Local News

Three killed, two injured in Harnett wreck

Posted November 10, 2013
Updated November 11, 2013

Authorities believe alcohol was a factor in a wreck that killed three people in Harnett County early Sunday.
Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— Authorities said they believe alcohol was a factor in a wreck that killed three people in Harnett County early Sunday. 

The wreck happened on Neills Creek Road near Buies Creek in Lillington around 2:30 a.m. 

The State Highway Patrol said the pickup struck a tree and appeared to have burst into flames. 

The driver, Shane Mitchell Garner, 23, of Coats, and passengers, Austin Stewart Ferrell, 20, of  Buies Creek, and Casey Dell Edens, 16, of Lillington, were killed. 

Edens was a junior at Harnett Central High School. 

The two remaining passengers, Autumn Ashlyn Zimmer, 17, and Marina Troyano, 17, both juniors at Harnett Central High and from Fuquay-Varina, remain at WakeMed. Zimmer was in serious condition Monday, and Troyano was in fair condition.

Friends and family members gathered Sunday to remember those who were lost in the crash, and to pray for those still recovering. 

Family, friends mourn loved ones Family, friends mourn loved ones lost in deadly crash

"It's hard. It's really, really hard," said Bethani Jimenez, a friend of the victims. "I couldn't believe it. I mean I called Shane to see if it was real and he didn't answer and I texted him and he didn't text me back. I knew it was real."

Lillington police said they believe the vehicle lost control after speeding through a license check point on U.S. Highway 421 near Campbell University.

The wreck remains under investigation.  

38 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • renaissancemon Nov 14, 2013

    "Would a mailman 'provoke' you by showing up armed with mace delivering your mail?"
    Get a clue, he's not obstructing my locomotion.

    "If a govt librarian says 'good morning', do you consider that a seizure?"
    Get a clue, that's a greeting, and I'm free to ignore it.

    "Do you cry 'I'm being detained?' when a red light stops you?"
    Get a clue, that's a safety instruction, not a threat, and a light can't shoot you if you ignore it. If you get pulled for ignoring it, THAT is seizing you based on evidence.

    "It must be sad to live in such a cocoon of fear"
    You're the one endorsing the paranoid policy of making people prove they're innocent of crimes that there's no evidence to suspect them of.

    "[I]ndividuals are responsible for their own actions, and actions have consequences."
    Except govt individuals conducting non-evidence-based seizures, forbidden by the supreme law of the state at NC Const. I.20. You let them commit what would be called a felony if you were to do the same thing to them.

  • thepeopleschamp Nov 13, 2013

    "They might well be alive and unhurt today if that initiation of force by our government had not provoked the driver into a rash decision." renaissancemon

    Are you also afraid of the mailman? I hear they carry dog mace...and they work for the govt. Would a mailman "provoke" you to run by showing up armed with mace delivering your mail? If the govt employed librarian says "good morning", do you also consider that to be a govt seizure? Do you cry "am I being detained?" every time a red light stops you? It must be sad to live in such a cocoon of fear like you do. Get a clue, individuals are responsible for their own actions, and actions have consequences.

  • thepeopleschamp Nov 12, 2013

    @renaissancemon As you requested. There are numerous other cases that also rule on this being reasonable, but this is the most recent that is commonly referred to by the courts. It covers everything we've discussed. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), United States Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of police sobriety checkpoints. The Court held that these checkpoints met the Fourth Amendment standard of reasonable.

  • renaissancemon Nov 12, 2013

    "Requesting a driver's license at a checkpoint is NOT considered a seizure and never has due to the short amount of time it takes." - thepeopleschamp

    I think you're just making that up. You continue to not quote any court saying what you actually claim they said.

    If I forcibly confined you and said "Just say Uncle and I'll let you go," and you did say Uncle right away, within less time than a stop light takes, that would still be a felony by me. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, something like that. A felony doesn't turn it into a lawful act just by lasting a short time.

    I declined to answer the questions at a license checkpoint once, and then the first thing they said when they were handcuffing me was that I had a right to remain silent. Go figure.

  • renaissancemon Nov 12, 2013

    "I feel like I'm doing your homework" - thepeopleschamp

    All I did was request you back up your claim that the courts say checkpoints aren't seizures. And now I have to request it again, because all you cite was a sentence saying checkpoints don't violate the USC's search and seizure PROVISIONS. That could and I think does just mean the courts concede checkpoints ARE seizures, but the courts go on to find them to be "reasonable" (the 4th Amendment's word).

  • thepeopleschamp Nov 12, 2013

    "I don't get how anyone can say a gun-backed, compulsory stop is not a seizure." renaissancemon

    It is because if you show your license you can be gone in less time than to stop at a stop sign. That is not a "seizure". Your mixing up how things are and how you wish they were.

  • thepeopleschamp Nov 12, 2013

    "Cite, please? Because a deputy told me the opposite just a week ago." renaissancemon

    I feel like I'm doing your homework. Requesting a driver's license at a checkpoint is NOT considered a seizure and never has due to the short amount of time it takes. Here is the word of the Supreme Court itself (read the last sentence);

    In sum, assessing the checkpoints' intrusion on privacy, the state's interest in maintaining driver's license checkpoints, we find driver's license checkpoint programs consistent with the search and seizure provisions of the United States Constitution.

  • renaissancemon Nov 12, 2013

    "I have no problems with random license checks/roadblock" - btneast

    No I mean what do you think of the view that the supreme law of the state (at NC Const. I.20) forbids compulsory search and seizure when there is no prior evidence? And what do you think of the view that a license checkpoint constitutes a compulsory search and seizure based not on prior evidence but merely the whim to conduct a dragnet?

  • renaissancemon Nov 12, 2013

    "Courts have ruled that stopping a car at a checkpoint is NOT a seizure" - thepeopleschamp

    Cite, please? Because a deputy told me the opposite just a week ago (but went on to agree with you that the seizure is lawful).

    We're talking about initiating an armed confrontation with a person in such a way as to forcibly confine him to a fixed location. Stop, seizure and arrest are all valid descriptions, in my vocabulary.

  • thepeopleschamp Nov 12, 2013

    "NC Const. I.20) flatly forbids seizing a person in NC without first having at least SOME evidence against them" renaissancemon

    The NC and Supreme Courts have ruled that stopping a car at a checkpoint is NOT a seizure. There is a reason you keep hearing the phrase "priviledge, not a right" from posters, because that is the language in the case laws from the courts/juries.

More...