with undisclosed injuries.

Shortly after, as a Durham police cruiser attempted to stop the suspect vehicle, the patrol car was struck by oncoming traffic at the intersection of East Lawson Street and South Alston Avenue, the department said.

The officers were treated at an area hospital. The police cruiser sustained moderate damage.

No other information about the incident has been released. Anyone with information about the suspect vehicle should call N.C. Central police at 919-530-6106 or Durham Crime Stoppers at 919-683-1200.

26 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Pepe Silvia Sep 25, 2014

    The first and fifth paragraphs tell different stories. Did the Charger strike the officer and the police cruiser or was the police cruiser struck by another vehicle while attempting to pull over the Charger?

  • Pepe Silvia Sep 25, 2014

    View quoted thread


    It never said 'alleged injuries' - it says he was 'allegedly struck' and taken to the hospital with 'undisclosed injuries' - this could be anything from a scratch on his finger from quickly grabbing his gun or a bruise from the mirror as he was struck to something more serious but the point is news stories will ALWAYS use 'allegedly' when a person is not proven guilty.

  • 68_dodge_polara Sep 25, 2014

    View quoted thread


    So police officers or anyone for that matter shouldn't have the right to defend themselves?

  • Anne Walker Sep 25, 2014
    user avatar

    My best thoughts are with the officers involved. Checking on illegal parking should not be a life-threatening activity.

    From what was written here, and I have nothing else to go from, it appears that the officers were in the right to intervene and try to get the driver to stop, even if that means firing a gun.

    ---just another liberal who is not in favor of everyone having guns and who realizes that most police officers (like most bus drivers, bank tellers, college professors, and store clerks) are good people trying to do their job.

  • A cold, hard dose of Hans Sep 25, 2014

    View quoted thread


    *ROLLS EYES*

  • 68_dodge_polara Sep 25, 2014

    View quoted thread


    Exactly wrong. The officer could not have known the perp wasn't going to back up and run over him after the first attempt.

  • A cold, hard dose of Hans Sep 25, 2014

    View quoted thread


    It's called innocent until proven guilty.

  • A cold, hard dose of Hans Sep 25, 2014

    View quoted thread


    Exactly.

  • sunshine1040 Sep 25, 2014

    Officer was taken to the hospital so he did not allegedly have injuries. If suspect is going to injure an officer that he knows is armed what is he going to do to a person that he does not believe is armed. He needs to be taken off the streets as soon as possible for the safety of all citizens.

  • rra8hd8ajieeftcmpk Sep 25, 2014

    View quoted thread


    15a-401(D)2(B) provides legal use of deadly force on a suspect using a deadly weapon to flee.

    Saying vigilantism can be used by an on duty cop shows that you lack a dictionary.

    please educate yourself before you spread inaccuracies.

More...