Officer Won't Face Charges in Shooting Death

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brat7748

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
134
Location
Utica, New York
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301117.html

The Fairfax County police officer who shot an unarmed man to death in January will not be charged with a crime, the county's chief prosecutor announced this afternoon.

From the start, Fairfax police declared that the killing of Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., 37, was an accident and that the SWAT officer who fired had done so unintentionally. Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."
 
This situation really makes me mad. LA forms a SWAT team so every whistle stop has to have one. And once you have one, you have to use it to justify its continued existence.
This is the type of thing that happens when you militarize the police. Send a SWAT team, in armor and carrying subguns to arrest a small time bookie? Talk about overkill!
They are in full cover-up mode. They have to cover for the decision to send the SWAT team to make a small arrest and search, and they have to cover up this clown who seems to be too stupid to follow basic rules about pointing a gun, with a cocked hammer with his finger on the trigger, at an unarmed man.
I hope the family sues and wins.
 
Well....I'm glad the rules don't apply to them as it does us!!!! Total BS

hmm lets see what he said......

Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."

I guess the "us" you refer are NON persons?
 
Wow! Wonder if it's possible to check VA records to make sure that no one has been convicted of this non-crime. I thought those circumstances usually resulted in involuntary manslaughter charges. Guess I was wrong.
 
"when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, they do not commit a crime."

Hmmm - wonder what planet this chap is from?
 
Make no mistake about it, any LEO that pulls his/her side arm has intent.
these swat teams are overkill in small police forces. just tring to outdo each other IMO.
 
There is a similar case in Truth or Consequences New Mexico where Elephant Butte Lake State park ranger Clyde Woods shot a man who resisted arrest, as he walked away from the ranger with his hands in his pockets. Ranger Woods made a neat group in his back with two rounds from his 40cal. at 15 feet.
Looks like Woods will get a couple of years tops.

If any non-leo did that we'd be facing 20 years or more and our trials would have enabled us to already have six months served.

Maybe it's just a fad or trend that will go away.
 
So I guess manslaughter is legal (long as you sport a badge?).

lpl/nc (nope, no two- tier system at work here, move along there's nothing to see)
 
Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."

Astonishing statement. The implications are just amazing.
 
Not a 'crime'

Let us watch and see how well the shooter and agency fare in the no-question-about-it civil suit.

I don't really like the militarization of police agencies either. However, an officer has to have some benefit of doubt in performing his duties. The officer in this case has been given that doubt. I rather suspect it will not carry through to the civil suit.

The incident of the park ranger intentionally shooting someone in the back seems a different matter. I'll have to look up the details.

And yes; the same should apply to any citizen. The devil, as usual, is in the details. What indications or evidence exists to show frame of mind, intent and the accidental nature of the weapon being fired? 'Stuff" happens; but it should be applied equally to all.
 
At this point, I'm wondering if they ought to mandate that LEO handguns MUST have a manual safety, since they're obviously not willing to budget for effective training.

Just too many NDs resulting in the deaths of citizens...and no accountability for it. No responsibility. It's not their fault, no charges.

But if a private citizen did the same...
 
I looked up the Clyde Woods shooting...

Check out http://nodonut.alfablog.com/post/2438/stolen_lives/new_mexico_murder_arrest.html for part of the story. The short version is, Ranger Clyde Woods was arrested and charged with second degree murder. The 'police' acted in what seems to be a fair and equal fashion.

Then, look at http://www.newschannel10.com/Global/story.asp?S=4670085
It was the judge who reduced the charges to involuntary manslaughter. This reduction was in answer to a motion by the defense counsel.

By all accounts, Ranger Woods has been suspended from duties. An investigation is underway.

Just as a matter of curiousity, what is Bruce Teschner's background? Why did he think he was exempt from the rules of the park and campgrounds? Did Mr Teschner reach in his pocket for a weapon? What was a reasonable man to do when faced with a non-compliant, belligerent and potentially armed person?

So, despite Mr Curry's limited exposition, the police are not covering up Ranger Woods actions; a judge - presumed to be impartial - has seen fit to reduce the charges; and it looks like there's more to the story.

Should we perhaps see what transpires?
 
Sounds like an accident, not a crime. Something for the civil courts to handle.
 
WT's got it.

IANAL, but there two things that could make a person guilty of involuntary manslaughter:
1. Intent to cause serious bodily injury or death.
2. "During the course of the conduct, the accused [must forsee] that he or she may be putting another at risk of injury. A choice must be made at that point in time. By deciding to proceed, the accused actually intends the other to be exposed to the risk of that injury." -quoted from wikipedia

Assuming he didn't intend to shoot he guy, it all is based on whether it was negligent to aim at the man. So, if it's standard operation procedure, then the guy can't be criminally responsible for the accidental shooting. You could argue that he shouldn't have, but it wouldn't win in court. He most likely never had time to realise what was going on, pointed a the guy, was suprised, didn't yet know if the man was armed, squeezed too hard.

On the other hand, of course the family can sue the pants off the PD for wrongfull death. That's where the problem is, in the operating procedures of the PD.
 
Recklessness

Recklessness or willful blindness is defined as a wanton disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge for fun, but it lands on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist. However, if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who dropped it would be reckless and this would usually be sufficient to convict of manslaughter.

From that same link.

Pointing a loaded firearm center of mass at an unarmed, non-violent, yet-to-be-convicted individual with you finger on the trigger is indeed recklessness. The intent was not to kill the suspect (hopefully), the intent was to cover someone with the muzzle of a firearm where little to no excusable reason existed for the officer to do so.
 
And as was predicted in this thread, the cop faces no charges. This article is interesting however, as it does support many of the contentions that were made by those that felt the LEO was in the wrong in this case.


**********************************************
WAT 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. ***[NineseveN's note - AND the HK .45's have manual safeties, which means that the officer pointed a loaded firearm at a non-violent suspect and disengaged the safety and they had his or her finger on the trigger...can't get much more willful or negligent than that]***

"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
**********************************************



Empahsis, bold, italics, underlines and color is mine.
 
IANAL, but there two things that could make a person guilty of involuntary manslaughter:
1. Intent to cause serious bodily injury or death.
2. "During the course of the conduct, the accused [must forsee] that he or she may be putting another at risk of injury. A choice must be made at that point in time. By deciding to proceed, the accused actually intends the other to be exposed to the risk of that injury."
IANAL either, but #1 is wrong. Intent makes it murder. And I'd say aiming at an unarmed man with your finger on the trigger is making the choice to proceed and exposing that unarmed man to the risk of that injury.
 
Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."

Wow, that's a hell of an interpretation.

I hope someone reminds him of this when it's a non LEO shooting.....most places would call it negligent homicide.
 
when a person fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."
***,O? If this had happened in my jurisdiction, back in the day, the miscreant would have been charged with involuntary manslaughter, regardless of who (s)he was. :banghead:

I certainly don't wish to align myself with the cop bashers on this forum, but I can't help but agree that if this had been some armed citizen holding a suspect at gunpoint, he'd be in the slammer charged with murder, and the DA wouldn't accept anything less than a plea to a manslaughter charge. :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
 
Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. said that when a person LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER fires a gun without malice and unintentionally kills someone, "they do not commit a crime."


btw: are there any resident law enforcement officers here [ or defenders ] who wish to agree that its perfectly acceptable for a LEO to have a negligent discharge and kill someone?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top