Police shoot, kill unarmed bookie

[Old Dog]

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]

quote:

"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]

Remind me someone,of exactly why I am supposed to respect these "professionals"...

 

[grimjaw]

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]

$.02

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]

if you are a bookie

you have to give the guys with guns a piece of the action..or else!

 

[444]

"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]

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?

 

[JJohnston015]

Government, of course. They're being denied their share of the commerce.

 

[444]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

And they ask me why I don't trust the police...

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

 

[Rumpled]

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]

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]

And let's hear it for the continued militarization of our nation's police forces.

 

[buzz_knox]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

Err, I have a problem with that

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]

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!