Local News

Man wounded as Durham officers try to search home

Posted January 24, 2012

Map Marker  Find News Near Me


— A man was wounded Tuesday morning when shots were fired as Durham officers tried to search a residence, police said.

Officers entered the home at 905 Colfax St. at about 10:30 a.m. to serve a search warrant in a drug case, said Kammie Michael, spokeswoman for the Durham Police Department.

"Shots were fired shortly after the Selective Enforcement Team made entry and encountered the armed suspect," Lt. Patrice Vickers said. "Right now, everything else is under investigation.”

It's unclear whether the man fired on the officers, but Vickers said no officer was injured.

The wounded man, who police identified as Rahmil Ingram, 19, of Chapel Hill, was taken to a nearby hospital for treatment. There was no word on his condition.

Neighbor Betty Williams said police brought several people out of the house in handcuffs. The violence no longer surprises her, she said.

"It happens all the time from this street right here to Alston Avenue," Williams said. "When you see it every day, you know, you get used to it."

Rev. Pebbles Lucas, assistant pastor at First Chronicles Community Church, which is on Lincoln Street about two blocks from the site of Tuesday's confrontation, said she would like to see more police in the area each day.

"I think that would be just a small way of saying that we are out here and we are not going to have crime," Lucas said.

Colfax Street sign in Durham Durham police shoot armed man during search

Don Hill, who operates a community store nearby, said it's not up to police alone to reduce crime in the area.

"I believe it takes everybody, a community at large," Hill said. "It takes a village to raise a community and child, and I believe that, if the neighbors would work with the police and cooperate, then every neighborhood would be a safe neighborhood."

Mayor Bill Bell recently unveiled a plan to crack down on gun-related crimes in Durham, including setting higher bonds on people charged with crimes involving firearms.

"Incidents such as this, in my opinion, really bring home the fact that we've got to be more involved in attempting to reduce violence in our communities," Bell said.

No charges have been filed in Tuesday's incident, and the officers involved in the shooting haven't been identified.

The State Bureau of Investigation has been called in to review the incident, which is standard procedure for any officer-involved shooting. The police department's Professional Standards Division also is looking at the case.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • oldcorp Jan 26, 2012

    The laws are not written to conform to what makes you feel good, or 'how you would like it'. If you're engaged in criminal activity, expect enforcement action.
    Again, please refer to the US Supreme Court rulings and come into the real world.

  • renaissancemon Jan 26, 2012

    In all your words not one of you yet has said that YOU would rather be raided than get a knock, if YOU were the presumably innocent suspect. I rest my argument.

  • oldcorp Jan 25, 2012

    Don't recall any mention of DPD SET officers 'going rogue'.
    They're a highly trained, professional, and unfortunatly, busy tactical team.
    Yes, as long as humans are used, mistakes can be made. This time they didn't make one.

  • d915byrd Jan 25, 2012

    Oldcorp, I couldn't agree more. We are in trouble as a society when some seem so ignorant about the law and how it works. It seems some folks who have repeated incessant ramblings on here, have had their own brush with the law at some point in time. It's probably hard to think clearly when you're high. I hope they are never a victim and need to call for help- maybe they can try to "talk" to the person that is committing the crime against them. Within the United States in 2011 there were 164 officers killed in the line of duty, 65 of those deaths resulted from gunfire. I'd like to know how many of those who like to hate the police have those type of statistics at their jobs?????? The men and women who put their lives on the line everyday for the safety of the rest of us are brave and honorable. Some people have no idea what it takes to be that kind of human being, thank God for those who do.

  • oldcorp Jan 25, 2012

    r-mon, I suggest you take this up with the entire US Supreme Court. They have ruled repeatedly that dynamic, armed entry is both ethical, efficient and the safest method to conduct searches that meet the criteria. There is no mention of an Welsome-wagon scenario where an agency representative first does a nice visit and reads the warrant to the nice man.
    THere has already been an investigation,surviellance and/or evidence obtained and all presented to a judicial official, and plan made. The resident does get a pink copy and an inventory of items seized pursuant to the search.
    This has all been settled for years, it's not something new.
    Again, the suspect decides how the encounter goes. Good or bad.

  • renaissancemon Jan 25, 2012

    > renaissancemon seems to support, there would no jails.

    You put words in my mouth because you can't answer my actual words. A SEARCH warrant is a warrant to SEARCH. See how that works? It is NOT a warrant to BREAK IN.

    You would rather they knock than break in, if you were the suspect. But you have somehow convinced yourself that cops never make mistaken identities or go rogue. Your innocence is no protection.

  • d915byrd Jan 25, 2012

    Selling drugs is illegal, serving a valid search warrant is legal. So my questions is, was it a double tap or a controlled pair? Good job Durham SET.

  • renaissancemon Jan 25, 2012

    > You actually think the police should be shot once before being allowed to fire?

    You're the one that thinks initiating violence is sometimes okay (as long as it violence initiated by cops). I was just saying if the suspect initiates violence against a peaceful knock, then retaliate with my blessing.

  • renaissancemon Jan 25, 2012

    > A search warrant is approved by a judge, it is not approved without evidence.

    Why should the suspect believe you have one when you refuse to show it before pointing guns at him?

    > Upon entry into a residence officers always identify who they are

    Can I point a gun at you too, as long as I say who I am? Or do you have more rights than I do? You claim a judge told you could search, but who told you you could break in? Who told you you didn't even have to try to conduct the search in a peaceful fashion?

    > they don't knock like they are asking to borrow sugar.

    They don't knock period. They commit a home invasion. They break and enter. They raid. They assault with deadly weapons. They terrorize. Sometimes they purposely frighten you with flash bangs. Sometimes they wear black hoods.

    > Had the suspect not pointed a weapon at them, it would have gone differently.

    Had THEY not FIRST pointed guns at HIM, he would hve complied with the warrant in an orderly fashion, for all you

  • oldcorp Jan 25, 2012

    By using the same line of reasoning(?) that renaissancemon seems to support, there would no jails. After all, the function of jails is to hold suspects before court proceedings, hence the inane 'they're yet proven guilty' flawed, upside-down logic.
    There would be no traffic stops or enforcement, we'd just send that pesky drunk driver or speeder a letter. If we stopped them, that would be as if we were presuming them guilty, right?
    Victims of child or domestic abuse could just draft a letter telling the suspect he was a bad person. If an officer came an took him away, that would be like presuming him guilty, right?
    Srtwife, it looks like this country's in alot of trouble.