Police shoot, kill unarmed bookie


PDA






Mr. James
January 26, 2006, 12:18 PM
Whiskey Tango Hotel, over? Why did he clear leather??


Fairfax Police Say Shooting Was Accident
Officer Kills Optometrist Suspected of Gambling
By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; A01

Fairfax County's police chief said yesterday that one of his officers accidentally shot and killed an optometrist outside the unarmed man's townhouse Tuesday night as an undercover detective was about to arrest him on suspicion of gambling on sports.

Police had been secretly making bets with Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., 37, since October as part of a gambling investigation, according to court records. They planned to search his home in the Fair Oaks area, just off Lee Highway, shortly after 9:30 p.m.

Culosi came out of his townhouse on Cavalier Landing Court about 9:35 p.m. and was standing next to the detective's sport-utility vehicle, police said, when the detective gave a signal to tactical officers assembled nearby to move in and arrest Culosi.

"As they approached him . . . one officer's weapon, a handgun, was unintentionally discharged," said Fairfax Police Chief David M. Rohrer.

Culosi was not making any threatening moves when he was shot once in the upper part of his body, police said. He was taken to Inova Fairfax Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

The last fatal police shooting in Fairfax was in September 2000, when an officer killed a man threatening him with a woodcutting tool.

"On behalf of the Fairfax County Police Department and myself, I wish to express our condolences and our sincere sympathy to Mr. Culosi's family and friends," Rohrer said. He declined to answer questions after making the statement.

Police departments generally do not accept responsibility for an officer-involved shooting before an investigation is completed.

Culosi's family in Annandale was grief-stricken and declined to be interviewed. Culosi's older sister, Constance Culosi Gulley, issued a statement saying that her brother was "a respected local businessman and doctor with his whole life ahead of him and didn't deserve to have his life end this way."

Culosi grew up just off Annandale Road, graduated from Bishop O'Connell High School and the University of Virginia, then attended the Southern College of Optometry in Memphis and became a doctor of optometry. He opened practices in Manassas and Warrenton that are attached to Wal-Mart stores.

The officer, a 17-year veteran assigned to the police tactical unit, was not identified. He was placed on leave with pay while police conduct both an internal administrative investigation and a criminal investigation. Rohrer also expressed support for the officer, calling him a valued veteran of the department.

Lt. Richard Perez, a police spokesman, said he could not say how or why the gun discharged.

"When you draw the weapon, you always try to assess what the potential threat is going to be," Perez said. He said the officers in the tactical squad are "highly trained officers. Do unintentional shootings occur? Absolutely. We're humans, and these kind of things do occur."

Perez said he did not know what type of handgun Culosi was shot with.

After several years without any shootings, officers shot and wounded several people last year, including one of their own officers in an accidental shooting. A robbery suspect was shot this month on Route 1. In the nearly 39 years that Robert F. Horan Jr. has been the chief prosecutor in Fairfax, no officer has been charged with improperly shooting someone.

Rohrer said in his statement that the tactical squad routinely performs arrests and provides support for detectives executing search warrants. The chief said in his statement that "we will fully review, as always, our policies, practices and this operation in detail."

Culosi's family said that "police action that results in the death of an unarmed, nonthreatening person calls for a full and open investigation. We hope proper steps are taken by county police to ensure other families won't have to endure similar pain."

Culosi was a lifelong Pittsburgh Steelers fan, longtime friend Steve Lunceford said. Culosi excelled at soccer, playing on travel teams as a youth and for the O'Connell varsity. He was not married and had no children.

"He was gregarious, outgoing, loved to sing off-key at weddings," Lunceford said. "For this to happen, it's surreal. The police need to account for and be held accountable for their actions."

Deon Chapman said he became a casual friend of Culosi's after meeting him at a pool tournament at a Fairfax bar about 10 years ago. "He was a laid-back guy, funny guy. . . . I've never known him to even carry a pocketknife. This is a college boy, clean-cut." He also said he had no idea that Culosi might have been a bookie.

In an affidavit for the search warrant, Detective David J. Baucom, who often investigates sports gambling in Fairfax, said he met Culosi at a bar in October and started making NFL bets with him by cell phone. Baucom said he placed more than $28,000 in bets on games through last Sunday and met Culosi about every two weeks to pay his debts or collect his winnings, either at a restaurant or Culosi's home. Through Jan. 16, Baucom had lost more than $5,500 to Culosi, his affidavit stated.

Lt. Steve Thompson, Baucom's supervisor in the police organized crime division, said in a recent interview that there is no shortage of sports bookies in Fairfax and that police investigate only those who meet certain criteria. He said that Fairfax typically goes after only those bookies with many customers who take in $100,000 in bets per week and that larger bookies will take in $300,000 to $400,000 on a busy football weekend.

Last month, another investigation headed by Baucom resulted in the arrest of a man suspected of being a bookie who lives in Washington but operated in Fairfax. When police searched his safe deposit boxes, they seized nearly $350,000 in cash, court records show. Charges against that man are pending.

After shooting Culosi, police searched his townhouse. The results of that search were not available yesterday.

Perez said Culosi had not displayed a weapon or shown any violent tendencies while he was being investigated by Baucom. But Perez said police had to be prepared for any possibility, because "the unexpected can occur."

Staff writers Allan Lengel and Carol Morello contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Fairfax County Police Department statement:

Fairfax County Police Department
Public Information Office
4100 Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030
703-246-2253. TTY 703-204-2264. Fax 703-246-4253
FCPD-PIO@fairfaxcounty.gov
www.fairfaxcounty.gov


News Release 06/024/2994/MAJ/(8)
January 25, 2006

Police Shooting

Last night, at approximately 9:35 p.m. members of the Fairfax County Police Departmentís Organized Crime and Narcotics Division and Tactical Unit conducted an operation in the 11600 block of Cavalier Landing Court. The detectives and officers were serving a search warrant based on an ongoing investigation of an illegal gambling operation.

The target of the investigation, Salvatore Culosi, a 37-year-old male, was outside the residence as members of the TAC Unit approached. One officerís weapon, a handgun, unintentionally discharged. The bullet struck Mr. Culosi in the upper body. He received immediate medical care and was transported to Inova Fairfax Hospital where he died a short time later.

Colonel David M. Rohrer, Chief of the Fairfax County Police Department, issued the following statement:

On behalf of the Fairfax County Police Department and myself, I wish to express our condolences and sincere sympathy to Mr. Culosiís family and friends.

We also acknowledge and accept that we have a responsibility to Mr. Culosiís family, to the community, and to our officers to conduct a comprehensive, balanced, and fair investigation and we are committed to performing that responsibility. I pledge that we will fully review, as always, our policies, practices, and this operation in detail.

In the days ahead, as we move forward in our investigation, we will also share our findings with the Commonwealthís Attorney.

Although my primary focus for this announcement is to express our condolences to the Culosi family and to clarify our preliminary findings, I would be remiss to also not express my support for the officer involved. He is a 17-year veteran of our Department, and he is a valued member. My support goes out to him and his family.

This case has impacted and profoundly saddened us all.

The officer involved has been placed on routine administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigations. He has been a valued member of the TAC Unit for seven years.

###
To request this information in an alternate format, call the Public Information Office at 703.246.2253. TTY 703-204-2264

If you enjoyed reading about "Police shoot, kill unarmed bookie" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1 old 0311
January 26, 2006, 12:24 PM
OOPS! Somebody is going to spend a lot of time in court. " Tell me Officer.....
Have you ever heard to keep your finger OFF the trigger till you are ready to fire?"

Kevin

gonzo_beyondo
January 26, 2006, 12:24 PM
Maybe the Officer with the "unintentional discharge" was one of Culosi's regular customers?

Seems rather odd, overall, to say the least.

"...could not say how or why the gun discharged."
"...did not know what type of handgun Culosi was shot with."

LOL! My goodness these guys are professional! Unbelieveable. :banghead:

1911Tuner
January 26, 2006, 12:31 PM
Lemme see if I got this straight...

An optometrist was placin' bets on games...something that we've all done at one time or another...and he was approached as if he were a crack dealer that had an "Armed&Dangerous" advisory?:scrutiny:

Guess we'd better stop bettin' on the Super Bowl, lads...They're serious about these football pools.

ball3006
January 26, 2006, 12:32 PM
is sure to face a heavy legal battle proving it was not the gun's fault.........sounds like a "we better make sure this guy does not talk" to me........chris3

WT
January 26, 2006, 12:33 PM
In my area the police settlement would be about $2.5-$3.0 million. Since the poor guy did not have a wife or family they will probably try to get it dropped to peanuts ..... maybe bury the poor b*stard in Potters Field.

It is a tragedy that they had to kill a Steeler's fan.

CletusFudd
January 26, 2006, 12:39 PM
Lemme see if I got this straight...

An optometrist was placin' bets on games...something that we've all done at one time or another...and he was approached as if he were a crack dealer that had an "Armed&Dangerous" advisory?:scrutiny:

Guess we'd better stop bettin' on the Super Bowl, lads...They're serious about these football pools.

The crime here was that the government didn't get it's cut of the money. When mobsters don't get their money what do they do? They send in their enforcers to strong arm the guy.

Camp David
January 26, 2006, 12:41 PM
Lemme see if I got this straight...

An optometrist was placin' bets on games...

Fairfax County is very hard on Optometrists! ;) Sorry.. that was entirely inappropriate!

This is a very sad case and it happened very close to my backyard. I get nervous when I see the police most times; sadly such examples only fortify citizens' general mistrust of local law enforcement...

I am sure what the Chief said is entirely accurate; that this was a horrible mistake... I take him at his word... still... late night busts of card games :uhoh: is probably not something that police should be doing.... particularly in Fairfax where gang activity should probably get the emphasis!

I am so sorry for family....

Maxwell
January 26, 2006, 12:47 PM
...as Ive said to people countless times before, citizens with weapons often have far better training than the police.

This is just another sad case-in-point. :(

12-34hom
January 26, 2006, 12:48 PM
Tragic, one life lost - the other ruined. All because of carelessness + a dose of stupidity when in charge of a loaded firearm.

12-34hom.

K-Romulus
January 26, 2006, 12:53 PM
It seems the ND happened with the firearm pointing at the deceased's "upper part of his body." Since the tac-team was "moving in" to arrest him, that means the ND officer had his gun pointing at the optometrist while the officer was moving.

Is this standard procedure for arrests? Or is this only for "high-risk" arrests? From what I know (admittedly not much), LEO's are trained to only point firearms at suspects after a certain "threat" threshold has been met, and to otherwise keep drawn firearms at low or "medium" ready, especially while moving along.

Is this incident a result of poor training, or a major screw-up?:confused:

DnPRK
January 26, 2006, 12:54 PM
Sounds like a negligent homicide conviction for the officer and $3M award to the victim's family.

R.H. Lee
January 26, 2006, 01:04 PM
Why do they think they need a 'tactical squad' to arrest one suspected bookie??? It seems to me most PD's have too much money for too many toys and too much of a desire to play commando games.

Nightfall
January 26, 2006, 01:16 PM
I don't know about you folks, but I for one will sleep easier at night knowing people aren't spending their money on football wagers. Gambling is only moral when it's ran by the government (http://www.valottery.com/), after all! We can't have private citizens providing a desired service for a profit... what do you think this is, a capitalist society? :rolleyes:

NineseveN
January 26, 2006, 01:20 PM
First off, :barf: .

Over a bookie?

Let's see, a non-violent bookie arrest gets a tac squad and undecover officers, but if my home is robbed, I get a report and a "good luck buddy" handshake at best. Something isn't right with that.

GunnySkox
January 26, 2006, 01:27 PM
Thank goodness gambling is against the law, else somebody could get hurt!

Got nothin' to say for or against the police in this situation (with the exception of the guy who drilled the bookie, he sucks, "accident" [quotes to imply negligence, as opposed to magical shootingthemselvesguns] or not), because I don't have enough information to judge the wiseness of using those various units against the bookie guy.

~GnSx

buzz_knox
January 26, 2006, 01:37 PM
I believe it was Law and Order magazine that had an article about how the technique of muzzle dominance used by SWAT/HRT (aim at everyone when you can't tell perp from hostage) has trickled down to street cops, but without the required level of training.

The current trend of pulling weapons regardless of the threat level has disastrous consequences. A suspect in Knoxville got shot in the back of the head by a cop running with his Glock in his hand. At least, that was the official story. Both running, and she got popped in the head from several yards away while running.

No, we didn't buy the story either, but it did get Glock sued for "negligent design."

kjeff50cal
January 26, 2006, 01:58 PM
Maybe the Officer with the "unintentional discharge" was one of Culosi's regular customers?

Seems rather odd, overall, to say the least.

"...could not say how or why the gun discharged."
"...did not know what type of handgun Culosi was shot with."

LOL! My goodness these guys are professional! Unbelieveable. :banghead:

+1........forgettaboutit:evil:

kjeff50cal

Brad Johnson
January 26, 2006, 02:44 PM
Sounds like a negligent homicide conviction for the officer and $3M award to the victim's family.

Nope, that's what happens if you or I are that stupid. Since it was a person with a badge - no matter how dumb, inept, or negligent - they will get two weeks of "Administrative Leave with pay" and the family will get a nice card apologizing for the "terrible accident".

Brad

Sindawe
January 26, 2006, 03:10 PM
Damn shame for the Optometrist and his family. The offending cop should never hold a job as a cop again. The fool who authorized the use of the tactical squad should be demoted at least, better yet given his walking papers. :cuss: Let's see, a non-violent bookie arrest gets a tac squad and undecover officers, but if my home is robbed, I get a report and a "good luck buddy" handshake at best. Something isn't right with that.It is quite simple really. The criminal can have is assets and property seized and forfeited under the premise that they are tainted by the fruits of a criminal enterprise. You however, as crime victim, can not.

Yet.

Creeping Incrementalism
January 26, 2006, 03:36 PM
I don't know about you folks, but I for one will sleep easier at night knowing people aren't spending their money on football wagers. Gambling is only moral when it's ran by the government (http://www.valottery.com/), after all! We can't have private citizens providing a desired service for a profit... what do you think this is, a capitalist society? :rolleyes:

I saw a documentary on the History Channel. It said that gov't-run lottos arose after politicians discovered how much money was being made by mob-run numbers rackets.

El Tejon
January 26, 2006, 04:28 PM
"Once the government makes it legal, it's no longer immoral" Rev. Lovejoy.:D

buzz, think you're on to something. Everyone wants to play "cool guy". Remember the Beltway Sniper? Cops got to play dress up and put on their ninja masks and waving cool guy guns around.

Same thing here. If your world involves shaking down bookies, then every two bit gambler is a Mob Boss.:rolleyes:

Thain
January 26, 2006, 04:40 PM
That police officer was the only one on the scene, that I know of, professional enough to use a Glock. :banghead:

Thankfully, the War on Consensual Crime is being fought by our government. We wouldn't want the victims of this bookie to suffer...

Master Blaster
January 26, 2006, 04:40 PM
Same thing here. If your world involves shaking down bookies, then every two bit gambler is a Mob Boss.

Yeah except that mob bosses dont shoot it out with the police, it aint good for business. Usually they turn themselves in at their lawyers office in their best suit, because they know that if they keep their cool they will most likely get off.

Mob bosses work behind the scenes to make sure that they have no witnesses to testify against them. If they cant accomplish that they disappear.

Randy in Arizona
January 26, 2006, 05:08 PM
Somehow I would also think that anyone that stiffed this 'bookie' would be in far less danger that if they defaulted on a bet to a mob bookie. :rolleyes:

Old Dog
January 26, 2006, 05:35 PM
Lt. Richard Perez, a police spokesman, said he could not say how or why the gun discharged.
This department has some big problems other than officers shooting citizens. Its lieutenants don't even know how a gun is discharged? My understanding is that this usually happens when the trigger is pulled ... But an apparently veteran officer does not know this?

orionengnr
January 26, 2006, 05:48 PM
"The target of the investigation, Salvatore Culosi, a 37-year-old male, was outside the residence as members of the TAC Unit approached."

Poor choice of words.

gripper
January 26, 2006, 09:06 PM
Remind me someone,of exactly why I am supposed to respect these "professionals"...

grimjaw
January 26, 2006, 09:39 PM
I happen to be in DC this week and the guy I've been working with (turns out he's interested in firearms, woohoo!) and I were discussing this over lunch today.

one officer's weapon, a handgun, was unintentionally discharged

Let us review the four rules here and see if we can figure what went wrong.

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

At least 2, 3, and 4. The officer probably won't even be fired.

jmm

riverdog
January 26, 2006, 10:04 PM
As I see it, rules 1, 2 and 4 don't really concern me because they would have been appropriate.

Rule 1 definitely applies since the officers pistol should have been loaded.

Rule 2 applies since we would assume that an officer with the Tac Squad would be willing to shoot (destroy) the target (maybe not when he did, but he was willing). So covering the target was appropriate.

Rule 4 applies since they shot the subject/target of the investigation; we can assume he was sure of the target.

Now let's examine rule 3, finger on trigger. . . inappropriate, really bad form.

Let's also examine the decision to employ a high risk take down against a bookie/optometrist. Was a high risk takedown using a Tac Squad really required or is this just department policy? In general, I don't have a problem with use of special teams whatever they're called. We really don't know much about the deceased other than he was an optometrist. These tactics may have been justified. Overwhelming force is usually a great way to end a fight before it starts. You intimidate the subject to not even attempt resisting. However, as in this case, you better not frack up.

gunsmith
January 26, 2006, 10:23 PM
you have to give the guys with guns a piece of the action..or else!

444
January 26, 2006, 10:29 PM
"police investigate only those who meet certain criteria. He said that Fairfax typically goes after only those bookies with many customers who take in $100,000 in bets per week and that larger bookies will take in $300,000 to $400,000 on a busy football weekend."

The crime is the same but the police department doesn't think anything less than that is worth their time because they are "seizing" the money. It isn't about the so-called crime, it is about the police department getting the money. They only spend their time on profitable ventures.
A con man has to work hard to scam people out of their money.
Other criminals come up with various shake downs like protection schemes.
The police are a government sanctioned group of thieves: they just take the money. Why waste time and effort with shake downs or scams when you can just take the ALL the money along with the other assets ?


I have almost zero trust or respect for the police. They are nothing but a glorified street gang and in this case, cold blooded murderers.

Standing Wolf
January 26, 2006, 11:18 PM
Only the police and military are qualified to have guns. They've had lots of special training, you know.

By the way, speaking as a non-gambler, would someone please tell me who the victim is in gambling?

DJJ
January 26, 2006, 11:20 PM
Government, of course. They're being denied their share of the commerce.

444
January 26, 2006, 11:27 PM
Exactly, the victim is the government who is not getting their protection money.


In my earlier post I used the work murder. That's kind of strong. Let's say you were holding someone at gun point while robbing them (aka: seizing their assets) and the gun "went off" and killed them. What crime do you think you would be charged with ?
Now let's say you are a police officer and you are holding someone at gun point while you are "seizing their assets" (aka: robbing them) and the gun "goes off" and kills them. What crime to you think you would be charged with ?

k_dawg
January 26, 2006, 11:58 PM
let me guess...

LEO murders someone.. they are not arrested/booked/thrown in jail for the weekend for arraignment...

What's wrong with this picture?

Oh, that's right. Our "justice" system is broken.

k_dawg
January 27, 2006, 12:03 AM
Exactly, the victim is the government who is not getting their protection money.


In my earlier post I used the work murder. That's kind of strong. Let's say you were holding someone at gun point while robbing them (aka: seizing their assets) and the gun "went off" and killed them. What crime do you think you would be charged with ? ?

In the state of Florida, it would be 1st degree murder.

Well, assuming you were a citizen. If you were LEO, it would be "paid administrative leave", aka vacation time

straightShot
January 27, 2006, 12:11 AM
He said the officers in the tactical squad are "highly trained officers. Do unintentional shootings occur? Absolutely. We're humans, and these kind of things do occur."

This sounds like the exact opposite of what would happen from someone who was "highly trained".

I wonder what would have happened had someone actually been shooting at this "highly trained officer"!

Maxwell
January 27, 2006, 12:43 AM
"Highly trained" my foot. It dosnt take alot of instruction to learn how to use a gun properly (as in, to not shoot someone by "accidentally" putting the gun in their face and pull the trigger).

Why was a gun needed to arrest a bookie in the first place?

Maybe Im missing something and I dont want to sound like Im monday morning quarterbacking here... but are these kinds of criminals really that dangerous?

jd25q
January 27, 2006, 01:39 AM
RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY
RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGETjmm

Rule 2 does NOT apply in Law Enforcement. I've covered many people at gunpoint that I did not intend to shoot. Rule 3 is modified to "until you are ready to shoot".

Felony arrests are often done at gunpoint, they will continue to be. The potential for what happened is definately there. A trajedy to be sure, but the fact remains that there is a certain level of danger in being a felon, comes with the territory.

Why the all out felony arrest? I'm sure they had their reasons. Fairfax has enough reasons to exercise the tac team without needing to make excuses. This guy was not simply running an office pool. I had a gun put in my face over a drunk in public. You never know what's coming out there.

Am I defending the officer? Only in what he did up to the point of pulling the trigger. If the news account is accurate he clearly screwed up, and will face the consequences. Remember, rule 2 doesn't apply, that responsibility falls on the officer.

one45auto
January 27, 2006, 01:45 AM
And they ask me why I don't trust the police... :rolleyes:

The cop who pulled the trigger should be tried for manslaughter at the very least. :fire:

Rumpled
January 27, 2006, 07:00 AM
So the detective often meets the victim in resataurants, but they conduct a tactical raid at night at his home?
Doesn't seem the wisest course of action to me. Should be much easier to arrange a meet at a restaurant and cuff coming out of his car.

At home he would have access to whatever kind of weapons he has.

Very tragic for his friends and family.
Hopefully the cop gets lots of time in the big house, but I doubt he'll even be fired.

davec
January 27, 2006, 07:18 AM
There's one bookie who wont blab to the DA to get a break on his charges/sentencing.

I wonder who this bookie was taking action from that he needed to be rubbed out.

Or maybe he had fingers in other pies in addition to the bookmaking.

Dannyboy
January 27, 2006, 12:19 PM
And let's hear it for the continued militarization of our nation's police forces.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 12:27 PM
There's one bookie who wont blab to the DA to get a break on his charges/sentencing.

I wonder who this bookie was taking action from that he needed to be rubbed out.

Or maybe he had fingers in other pies in addition to the bookmaking.

Back in Nashville, the best reuben in town was made in a restaurant in the basement of the building the DA's office was located in. It got shut down because they were running a bookie operation out of the back. There was quite a bit of discussion about who their best clients were, being located where they were (below the DA and near the court house). I guess the protection ran out.

It was a tragedy. I loved those reubens.

Maxwell
January 27, 2006, 12:50 PM
Rule 2 does NOT apply in Law Enforcement. I've covered many people at gunpoint that I did not intend to shoot.

Err, I have a problem with that :uhoh:

Yes I dont have any experience with arresting people, but I've always been taught that you never point a weapon at someone unless your willing to kill them. If someone points a gun your way, you would believe that too.

I would think that aiming a weapon at someone escalates the situation. I dont mean just brandishing, that I'd understand as your trying to reinforce your authority, but to put the muzzle in thier face as an unmistakeable threat.

Your forcing a choice on the target to fight, flee, or submit. 2 in 3 chance of getting a reaction you dont want.

Gunpacker
January 27, 2006, 01:00 PM
Said it before, will say it again. Glocks and similar weapons are inherently unsafe, and manufacturers should be sued out of existence. Sadly, that now includes S&W. Those weapons are especially dangerous when placed in the hands of slightly trained LEOs who routinely point weapons at people for any excuse or no excuse with impunity.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 01:04 PM
Said it before, will say it again. Glocks and similar weapons are inherently unsafe, and manufacturers should be sued out of existence. Sadly, that now includes S&W. Those weapons are especially dangerous when placed in the hands of slightly trained LEOs who routinely point weapons at people for any excuse or no excuse with impunity.

There have been some rather spectacular negligent shootings with revolvers, SA autos, DA autos, rifles, etc. So, let's just ban guns period. After all, no mechanism can protect against stupidity.

riverdog
January 27, 2006, 01:13 PM
Err, I have a problem with that :uhoh:

Yes I dont have any experience with arresting people, but I've always been taught that you never point a weapon at someone unless your willing to kill them. If someone points a gun your way, you would believe that too.

I would think that aiming a weapon at someone escalates the situation. I dont mean just brandishing, that I'd understand as your trying to reinforce your authority, but to put the muzzle in thier face as an unmistakeable threat.

Your forcing a choice on the target to fight, flee, or submit. 2 in 3 chance of getting a reaction you dont want.I don't have a problem with that. Where should LE point their weapons? What else should be covered instead? Covering the subject is appropriate because a LEO should be willing to shoot if the need arises. The whole point is overwhelming force to intimidate and gain submission without a fight, no shots fired. Looking down the barrel of a weapon is very intimidating. It's that finger on the trigger thing and subsequent ND that causes the best plans to go very wrong.

Camp David
January 27, 2006, 01:14 PM
Remind me someone,of exactly why I am supposed to respect these "professionals"...

Indeed. There should be lots of room here for the local LEOs to review their procedures and make necessary changes... I have seen these "busts" in neighborhoods go down and sadly some of the young officers seem to hope they are able to fire their weapons and they approach citizens rather antagonistically. As it would appear, they need training as well! I'll keep my eye on this case and see what penalties are inflicted. Firing seems demanded.

There seems, in my opinion, a real need for two things needed here, as a result of this case (and they are both basic ideas):
1. Target suspect citizens are innocent until proven guilty; that means not treating them as targets unless they exhibit hostile behavior. Three years ago I watched an arrest on I-95 of subjects in car in Virginia and although police and LEOs need to be prepared, they way they treated subjects (suspects) in vehicle was criminal in my opinion... six officers drawing down on driver, passenger, and children in back of car; such a thing sets up a possible accident, which has been made clear, has the awful potential of happening.
2. Police need to master basic firearms training. This should include both gun handling and accurarcy. Being able to professionally handle a firearm and able to shoot it proficiently should be mandatory. Anything less should be grounds for immediate dismissal. Accidents with a gun should not ever happen, they fact that they do, with increasing regularity, by untrained officers, is an insult to the many fine LEOs out there and a threat to citizens everywhere!

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 01:16 PM
Quote:

>I would think that aiming a weapon at someone escalates the situation. I dont mean just brandishing, that I'd understand as your trying to reinforce your authority, but to put the muzzle in thier face as an unmistakeable threat.

Your forcing a choice on the target to fight, flee, or submit. 2 in 3 chance of getting a reaction you dont want.<
**************************

Before this one goes into an uncontrolled cop-bashing...a few points:

1. The draw-down while executing an arrest is threat-management, intended to demonstrate to the perp that "This is real, so don't make the wrong move" rather than an active threat and/or escalation. Many times it's done because the cop on the scene saw something that called for his weapon to be deployed...maybe something subtle that would go unnoticed
by the average Joe Blow on the street. In tense situations like this, adrenalin also plays a huge role in the ensuing action. A finger may be pressing harder on the trigger than we're aware of. A quick or furtive move by the perp is all it takes to nudge an already twitchy finger to the point of no return. We don't have all the details yet...Remember that.

2. Most cops are pretty squared away when it comes to situations like this, and while there are a few who really aren't competent as to gun-handling and other aspects of police work...most are. To use isolated incidents like this to label all cops as Barney Fife-esque bumbling fools who shouldn't be allowed to carry a loaded gun...or as dishonest/corrupt cops who have an agenda or a dark reason to murder a suspect on the scene is both reckless and inflammatory.
Let's focus on THIS cop and on THIS situation until all the facts are in before making a judgement call.


We now return you to our regularly-scheduled flame war.:D

jd25q
January 27, 2006, 01:25 PM
Err, I have a problem with that :uhoh:

Yes I dont have any experience with arresting people, but I've always been taught that you never point a weapon at someone unless your willing to kill them.

Like I said it doesn't apply. It's a whole new ball game. Police work, and felony arrests specifically are not safe circumstances. Neither is being a felon. With both choices comes responsibility. I take the responsibility for mine and the bad guy's safety, up to the point where he crosses the line. He takes responsibility for putting himself in that position. It's not a conscious decision on his part, it just comes with his other decisions. Committing felonies is dangerous. I don't pull a gun on people coming out of church, but you bet I would when arresting a guy on charges that may result in him losing his job, home, and freedom for a number of years. People do not react rationally when they feel they've got nothing (or everything) to lose.

But you are right, you must be willing to kill them, if it comes to that.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 01:25 PM
Quote:

Let's focus on THIS cop and on THIS situation until all the facts are in before making a judgement call.


Okay. This cop committed negligent homicide, and the department is liable for negligent training.

And yes, we do have sufficient information to support this conclusion. The cop's superiors have already stated he "accidentally" shot an unarmed man.
No room to go back and say "whoops, furtive movement, the perp begged for it!"

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 01:32 PM
Okay. This cop committed negligent homicide, and the department is liable for negligent training.

And yes, we do have sufficient information to support this conclusion. The cop's superiors have already stated he "accidentally" shot an unarmed man.
No room to go back and say "whoops, furtive movement, the perp begged for it!"

Then the cop and the agency will have to answer for that. My whole point was to attempt to turn the general drift of this thread from "All cops are dangerous idiots" to "THIS cop screwed the pooch." I don't feel any better about this incident than anybody else here...but it's an individual rather than a profession that we're talking about. Also agree with marshall's statement about desperate men doing desperate things when the flag flies. Men who stand to lose everything will sometimes take a high-risk gamble in hopes of
getting away clean. Rarely works...but there it is.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 01:37 PM
Then the cop and the agancy will have to answer for that. My whole point was to attempt to turn the general drift of this thread from "All cops are dangerous idiots" to "THIS cop screwed the pooch." I don't feel any better about this incident than anybody else here...but it's an individual rather than a profession that we're talking about. Also agree with marshalls statement about desperate men doing desperate things when the flag flies. Men who stand to lose everything will sometimes take a high-risk gamble in hopes of
getting away clean. Rarely works...but there it is.

I agree. But it goes from being about one individual to about what happens to that individual and what led to the situation. The attitudes increasingly becoming prevalent in law enforcement (everyone's a perp until we say otherwise) and the techniques resulting from said attitudes (i.e. muzzle dominance) helped cause these problems. If we don't recognize that, then we'll have many more discussions about "isolated" incidents.

Camp David
January 27, 2006, 01:39 PM
Then the cop and the agancy will have to answer for that. My whole point was to attempt to turn the general drift of this thread from "All cops are dangerous idiots" to "THIS cop screwed the pooch." .

Good post 1911Tuner... You are right; clearly this was a single LEO in error, but if the training these police receive or procedures they follow fails to teach common sense, then all of law enforcement suffers. Don't forget... taxpayers pay for law enforcement and like the medical profession, their first job should be to do no harm! Fatally shooting unarmed suspects may be a single instance of failure, but if training/procedures are wrong, then... yes...perhaps blame should be shared. Walking up to suspects, armed or not, and drawing down on them with service firearm is an all too common occurence; if it is warranted then fine. Are young officers encouraged to do this? That seems to me the big question here...

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 01:46 PM
At what point did the safety of the Police Officer become more important than the safety of the Citizen? Oh, I forgot, when they started calling them "Law Enforcement".

I have seen an alarming trend in Cops needlessly covering folks with their muzzle. What's wrong with low ready, or medium ready?

If someone has a firearm or a weapon, I agree, cover, command, shoot. But to point your weapon at an unarmed citizen that is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty is absurd.

LEO's, for the most part, have absolutely zero excuse to not be proficient enough with their firearms to be able to keep a weapon at low or medium ready and be able to respond quickly if needed. They have range time, it's part of their job...if they don't want to shoot 500-1000 rounds a week and train for 2-4 hours, that's too bad. I don't get to tell my boss I don't want to study intel or reports all the time because they're boring.

If the suspect has a weapon, or is a known violent felon, fair game, cover, command, shoot...otherwise, I think such a practice is sickening.

Again, at what point did the safety of the Police Officer become more important than the safety of the Citizen?

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 01:51 PM
Camp David, I agree for the most part. It seems that lately, there have been too many agressive actions that aren't called for. No-Knock/Smash the Door
warrants are too often served on subjects who either haven't committed a harsh enough crime to warrant that sort of entry...or who don't have the rep for being dangerous. The question is: Where do we draw the line of departure on this? Since it's impossible to predict how a human being will react to an arrest warrant...do the cops knock and hope for the best, or do they go all out for the surprise/intimidation approach in order to prevent allowing the subject time to mount a counterattack? It's a tricky situation,
and part of the reason that I dropped my plans to enter the LE profession many years ago after having dome the reserve/auxilliary bit. Any time that you're involved in a potentially violent situation...and virtually all police/citizen confrontations are just that...you have to be prepared for it to go wrong without warning. Cops are nervous these days. Citizens are nervous about police interaction...and the vicious circle grows and intensifies...and mistrust abounds on both sides of the question
Not sure if there even is an easy answer, but the "Us against Them" approach sure ain't it.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 02:00 PM
NineSeven said:
****************

>If the suspect has a weapon, or is a known violent felon, fair game, cover, command, shoot...otherwise, I think such a practice is sickening.<
******************

That's the tricky part. The cop usually doesn't know about a weapon until the suspect reeaches for it, or he's duckin' and runnin' for cover. Also, as
previously noted, there are people out there who have the potential to be extremely violent, but it isn't known to the police agency at the time. Like the question: Does your dog bite?" The answer is: All dogs will bite if you push the right button. The cop has to be prepared for the subject to turn into a killer at a hat-drop. One of the first questions that a rookie faces as to the whether a gun is involved during a trafic stop. The answer is:
"There's ALWAYS a gun present during a traffic stop. Yours!"

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 02:06 PM
Yet in every traffic stop I've been involved in, the officer's weapon isn't drawn. Strange how one of the most dangerous times for an officer is also one when the weapon typically stays in the holster.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 02:08 PM
The question is: Where do we draw the line of departure on this? Since it's impossible to predict how a human being will react to an arrest warrant...do the cops knock and hope for the best, or do they go all out for the surprise/intimidation approach in order to prevent allowing the subject time to mount a counterattack? It's a tricky situation,
and part of the reason that I dropped my plans to enter the LE profession many years ago after having dome the reserve/auxilliary bit.

Having had cops at my door three times, once looking for suspect (cop knew he was at the wrong door the moment he saw me) and twice serving warrants (you think they'd know they had the wrong address after the first time they showed), I'm glad those officers decided to knock and hope for the best.

jd25q
January 27, 2006, 02:09 PM
So you confront an intruder in your house. You are armed. Are you at the low ready? Maybe he didn't know anyone was home, maybe he's just a coward, maybe he's sleep walking. Remember he's innocent until proven guilty. Why is your safety any more important than that of this innocent man?

It's because he made a bad choice and put himself in a bad position where you are entirely justified in doing what you are doing. Does he have a weapon? Is he violent? Can you always know that? Of course not.

Now I'm not saying you cover every felon you arrest, but you sure don't wait until you know the guy is armed either. I've got the right to defend myself as well, particularly when my duties put me in harms way.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 02:44 PM
Yet in every traffic stop I've been involved in, the officer's weapon isn't drawn. Strange how one of the most dangerous times for an officer is also one when the weapon typically stays in the holster.

That's probably because of the nature of a "routine" traffic stop and that 99.9% of'em don't go wrong. Imagine the fallout if all traffic stops began with
a drawdown and "Spread'em!" from the cop. The point is made to show the rookie that there's no such thing as a routine stop...no matter how many are meade without incident, and that it only takes one to kill him. A "Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst" kind of thing.

Confronting and/or arresting a felony suspect mano e mano is a bit removed from a speeding ticket. Few people will duke it out with a cop over a traffic violation. People facing 15 years in a federal prison just might.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 02:49 PM
That's probably because of the nature of a "routine" traffic stop and that 99.9% of'em don't go wrong. Imagine the fallout if all traffic stops began with
a drawdown and "Spread'em!" from the cop. The point is made to show the rookie that there's no such thing as a routine stop...no matter how many are meade without incident, and that it only takes one to kill him. A "Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst" kind of thing.

Confronting and/or arresting a felony suspect mano e mano is a bit removed from a speeding ticket. Few people will duke it out with a cop over a traffic violation. People facing 15 years in a federal prison just might.

That's interesting, as I've heard police say specifically that a traffic stop is one of their greatest concerns, as they don't know if they are pulling over grandma or someone who just murdered thirty people and wants the cop to be 31.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 03:09 PM
NineSeven said:
****************

>If the suspect has a weapon, or is a known violent felon, fair game, cover, command, shoot...otherwise, I think such a practice is sickening.<
******************

That's the tricky part. The cop usually doesn't know about a weapon until the suspect reeaches for it, or he's duckin' and runnin' for cover. Also, as
previously noted, there are people out there who have the potential to be extremely violent, but it isn't known to the police agency at the time. Like the question: Does your dog bite?" The answer is: All dogs will bite if you push the right button. The cop has to be prepared for the subject to turn into a killer at a hat-drop. One of the first questions that a rookie faces as to the whether a gun is involved during a trafic stop. The answer is:
"There's ALWAYS a gun present during a traffic stop. Yours!"

I agree, and I am far from a Cop-basher. Nine times out of ten, I side with the LEO that just wants to go home to their family, but I think that sometimes we allow LEO's to go too far in securing their own safety while being a detriment to ours. I can't say it's the individual officers fault, I would probably be prone to doing the same things or similar if I did in fact not decide against proceeding in becoming an LEO a couple of years ago. There has got to be some better solutions.

Pre-planned no-knocks should be more rare than they are and backed up by an overwhelming mountain of evidence and intelligence, then things should be checked in triplicate. In some places no-knocks are handled just that way, in some others they aren't.

Covering someone with the muzzle of a loaded firearm is an aggressive and deadly threat. Again, we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so until a suspect does something other than being the suspect of a crime, there is no reason to cover them with the muzzle. Most times, things go down just that way, but I can tell you that I have been covered by a muzzle by a Police Officer in a case of mistaken identity. Now, had it not been that the alleged suspect was accused of nothing more than throwing a rock through the windshield of a parked car, I would not have been quite so mad. To me, that does not rise to the level of necessitating a deadly threat, especially when the officer had not yet properly identified his suspect (I didn't even look like the guy, nor was I wearing the same type of colors or clothing).


The cop usually doesn't know about a weapon until the suspect reeaches for it, or he's duckin' and runnin' for cover.

So they should proceed as if everyone is a violent offender or has a weapon because they cannot know who does not?

Does your dog bite?" The correct answer is: He has teeth, don't he? :D


...but we're not dogs.

Maxwell
January 27, 2006, 03:15 PM
As I said, I got no issues with brandishing to affirm your authority to the target.... The guns out of its holster and your using it to drive home a point.

Ok, my bias and inexperience displayed here, the brandish aim-point is somewhere in the world of sky&earth thats not on someones vital area (muzzle down sounds good, depending on range of course).

Thats different to preparing for lethal force. If the target is a real threat (or could become one) then your muzzle belongs squarely on their body, no questions there.

Again, back to the rules.
1) all guns are to be treated as if they were loaded and ready to fire.
2) do not point a weapon at anything you do not intend to destroy.
3) do not place your finger inside the trigger guard until ready to fire.
4) be aware of your target, be aware of whats behind your target. (or as I prefer to say, be aware that Sarah Brady is watching you :evil: )

This guy wouldnt be the first "choir going church boy / never done nothin wrong / oh'so loved by his momma / olympic hopeful / world scholar / bright future" type that got killed in a shootout with cops, and ???? happens.

...but I still think that if your using a rifle or pistol in place of a megaphone, it dosnt belong aimed at someones torso --unless-- you think they might need to be taken out.

Rule 1
Weather it can go off or not is irrelivant, the chance it could is why you mind the rules to begin with.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 03:15 PM
Buzz_knox...the reason that a traffic stop is of such great concern is that
the cop is usually alone, and that if things go wrong, there is nobody within
close proximity to come to his aid or to watch his back. In that, a traffic stop carries a high risk to the officer. Orchestrated felony arrests are generally made by teams. Apples to oranges. They're not the same.

One final point that many may have missed in this situation that is both a tragedy and a travesty is that...Bookmaking is illegal. That we may disagree with the reasons or agendas behind that status is a matter for the politicians to decide. (Lobby for legalized gambling and go vote)

As it stands, though, it's illegal. Victimless crime? Yep. No matter.
Many laws that I don't agee with, but abide by'em anyway...for the most part. If I head down a deserted I-85 at 80 mph and see a blue light in my mirror...who is at fault? If I escalate the situation and get hurt...who is at fault? It makes no difference that I can drive safely at that speed on an empty highway...it's illegal...and if I get hit by the radar, the trooper is gonna come after me. It's his job.

Whenever a man decides to engage in an illegal activity, the risk
of arrest, prosecution, and conviction is understood and accepted, just
like going to war and getting killed is an understood risk of enlisting
in the military. Play a rough game...don't whine if you get hurt.

If this man hadn't been engaged in an illegal enterprise, he wouldn't
have been confronted by this cop on this day...and he'd likely be at home
with his family this very minute.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 03:17 PM
So you confront an intruder in your house. You are armed. Are you at the low ready? Maybe he didn't know anyone was home, maybe he's just a coward, maybe he's sleep walking. Remember he's innocent until proven guilty. Why is your safety any more important than that of this innocent man?

It's because he made a bad choice and put himself in a bad position where you are entirely justified in doing what you are doing. Does he have a weapon? Is he violent? Can you always know that? Of course not.


Terrible argument, the answer is because he's in my house. If all arrests hapened in the Police Station or in the Officer's home, well, there ya go. Out in public, I can't draw on someone because I think they "may" be violent or "might" have a gun if he does not make a threatening gesture and my life is not observed to be in peril, now can I? Nope. If a guy is bashing the windows out of my car, or even stealing it, I can't draw and cover him, because if I end up shooting him, I go to jail, or at best get nailed into the poor house with a civil suit.


Now I'm not saying you cover every felon you arrest, but you sure don't wait until you know the guy is armed either. I've got the right to defend myself as well, particularly when my duties put me in harms way.

The problem is, that when the act of you performing your duty puts me in harm's way, I cannot defend myself and I am powerless to do anything about it, even if Barney Fife decides to ignore the second rule and touch one off into my chest cavity.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 03:20 PM
If I head down a deserted I-85 at 80 mph and see a blue light in my mirror...who is at fault? If I escalate the situation and get hurt...who is at fault?

In your scenario, you would be, no doubt. The problem comes when people get hurt when they don't escalate the situation through abuse or negligence.

Mr. James
January 27, 2006, 03:22 PM
SWAT Tactics at Issue After Fairfax Shooting

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; B01



Salvatore J. Culosi Sr. still can't believe his son, a 37-year-old optometrist, was a suspected sports bookie. He can't believe a heavily armed SWAT team fatally shot his unarmed son, Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., outside his Fair Oaks home Tuesday night.

And Culosi can't believe that the SWAT team's sudden descent on his son, apparently causing one officer to accidentally fire a .45-caliber handgun once into his son's chest, is standard procedure for Fairfax County police conducting a search.

"We are outraged that current police protocol would ever allow something like this to happen," Culosi, 63, said last night. "The fact is that there was zero basis whatsoever for the officers involved to have any weapons drawn in this situation."

Culosi added: "Sal was alone and unarmed. He was compliant with police instructions. He made no threatening movements or gestures. There was no risk of harm to anyone. Anyone, that is, except Sal."

A Fairfax police detective had been making sports bets with Culosi for three months, court records show, and on Tuesday night police planned to arrest Culosi and search his townhouse on Cavalier Landing Court. But Fairfax Police Chief David M. Rohrer said a 17-year police veteran with long experience in the tactical unit accidentally fired his gun, killing Culosi.

The officer was not named, and police could not say why his gun went off.

Although police and firearms authorities were divided yesterday on whether SWAT teams are needed for most search warrants, as is Fairfax's practice, they agreed on another point: Officers carrying guns should not aim directly at anyone or have their fingers on the trigger until they are absolutely ready to fire.

"In my opinion, there are no accidental discharges," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. Gnagey was not familiar with the Fairfax case but said that in general, "Most of what we see in law enforcement are negligent discharges, fingers being on the trigger when they shouldn't be."

Gnagey was in the camp that thought "SWAT teams shouldn't be doing all warrants." But once there, "the weapons are not pointed at anybody."

Fairfax police declined to discuss their tactical unit policies. But police officials acknowledged that the tactical team, using bulletproof vests, high-powered weapons and other police tools, serves nearly all of the warrants after an investigation has found probable cause to seize evidence -- whether it is bloody clothes, weapons or documents.

In Culosi's case, police were looking for records they suspected he kept after undercover Detective David J. Baucom spent three months placing bets with him on NFL games, according to Baucom's affidavit for the search warrant. A document filed yesterday by Baucom indicates that police entered Culosi's townhouse at 10:13 p.m. Tuesday, about 40 minutes after the fatal shooting.

Police found betting slips, currency, "suspected cocaine" and an unspecified amount of "U.S. currency," according to Baucom's "Inventory of Seized Property." Sources close to the investigation said that police found $38,000 cash in Culosi's home and that the suspected cocaine was a small amount.

Though most Fairfax officers are issued 9mm handguns, tactical unit officers sometimes are issued more powerful weapons. Police confirmed yesterday that Culosi, who graduated from Bishop O'Connell High School and the University of Virginia, was shot with a .45-caliber pistol made by Heckler & Koch, a larger weapon that authorities said would not have a trigger that could be easily tripped.

"It's a very safe gun," said David Yates, a local firearms trainer and range safety officer. "Very high quality. Not a hair trigger. Very reliable. Very accurate."

Yates said there were two possible reasons why Culosi was shot: "Ignorance and carelessness." And because police said the officer was highly trained, he couldn't have been ignorant of gun-safety procedures, Yates said.

"We're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight," Yates said. "But it's not an accident."

Stuart A. Meyers, head of OpTac International, which trains police and counterterrorism tactical squads worldwide, said threat assessments should be done before search warrants are served. But because SWAT officers are better trained and equipped, Meyers said, "SWAT teams should serve, in our opinion, almost all search warrants with the exception of document searches and low-level search warrants."

Gnagey said tactical teams should be used only when police have reason to suspect danger. But some noted that sports bookmakers often deal in cash and might be expected to carry a gun to defend themselves against criminals, if not police.

Meyers and others said SWAT officers should have their guns drawn and ready, "but your finger shouldn't be on the trigger unless you're preparing to shoot someone."

Culosi's father said Fairfax police protocol of serving warrants with weapons drawn "should scare and frighten everyone. Such protocol needs to be immediately changed, or an accident like this will happen again."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

TallPine
January 27, 2006, 03:24 PM
Apparently, much of the LEO training these days is obtained from cop shows on TV .... :rolleyes: :(

I had an experience almost 30 years ago when two Alaska State Troopers "asked" me to come out of a remote cabin, where I had gone after a romantic breakup. Clearly it was a case of mistaken identity, for as soon as I stepped outside both troopers visibly relaxed. Although one had a shotgun and the other had a semi-auto pistol in his hands, at no time that I am aware of did they actually point them at me. We had a friendly chat and everyone parted with no ill feelings.

I still wonder exactly who they were looking for ...? :uhoh:

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 03:35 PM
I still wonder exactly who they were looking for ...? :uhoh:


Sorry, it was me. :neener:

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 03:39 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with the statements made in this arcticle, particularly:



...they agreed on another point: Officers carrying guns should not aim directly at anyone or have their fingers on the trigger until they are absolutely ready to fire.

"In my opinion, there are no accidental discharges," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. Gnagey was not familiar with the Fairfax case but said that in general, "Most of what we see in law enforcement are negligent discharges, fingers being on the trigger when they shouldn't be."

Gnagey was in the camp that thought "SWAT teams shouldn't be doing all warrants." But once there, "the weapons are not pointed at anybody."

+1 a thousand times over.


Police confirmed yesterday that Culosi, who graduated from Bishop O'Connell High School and the University of Virginia, was shot with a .45-caliber pistol made by Heckler & Koch, a larger weapon that authorities said would not have a trigger that could be easily tripped.

"It's a very safe gun," said David Yates, a local firearms trainer and range safety officer. "Very high quality. Not a hair trigger. Very reliable. Very accurate."

Yates said there were two possible reasons why Culosi was shot: "Ignorance and carelessness." And because police said the officer was highly trained, he couldn't have been ignorant of gun-safety procedures, Yates said.

"We're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight," Yates said. "But it's not an accident."

An ND with a high-qulity gun with a manual level safety, a decocker and a long DA pull as options to ensure no accidents happen? I would have felt better is this was a Glock we were talking about, this just makes it completely ridiculous.


Meyers and others said SWAT officers should have their guns drawn and ready, "but your finger shouldn't be on the trigger unless you're preparing to shoot someone."

Right on.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 03:42 PM
One final point that many may have missed in this situation that is both a tragedy and a travesty is that...Bookmaking is illegal. That we may disagree with the reasons or agendas behind that status is a matter for the politicians to decide. (Lobby for legalized gambling and go vote)

As it stands, though, it's illegal. Victimless crime? Yep. No matter.
Many laws that I don't agee with, but abide by'em anyway...for the most part. If I head down a deserted I-85 at 80 mph and see a blue light in my mirror...who is at fault? If I escalate the situation and get hurt...who is at fault? It makes no difference that I can drive safely at that speed on an empty highway...it's illegal...and if I get hit by the radar, the trooper is gonna come after me. It's his job.

Whenever a man decides to engage in an illegal activity, the risk
of arrest, prosecution, and conviction is understood and accepted, just
like going to war and getting killed is an understood risk of enlisting
in the military. Play a rough game...don't whine if you get hurt.

If this man hadn't been engaged in an illegal enterprise, he wouldn't
have been confronted by this cop on this day...and he'd likely be at home
with his family this very minute.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect.

The problem with that thinking is that it excuses inappropriate or illegal acts by the cops. "Hey, you asked for it by being a crook" is often used as excusing "tune ups" by cops. American Cop magazine had an article stating in part that if you run from cops, you have to expect you might get knocked around after being arrested.

If this cop hadn't been criminally negligent in his duties, the bookie would be alive today. Nothing else really matters. The cause and effect is the cop screwed up and shot someone who had not been found guilty of a crime for which death was a legal punishment, and who had not offered resistance.

Just remember, the cop who unlawfully shot this guy is now a perp himself. Since he committed the crime of negligent homicide, so anything that happens to him now is part of that. Right?

"Whenever a man decides to engage in an illegal activity, the risk
of arrest, prosecution, and conviction is understood and accepted, just
like going to war and getting killed is an understood risk of enlisting
in the military. Play a rough game...don't whine if you get hurt."


I notice that the risk of being shot by an incompetent cop doesn't fall within the list you've asserted. Could it be that you don't even buy your own argument? Yes, the bookie should have been arrested, tried, and if convicted, sentenced. None of that will ever happen because the cop screwed up and shot a compliant, unarmed suspect.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 04:05 PM
knox...You seem to be missing the point. I'll try again.

It's all about threat management versus risk factor. Statistics.

The majority of traffic stops are completed without incident
versus the number of felony arrests that escalate into an armed
confrontation. A man facing a speeding ticket isn't highly likely to
kill a cop...unless he's got 3 or 4 kilos of cocaine in the car.
(The one in a thousand) A man facing a decade or two at Club Fed
may at least consider shooting his way out...and some do.

The two situations require different levels of threat management.
If we'd suddenly have a high incidenc of traffic cops killed
during traffic stops involving Red Chevy trucks in Alabama you
can bet that the level would rise sharply whenever a red Chevy
truck was stopped in Alabama.

The last statistic is:

Any time that a loaded gun is leveled at another person...for whatever reason...there's a risk that somebody is gonna get shot.

Not condoning or excusing what happened. Just pointing out that
cops and robbers is a dangerous game for both sides. Don't want to have trouble from a cop...competent or otherwise? Don't engage in known illegal activities, because if it's a felony...and you're confronted...you're probably gonna be lookin' at the wrong end of a gun. You're nervous...He's nervous...
and all it takes is a wrong move or the perception of non-compliance to tighten his finger on the trigger.

I stopped disobeying speed limits several years ago...and I stopped getting tickets along about the same time. Amazin' how that works.

And:

Incompetent people are in every profession all over the country. When one surgeon leaves a hemostat in a patient's abdomen, do we immediately label
all surgeons as morons? No. We deal with that surgeon and that incident.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 04:09 PM
Incompetent people are in every profession all over the country. When one surgeon leaves a hemostat in a patient's abdomen, do we immediately label
all surgeons as morons? No. We deal with that surgeon and that incident.

If it was standard practice for Surgeons not to take inventory of all of their tools before starting a surgery and before closing the entry and such a thing as you describe happened on a regular basis, there would be, and has been the exact same amount of concern and outrage.

Not picking on ya, and I know you were't responding to me, but I had to make that point. :)

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 04:16 PM
Not condoning or excusing what happened. Just pointing out that cops and robbers is a dangerous game for both sides. Don't want to have trouble from a cop...competent or otherwise? Don't engage in known illegal activities, because if it's a felony...and you're confronted...you're probably gonna be lookin' at the wrong end of a gun. You're nervous...He's nervous... and all it takes is a wrong move or the perception of non-compliance to tighten his finger on the trigger.

I stopped disobeying speed limits several years ago...and I stopped getting tickets along about the same time. Amazin' how that works.

And:

Incompetent people are in every profession all over the country. When one surgeon leaves a hemostat in a patient's abdomen, do we immediately label
all surgeons as morons? No. We deal with that surgeon and that incident.

1. I've been on the receiving end of police attention despite not having had any involvement in criminal activity. So the "if you keep your nose clean, you won't have trouble" stuff doesn't wash.

2. Obeying the speed limit isn't necessarily a guarantee of no ticket, especially when our dear Gov. announces another one of his ticket quotas. There are too many traffic laws not to be breaking at least one or two at any given moment. Checked to make sure that your tail lights are the proper shade of red? That was a $100+ ticket for my father, whose tail light was intact but "not red enough" for the cop's tastes.

3. There are certainly incompetent people. But when a surgeon or lawyer screws up, there is considerable liability on him personally. Cops typically don't face that. And most surgeons and lawyers I know hate the bad ones, and publicly bad mouth them. I certainly do when there's a bad lawyer. And you'll never find me on a board explaining how the client asked to get screwed, or how we have to understand where the lawyer was coming from.

gripper
January 27, 2006, 04:22 PM
I gotta concur....I'm currently the recipient of some less than favorable( or deserved) LEO attention.I AM trying to not let it completely sour my outlook on them in general,but it does tend to color ones perceptions.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 04:23 PM
If it was standard practice for Surgeons not to take inventory of all of their tools before starting a surgery and before closing the entry and such a thing as you describe happened on a regular basis, there would be, and has been the exact same amount of concern and outrage.

Not picking on ya, and I know you were't responding to me, but I had to make that point. :)

Oh...It happens more than you hear about, mah fren. :rolleyes: It's usually handled on the QT on the hospital level...with money changing ands, no doubt. Livin' with a trauma floor nurse has made me nervous about hospitals.

Not pickin' on anybody either. Just saw the thread going from:
"Dumbazz cop kills unarmed man" to "All cops are dumbazzes" and headed toward: "All cops are trigger-happy and lookin' for a reason to shoot somebody."

So...one incompetent cop shoots a basically decent guy who allegedly happens to be running a black market bookmaking operation, and it turns into
Chicken Little hollerin' at Turkey Lurkey to run and hide 'cause the sky is falling. The sky isn't falling. It was one acorn dropped from one tree by one butterfingered squirrel.

jd25q
January 27, 2006, 04:32 PM
1911, your right on the money here.


3. There are certainly incompetent people. But when a surgeon or lawyer screws up, there is considerable liability on him personally. Cops typically don't face that. And most surgeons and lawyers I know hate the bad ones, and publicly bad mouth them. I certainly do when there's a bad lawyer. And you'll never find me on a board explaining how the client asked to get screwed, or how we have to understand where the lawyer was coming from.

1. Police have enhanced liability in a situation such as this. That is more than the non-LEO citizen. I don't know why all you people think he's going to be back at work in a week. That's ridiculous and it's not going to happen.

2. I haven't seen anyone defending what this guy did, myself included. He clearly screwed up and will face the consequences for it. My point is that you can't condemn the practice because one guy screws it up. That starts to sound like a familiar argument (can we really allow an armed citizenry when we have a school shooting?).

jd25q
January 27, 2006, 04:42 PM
...but I still think that if your using a rifle or pistol in place of a megaphone, it dosnt belong aimed at someones torso --unless-- you think they might need to be taken out.

MIGHT? That's exactly my point. In the real world you don't know, but when conditions get to a certain point in pays to be prepared. I've seen a couple of you paint black and white pictures of when it's ok and when it's not. Typical Monday morning stuff. Problem is there is no black and white in reality and only one chance to get it right.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 04:44 PM
1911, your right on the money here.



1. Police have enhanced liability in a situation such as this. That is more than the non-LEO citizen. I don't know why all you people think he's going to be back at work in a week. That's ridiculous and it's not going to happen.

2. I haven't seen anyone defending what this guy did, myself included. He clearly screwed up and will face the consequences for it. My point is that you can't condemn the practice because one guy screws it up. That starts to sound like a familiar argument (can we really allow an armed citizenry when we have a school shooting?).

Enhanced liability? Pray tell, how? A non-LEO citizen is 100% exposed to civil suit. The officer has the benefit of the union in terms of providing counsel, along with the respondeat superior doctrine by which the department is reponsible for his actions. Further, lawsuits typically target departments because they are deep pockets, under the theory of negligent training. Individual officers are almost a side thought. We won't even go into the issue of the threat of criminal liabilty, which tends to be lower for police than a non-LEO who commited the same crime.

buzz_knox
January 27, 2006, 04:53 PM
MIGHT? That's exactly my point. In the real world you don't know, but when conditions get to a certain point in pays to be prepared. I've seen a couple of you paint black and white pictures of when it's ok and when it's not. Typical Monday morning stuff. Problem is there is no black and white in reality and only one chance to get it right.

You know, it's been shown that there due to reaction time, there's little difference in having your weapon aimed at the target and having it aimed away. Louis Awerbuck has demonstrated this time and time again. So, the idea that being prepared means aiming your weapon directly at someone who is not posing an immediate threat is not exactly valid.

And this isn't Monday morning quarterbacking. The cop's boss said he screwed up. We're just trying to figure out how to prevent it from happening again, rather than trying to justify future screwups.

jd25q
January 27, 2006, 04:58 PM
Enhanced liability? Pray tell, how? A non-LEO citizen is 100% exposed to civil suit.

And how is the police officer any different?

The officer has the benefit of the union in terms of providing counsel, along with the respondeat superior doctrine by which the department is reponsible for his actions.

As long as he is following department policy. I don't think shooting an unarmed man is the the Fairfax PD policy manual.

Further, lawsuits typically target departments because they are deep pockets, under the theory of negligent training.

Blame that on the trial lawyers who are in it for the money rather than justice.

Individual officers are almost a side thought. We won't even go into the issue of the threat of criminal liabilty, which tends to be lower for police than a non-LEO who commited the same crime.

How does it tend to be? Maybe the sentences seem shorter for a given crime. That is most often due to the fact that courts to a large part base sentencing decisions on past criminal behavior. As a Police Officer clearly would have none you would expect sentences to be shorter.

Every hear of a section 1983 suit. That makes the police civilly and criminally liable for violating someone's civil rights. This does not apply to non-LEO's. Enhanced liability.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 05:00 PM
MIGHT? That's exactly my point. In the real world you don't know, but when conditions get to a certain point in pays to be prepared. I've seen a couple of you paint black and white pictures of when it's ok and when it's not. Typical Monday morning stuff. Problem is there is no black and white in reality and only one chance to get it right.

Typical Cop Attitude, again, your life is more important because everyone is a violent felon until they prove otherwise. :rolleyes:


Yes, you have one chance to get it right, and that goes both ways.

If you don't draw and cover, you might not be able to outdraw a violent felon that will try to draw and fire on you despite the endless training you should have engaged in because firearms proficiency is a key aspect of your job duties...if you get that wrong, you might die.

If you draw and cover, and make a mistake, become negligent or any other number of things that happen to trigger things such as what we are discussing in this thread despite the endless training you should have engaged in because firearms proficiency is a key aspect of your job duties, you get to go home, but an innocent person, or perhaps even a criminal that did not commit a crime deserving the death penalty or was not a violent threat gets to take a state-sponsored dirt nap.

The thing is, you chose to be a cop, they may or may not have chosen to break the law (they might have broken it, might not have, that's for the Jury to decide), so to me, to go off and cover folks that pose no credible or visible threat is a despicable practice.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 05:06 PM
And how is the police officer any different?

Sir, I would encourage you to read the threads on this very site that report stories such as the one where the female off-duty cop shot and killed a man tryning to steal her car. She did not stand trial or go to jail, whereas we all know I, as a lowly common citizen would be facing charges. In fact, read the threads about common citizens defending themselves in 'gray cases' where they end up being charged. There are quite a few around here and other forums on the net. Take your time, and come back to us when you're done.

I bet the LEO from this very thread won't be seeing jail time...if he or she does, I will tip my hat to this particular district and PD...but I ain't holding my breath. If I had done the same thing as a private citizen, perhaps even on my own property, I would be sitting in front of a jury.

Smurfslayer
January 27, 2006, 05:24 PM
1911, your right on the money here.



1. Police have enhanced liability in a situation such as this. That is more than the non-LEO citizen. I don't know why all you people think he's going to be back at work in a week. That's ridiculous and it's not going to happen.

2. I haven't seen anyone defending what this guy did, myself included. He clearly screwed up and will face the consequences for it. My point is that you can't condemn the practice because one guy screws it up. That starts to sound like a familiar argument (can we really allow an armed citizenry when we have a school shooting?).

just out of curiosity, this being a property crime, and all... Why the "overwhelming force" that you would typically see in say... Fallujah?

We don't know all the intel involved here, but OTOH, we're NEVER going to know the defendant's side. What if the intel shows this was purely a bookmaking operation, no indication of violence or tendency?

Doesn't that make you question whether or not you want your local PD sending in the "Tac team" for events like this?

jd25q
January 27, 2006, 05:34 PM
I tell you what I see on this forum. It's a real paranoid anti-law enforcement bias on many parts. You've got to come out in the real world every now and again and see what's going on. It's like you sit here and see all these conspiracies and pretty soon you start to believe them.

I'll never tell you there aren't bad, incompetent, and dirty LEO's out there. You'll find this in every profession. But some times things are exactly as they seem, in my experience more often than not. These things happen, and I don't say that to excuse it. But there's something like 4 million of us out here who do a decent job every day and just want to come home after the shift.

A lot of you attack law enforcement with the same tactics the anti-Second Amendment people use. They take a few well publicized events and use that to paint all gun owners in the same light. Good luck with all this, I've wasted enough time here.

NineseveN
January 27, 2006, 05:57 PM
A lot of you attack law enforcement with the same tactics the anti-Second Amendment people use. They take a few well publicized events and use that to paint all gun owners in the same light. Good luck with all this, I've wasted enough time here.

Um, wha....?

If criticizing the procedures LEOs are allowed to use is "atacking law enforcement", I don't know what to say. Some of my better friends are LEO's, but this is a procedure that is crap and they agree (as did the article posted earlier). You defended that procedure, and when were trying to tell you why we thought this type of procedure was bad, you took it from an LEO-only standpoint and came off like somehow everyone is felon and that your life is more important than a regular citizen's...then you start with the "cop bashing stuff". :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm not reading all of the replies, I have not bashed cops in general in this thread.


Oh well. *sigh*

cordex
January 27, 2006, 07:39 PM
An officer screwed up and killed a cooperative suspect. That much we know.

It is possible that the training the officer received from his department contributed to the negligent discharge. It is also possible that the officer failed to heed the training he received. At this point we don't know, as we don't know how he was trained.

Some officers here have said that it is entirely reasonable to train to cover most suspects - even ones appearing to be cooperative - as long as their finger is off the trigger. I'd say that in so doing one accepts the potential fallout from negligently killing someone as in this case - and there should be serious fallout from an negligent killing.

In any analogous situation, chances are extremely good that a non-LEO would serve time. At this point, we don't know what is going to happen to this officer except that he is currently on paid leave (as is utterly typical of an officer involved in a shooting). Until we know what will happen to the officer, it is pretty pointless to get worked up about their possible fates.

If and when we hear that Officer Friendly is going to go home with a slap on the wrist and a promotion, let's all get mad as hell. If and when we hear that the shooter is going to spend some serious time behind bars, let's remember that LEO doesn't always mean Let 'Em Off next time we're prognosticating on the outcome of an apparent police screwup, eh wot?

For those of you who are most upset about this situation, watch it and reply to this thread with what happens in six months or a year. It's easy to say "Nothing bad will happen to the cop because he's a cop," and it may often appear to work that way, but here's a chance to prove your point one way or another. The administration admits the cop screwed up. Let's see what happens.

Maxwell
January 27, 2006, 08:27 PM
That's exactly my point. In the real world you don't know, but when conditions get to a certain point in pays to be prepared.

I believe the 2nd amendment was meant to apply to everyone.
I also believe that the rules of firearms safety apply to everyone.

Yes in the real world there are times when officers or soldiers might want to take shortcuts, and accidents will happen because of that, but they are not then absolved for ignoring the rules because they "had better training". If you point a gun at something and magicly goes off on its own, your still held responsable for that shot.

You dont hold a loaded weapon to your head no matter how much faith you have in its trigger assembly, why would you do that to someone else if you have no intention of shooting them?

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 08:39 PM
Maxwell:

>You dont hold a loaded weapon to your head no matter how much faith you have in its trigger assembly, why would you do that to someone else if you have no intention of shooting them?<
******************************

I don't think it's a question of holding a gun on somebody with the intent of shooting...but rather one of holding somebody at gunpoint in hopes that you won't HAVE to shoot him, but conveying that you're ready and willing to do so if it comes to that.

In agreement with others who are watching to see what the outcome is...and any disciplinary action taken against the officer involved. I think that there should be...but there's no way of knowing. I tend to think that...with the negative publicity this has generated...there must be. Heads, we must assume, will roll.

duckslayer
January 27, 2006, 08:41 PM
So why is the suspect's identity allowed to be disclosed to the public, while the LEO who shot him is not publicly ID'd?

If he is not charged with a crime, I suppose the people of Fairfax will never know who the negligent officer was?

Maxwell
January 27, 2006, 09:21 PM
holding somebody at gunpoint in hopes that you won't HAVE to shoot him

That answer sounds indecisive about something you should be more sure of when bringing lethal force to bear.
If I approached an officer with a weapon pointed at his face, he would have full authority to kill me. If he approaches me with a weapon to MY face, what should my response be?

As you said, things are not always 100% clear. What if I dont know its a cop and all I see is someone jumping out a car with a gun to my head?

If I shot him accidentally with a ccw piece, I'd be in a world of trouble.
If he shot me, its just an accident?

I think rules should work for everyone, not just weighed on me when Im trying to get police approval to carry a weapon.

azredhawk44
January 27, 2006, 09:26 PM
Do unintentional shootings occur? Absolutely. We're humans, and these kind of things do occur.

Hey, I'm a human too. Does that mean I can F*** up and off somebody and write it off as an accident? Heck no.

There's some dirty laundry here, methinks.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 09:52 PM
Maxwell:

>That answer sounds indecisive about something you should be more sure of when bringing lethal force to bear.<
***************************

During a threat management action, the absolute decision to fire hasn't been made. It's on the table, but held in reserve. The move is made in hopes that the covered party will comply, and firing won't be necessary. Make no mistake about it, though...If the situation is potentially serious enough for me to level a loaded weapon at someone, there's no indecision on my part. From that point, it's largely up to him what happens, and though I would much prefer not to fire...I will if he forces my hand. If he surrenders or stands down...he doesn't get shot. Another point that has been made...If a cop or private citizen waits to go for the weapon until firing is a certainty...there's a good chance that it'll be too late. It's tough to beat the drop, especially from a retention rig.

The cop's job is to take control of the scene. By intimidation if he can...By force if necessary.

Maxwell
January 27, 2006, 10:16 PM
If a cop or private citizen waits to go for the weapon until firing is a certainty...there's a good chance that it'll be too late.

Thats understood when you draw the weapon on someone who is most likely a threat. Question here is what happens when your pulling a gun just to get a submissive response?

Back to the rules.

A gun is not a pointing device, its not a badge and its not a megaphone. If you point it at someone, you should be ready to accept the consequences of shooting that person.

If you pull a gun on some punk just to make him kow-tow, and the thing goes off and hits him, your still responsable for breaking the basic rules of firearm safety.
Being a police officer or being under stress dosnt change anything.

You treated a loaded weapon as if it was "safe", you pointed it at a human being you did not intend to kill, and you put your finger on the trigger before you were ready to fire.

1911Tuner
January 27, 2006, 10:40 PM
Quotes:

Thats understood when you draw the weapon on someone who is most likely a threat. Question here is what happens when your pulling a gun just to get a submissive response?

>Back to the rules.<

Okay...
*************

>A gun is not a pointing device, its not a badge and its not a megaphone. If you point it at someone, you should be ready to accept the consequences of shooting that person.<

Agreed.
****************

>If you pull a gun on some punk just to make him kow-tow, and the thing goes off and hits him, your still responsable for breaking the basic rules of firearm safety. Being a police officer or being under stress dosnt change anything.<

You're making assumptions that are a little wide of the mark aren't you?
The gun isn't pulled to make some punk kow-tow. It's pulled because
there's a high threat level, and reason to believe that the "punk" will likely
use his own weapon. Sorry to inform you that some of'em absolutely will
not comply to a verbal command, and many will start firing at a cop or anybody else who tries to impede his progress. Note the number of police officers that have died at the hands of such citizens. How many would be alive if thay had covered the suspect beforehand?
***********************************
>You treated a loaded weapon as if it was "safe", you pointed it at a human being you did not intend to kill, and you put your finger on the trigger before you were ready to fire.<

You're still making asumptions. The cop in question put his finger on the trigger and fired before there was a real reason to do so. That's not an indication that every cop who covers a suspect has his finger on the trigger
and applying pressure...conciously or not. There are incompetent cops just like there are incompetent barbers. There are also many good ones out there
who don't walk around hoping that some punk will make his day...but they'll still cover him just in case he makes them feel that he's a potential cop-killer.
See...Cops don't want to get shot any more than you do.

A question to you is in order...

Suppose you catch a guy coming into your house. You have the drop on him,
and he seems to be just some harmless druggie trying to steal something to fund his habit. Do you hold a gun on him until you can call 911? Do you
holster the gun and make the call? Do you pull the gun at all? Or do you go ahead and kill him just because you have legal justification. Killing is easy. All it takes is a twitch of a finger. Living with it afterward is the hard part.

Armchair quarterbacking is easy. Playing the game for real is much less so.

stevelyn
January 27, 2006, 11:01 PM
Said it before, will say it again. Glocks and similar weapons are inherently unsafe, and manufacturers should be sued out of existence. Sadly, that now includes S&W. Those weapons are especially dangerous when placed in the hands of slightly trained LEOs who routinely point weapons at people for any excuse or no excuse with impunity.

Yeah..........Let's blame the tool rather than the tool holding it.:rolleyes:
However, I would have to agree there is a "lets get in on the gunplay" attitude.

Rule #2 does NOT apply in Law Enforcement. I've covered many people that I didn't not intend to shoot. Rule #3 is modified "until you are ready to shoot".

Road Apples! Rule #2 DOES apply in law enforcement. Ever hear the term "Guard Position" or "Guard"? Gun out, muzzle down at 45 degrees, finger off trigger.
The only "modification" to Rule #3 is that if you have to shoot, you take the slack up on the trigger as you come up on the target.
Sounds like someone needs to go back to gun scrool for remedial training.:rolleyes:

All hail another "victory" in the War on Victimless crimes.

Justin
January 27, 2006, 11:21 PM
I don't see this one going anywhere but downhill.

If you enjoyed reading about "Police shoot, kill unarmed bookie" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!