Interesting: SWAT Tactics at Issue After Fairfax Shooting

In a similiar case, this was the result.

The parents of a Kennesaw police recruit killed by an instructor [who pointed an "unloaded" gun at her chest and intentionally pulled the trigger] during firearms training said Wednesday they are frustrated and angry that the 26-year officer responsible was neither charged with a crime nor fired... .

On March 2, a Cobb County grand jury considered charges of reckless conduct and involuntary manslaughter against Cobb Sheriff's Sgt. Al Jackson, but it declined to indict him. On Monday, Cobb Sheriff Neil Warren announced that Jackson would be demoted to the rank of deputy and suspended for 30 days without pay.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/0323cobbrecruit.html

Does anyone honestly think a civilian would get off as easily? No. It's hard to watch COPS (local police at their best because the chief controls editing) or read the news about these "double standard" cases without losing respect for LE in general.
 
So negligent homicide/manslaughter isn't a crime?
Apparently not, if you wear a badge.:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:

It's nice to know we "civilians," as the badge wearers love to call us, are nothing more than walking three dimensional silhouette targets.
 
WPO agrees - special deals for special people

Leniency in Fairfax
WASHINGTON POST
Saturday, March 25, 2006; Page A18

THE FAIRFAX COUNTY police officer who shot and killed Salvatore J. Culosi in the course of a routine arrest in January did so accidentally; about that there is no argument. We believe it when the county's top prosecutor, Robert F. Horan Jr., says that the officer is "as shattered by this as any good police officer should be." But Mr. Horan is wrong not to press charges against the officer. His decision reinforces the notion that prosecutors give special treatment to police officers who err, no matter how disastrous the consequences.

Mr. Culosi, 37, was shot while being arrested on suspicion of being a sports bookmaker. An optometrist, he had no criminal record and owned no firearms. An undercover detecti ve had been placing bets with him for several months and presumably knew that Mr. Culosi presented no particular threat of violence. Still, the Fairfax police sent a SWAT team to make the arrest -- a deployment of excessive force. It was one of the SWAT officers, Deval V. Bullock, who shot Mr. Culosi.

Mr. Bullock offered no explanation for how or why he pulled the trigger. By his extensive training and experience -- Mr. Bullock, 40, is a 17-year veteran of the police force -- he knew that he should not have had his finger on the trigger. Indeed, he knew he should not have even aimed his gun at anyone during a routine arrest. Despite that knowledge, he unaccountably pointed his weapon at Mr. Culosi, who, standing on the street in front of his suburban townhouse, was offering no resistance. And he pulled the trigger.

If a civilian armed with a handgun had behaved in a similarly negligent fashion and killed someone, it is almost inconceivable that prosecutors would have dropped the matter. At the least Mr. Horan should have referred Mr. Culosi's case to a grand jury to decide whether the circumstances merited a charge of involuntary manslaughter against Mr. Bullock.

Mr. Horan has been the top prosecutor in Fairfax since Lyndon B. Johnson was president, but he has never prosecuted a police officer for wrongfully shooting a citizen. He's had his chances. In 2000 he closed the books on a police officer who fired 16 shots at an innocent Howard University student, Prince C. Jones Jr., killing him. In the case of Mr. Culosi, who paid the ultimate price for Mr. Bullock's error, justice is important. So is the appearance of justice, if people are to maintain their confidence in the justice system.
* * *

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032401687.htm
 
LEO are our Society's "Sacred Killers"... and yes, they oftentimes "get away with" actions that would see you or I charged with violation of statute # XYZ.

F4GIB, I've read your posts here (and there) for years and I think (know?) that you are one of the watchdogs who "watch" our "watchdogs" and often inflame "them" by your words (while they inflame you with their deeds, it would seem). A form of Checks and Balances as it were. A worthy cause.

And yet, our society has deemed their (LEO's) presence worthy, nay, mandatory. Our legislaters enact even MORE laws requiring someone to enforce them (or not unless it's felt needed).

"They won't apply this logic to you or me..." you say.

You are correct. I am not trained to, nor paid to, ride towards the sound of gunfire. To wade into a drunken domestic disturbance full well knowing the potential downside. To selectively enforce our ever plentiful and still growing, list of laws. To watch bad guys walk out the door before the paperwork is even finished.

While this (and other) incident(s) is/(are) unfortunate, should the DA/Grand Jury ever decide to use other language holding themselves "to blame" they open the doors to:
a) financial exposure of said institution/gov't
b) hanging Cop(s) out to dry (throwing them under the bus)
c) potential elimination of good guys and gals who believe in Law & Order vs Chaos and who will act as the "Shield" to protect whoever it is they protect (local gov't more than likely as Courts have ruled that LE Agencies are not here to protect the average citizen)
d) put their own jobs at risk

Ah, that "Social Contract" that no one really remembers signing, yet pays for daily...

I suspect that you know all this, but feel compelled to stir up the pot now and then to level the playing field for us "common men". (that watchdog thing again) Is Law your profession, by any chance? Or perhaps might it be altruism at its finest and I'm just another cynic? (Both questions rhetorical in nature with no ill will generated towards anyone, excepting of course, ne'er-do-wells and evil-doers, wherever they are found)

If the DA, as an "Officer of the Court" ever abandons his (or her) Cops or hangs them out to dry, do you really think that the abandoned Cops brothers in arms, are going to work extra hard for that "Officer of the Court" in the future?

Call me a Cynic (I am), but it sure seems like another fine example of "Business as Usual" in America today. And Orwell was right. Some animals ARE more equal. But bad guys (and bad Cops) usually get what they deserve in one fashion or another.

By the way. I always enjoy reading your posts/threads and the controversy that ensues. :D
 
I have not seen anything saying Horan actually took this to a grand jury.
It appears he is using prosecutorial discretion to not bring any charges.
He also declined to preffer charges when a Maryland officer trailed a suspect into Virginia and was subsequently killed.
A large civil award was obtained last I heard.

This is the same Horan who repeatedly over almost 15 years refused to take any action when Fairfax county had a 5 day waiting period for handguns.
The law in effect at the time allowed release of the gun to the buyer if the police did not complete the check in time.
Horan repeatedly said he would prosecute any FFL who released a handgun without receiving the OK from the Fairfax Police.
This law is OBE, having been eliminated by the changes in the Virginia code pre-empting all local gun regulations.
Horan is not a particular friend of gun owners.
 
I have not seen anything saying Horan actually took this to a grand jury.
It appears he is using prosecutorial discretion to not bring any charges.

His decision alone.

But "taking" it to a Grand Jury would'nt have been more than smoke and mirrors (to spread the responsibility among a group of unknown persons). The prosecutor (alone) has complete control over what the GJ sees or hears in their secret proceedings. He can easily "tailor" the evidence to have the case thrown out. Just don't call a particular witness or simply don't ask the crucial question. Or mischaracterize the evidence (GJ members look to the prosecutor for guidence as to the law) during summation. It's easy to tank a charge, if you want to.
 
Baba Louie posted:
F4GIB, I've read your posts here (and there) for years and I think (know?) that you are one of the watchdogs who "watch" our "watchdogs" and often inflame "them" by your words (while they inflame you with their deeds, it would seem). A form of Checks and Balances as it were. A worthy cause.

My position statement:
Gosh. I'm sure no police "groupie" (don't hope I'll become one). I'm a former prosecutor, former public defender, former police civil service comission member. I've been around LEO's professionally for over 3 decades.

I write about police CONDUCT and almost never about the personality of the officer (I try to never do so). A police officer who is nasty as a junk yard dog but who doesn't let his bad personality affect his job won't hear any complaints from me. I don't care if an officer's spouse or dog "loves" or "hates" him or her. I don't care if the prosecutor "needs" him. I do care about the officer's performance of his or her public employment and that JOB PERFORMANCE is fair game for public criticism. The same goes for public prosecutors and other participants in the criminal justice system. On this or any other public forum.

I've come over the years to think SWAT teams are used too often to do inappropriate tasks. Like driving finishing nails into fine furniture with a 16-pound hammer.

The mentality and tactics properly needed for a hostage rescue may actually increase the risk to non-police in other situations (such as the gambling optomitrist incident). The infliction of terror, injury, and even death on civilians (expecially those next door or at the wrong address) too often outweights the benefit. "Oops, we're sorry about that," isn't sufficient.

I acknowledge that intentional use of "deadly force" by SWAT teams may be very low but shooting "accidents" like the one in this thread are not. Nor are other "accidental" injuries, such as the proned out innocent 11 year-old boy shot by deputy in California, the innocent man shot (by a former SWAT member) in the head in Baltimore, or the 73 year-old innocent neighbor who died of a flash-bang induced heart attack in Minneapolis. They are incidents which should never occur.
 
Last edited:
It's not this negligent officer who should be charged with anything; that much I agree with, because his negligence was ordinary, not gross negligence, although that is arguable.

But that detail is missing the much larger, more important point. You don't need a SWAT team to arrest a bookie who is an integral part of the community, not likely to flee or resist, and isn't some bank robber, murderer, or someone known to be a violent or dangerous person. The chief, captain, or other higher up who is responsible for *authorizing* a swat team to arrest this minor criminal is the one who should, and must, be charged with negligent homocide, because it is HE who created the highly tense and explosive situation (and therefore dangerous), by authorizing a swat team arrest for such a non-violent offender. Absolutely absurd. Heads should roll, but not the scapegoat rank and file - it should be the chief who loses his job, and faces manslaughter charges. :mad:
 
It will be a tough sell to have a white shirt stand for this.
I agree they do deserve a good share of the responsability.
 
First Freedom said,
It's not this negligent officer who should be charged with anything; that much I agree with, because his negligence was ordinary, not gross negligence, although that is arguable.

So ordinary or common negligence is okay? So if we could document police officers as having a common problem of a lack of gun skills and marksmanship, then all officers would be immune to prosecution for shooting folks they should not have shot?

Please tell me this isn't what you are suggesting.

Why isn't it gross negligence. His actions resulted in the death of another. Is the consequence of death not enough to make it gross?
 
However, should we have to use the case of "Castle Doctrine" or a legitimate protection of ourselves, I would hope that Mr. Horan would be on our side and I feel that he would.

As far as the last part of this statement is there some record of Mr. Horan doing that ?

NukemJim
 
So ordinary or common negligence is okay?

Didn't say it was "okay"; but ordinary negligence is, by definition, not criminal negligence. Still should be punished civilly, and if it is 'grossly negligent', then criminally as well - it just doesn't seem to ME to be grossly negligent. What was grossly negligent was ordering swat use for this innocuous situation. Lookit, in the law, when one does a 'bad act' that results in a human death, there are essentially 3 levels of culpability based on the degree of willfulness or intentional-ness involved. You can think of this as a large continuum with wholly intentional acts on the extreme right hand, and careless or negligent acts on the left. Ordinary negligence results in civil liability. It's a tort, but not a crime. You're just stupid or careless, and you pay. Example is causing a car accident for ordinary reasons (following too close, speeding, talking on cell phone). Here, the cop, and its employer, the city, should pay for the wrongful death, because at a minimum, there is ordinary negligence (finger on trigger in high stress situation, when no threat is presented by the subject). The 2nd level is highly or grossly negligent; recklessness. This results is both civil liability AND the proper criminal charge is manslaughter (if someone dies). The cop here *may* have been grossly negligent; may not have; that's arguable, so maybe he should have been charged, to let a jury decide, on second thought. But the usual example of grossly negligent is drunk driving - you kill someone drunk driving and you get charged with manslaughter (called in that case vehicular homicide, but it's manslaughter; gross negligence resulting in death). Above that, you either (a) are so reckless as to show a depraved indifference to human life, or (b) intend serious bodily harm but actual death results, or (c) intend to kill. All of these result in both civil liability and an appropriate charge of murder, not manslaughter.

So if we could document police officers as having a common problem of a lack of gun skills and marksmanship, then all officers would be immune to prosecution for shooting folks they should not have shot?

That's correct, mostly, but it depends on all the facts and circumstances of each case, as to whether gross negligence was present. The negligence standards are applied relative to the actual community standards for the 'reasonable man', or in this case, the 'reasonable policeman', for better or worse. If the training is indeed poor, resulting in many careless officers (direct result of the level and quality of the training), then that makes each officer a little *less* culpable in any situation (less likely to be criminally negligent), and makes the agency *more* culpable in any given situation (more likely to be criminally negligent as an agency). We need more heads to roll in these situations, but it needs to be the right heads - the people who are responsible, and that's *usually* not the rank & file.

Please tell me this isn't what you are suggesting.

I'm not suggesting it. I'm telling you what the law is in all 50 states. Maybe the law should be changed....

Why isn't it gross negligence.

Well, it might be gross negligence, but I think if it is, it's a close call, because well, **** happens, and it doesn't rise to the level of carelessness or recklessness as say, driving drunk, when it's just a matter of a slipped finger

His actions resulted in the death of another. Is the consequence of death not enough to make it gross?

No, definitely not - not in and of itself. The degree of negligence and the harm that results are separate, although of course, the amount of potential harm IS used in the calculus of the degree of negligence, so it is relevant, but it's not the sole factor (the fact that a death could and did in fact result from the negligence) in determining whether gross negligence (criminal negligence) is present.

So perhaps I misspoke - the officer may or may not have been grossly negligent - perhaps he should be charged with manslaughter. But what is much more clear to me is given that "spit happens" when there's guns and apparently-poorly-trained officers around, the ordering of using swat to 'take down' this non-violent offender was pretty easily grossly (criminally) negligent. I say charge the chief with manslaughter, or whoever ordered that nonsense.
 
As an LEO I spend a lot of time in court, and I have seen many cases where NON-LEO have not been charged with murder due to the "lack of malice."

You guys are overly quick to say "they wouldn't apply this to us.." actually, yes..they would. In states where malice is a requirement, then, well, it is a requirement.

I've seen more than a fair share of murders go unpunished due to the lack of evidence supporting the malice clause.
 
As an LEO I spend a lot of time in court, and I have seen many cases where NON-LEO have not been charged with murder due to the "lack of malice."

The issue here isn't murder, it is manslaughter.

Perhaps because "malice" is a necessary element of a murder change.

"Malice" is not an element of manslaughter, however. This crime only requires some form of "negligence." How much depends on the specific law of the jurisdiction. Sometimes "gross" (a very ambiguous term); sometimes "reckless." Civilians are often charged with this because the DA thinks he has a pretty good chance of showing "enough" negligence and, in any event, he will have "punished" the citizen to the tune of $50,000 in attorney's fees (that'll send 'em a message).

Negligent homicide only requires mere negligence. Some states have added this offense but they are still a minority of jurisdictions.
 
Updates

Threads merged.

This is not "cop bashing." All I am asking to see is the equal application of the law. DeLay had his CCW revoked by the Texas authorities because he was indicted on felony charges. That was right and proper according to Texas law. But because we have an officer... The same things that an ordinary citizen would be held accountable for and charged with, don't apply to Law Enforcement?

A couple of news items from this event.

From the Washington Post (quoted portions are on page 2):
Horan said the accident "could have been based on the number of hours the officer was awake that day." He said the officer had started working at 5 a.m., overseeing a managed deer hunt in the Great Falls area aimed at thinning deer overpopulation. Horan said the officer went home at noon that day, then returned to work at 8 p.m.

Culosi was shot behind his townhouse on Cavalier Landing Court, just off Lee Highway, at 9:35 p.m.
Is the claim that "I was just too tired," a valid claim for negligence? Apparently in Fairfax County it is...
In his letter clearing the officer, Horan said that even if a weapon is discharged carelessly and negligently, there is no crime if it is done without malice. "At best, the evidence in this case does not approach criminal negligence," Horan wrote, "which, as you know, is a much higher standard. The shooting was clearly unintentional, was without malice, and was not a criminal act."
"Unintentional and without malice" is the standard for involuntary manslaughter. In most states.

Then there is this from The Connection:
"He thought his finger was straight," Horan said. "He has no explanation for how it happened."

SWAT team officers frequently assist during pre-planned arrests in Fairfax County, as they have the most extensive training in dealing with hostile and potentially dangerous suspects.

"You have no idea. No police has any idea how a potential arrestee is going to respond," Horan said. "You have to assume everyone is hostile and carrying a weapon. I believe this was an accident."

One factor that may have contributed to the accidental shooting was fatigue. Bullock had been on duty since 4 a.m., overseeing an early morning deer hunt in Great Falls. When Culosi was shot that night, the officer had been awake for nearly 17 hours.
Since we know from the other news article that Bullock was home from Noon till 8:00p.m, there was ample time to get a nap. In fact, if I was to take a split shift (and I do, one day every week), I get rest in between to be at my best that day.
Other recent cases of accidental deaths in Virginia have resulted in felony manslaughter charges.

On Saturday, Jan. 21, a 19-year-old Prince William County man was charged with involuntary manslaughter after the stolen gun he was showing off to an 18-year-old friend accidentally discharged and killed the friend.

In March 2005, a Spotsylvania County woman was charged with involuntary manslaughter after her three pit bill dogs got loose and killed her elderly neighbor.
So involuntary manslaughter is a valid charge everywhere but Fairfax County? I think this DA needs to be retired.
 
Fact: In the normal course of events guns don't go off by themselves.

Fact: An unarmed civilian was shot by a police officer.

Fact: If I were on the jury in the civil suit the payout would be quite large.


While this officer may not be charged criminally I think he may be exposed to civil liabilities as well as the local PD and government authorities.
 
"I would bet the farm that there will be a civil suit. Jackpots like these don't come around that often."

Am I the only one cringing at winning such a jackpot at the expense of my son? But that being said, once they're gone...get good while the gettin's good (sorry). I'm sure that officer is paying enough with the blood of an innocent person on his hands. If his giminy cricket is still alive I'm sure he feels bad enough. Also, do you think the danger posed to the officer once behind bars may have had something to do with why the district attorney skipped on some well deserved involuntary manslaughter charges?
 
No Charges in Accidental Killing
Salvatore Culosi Jr. was unarmed when he was killed by a Fairfax County police officer.
by Brian McNeill
March 30, 2006


Photo by Brian McNeill/The Connection
Anita Culosi, the victim's mother, said it's "pathetic" that the police officer who killed her unarmed son will not be charged.

With red-rimmed eyes and her voice cracking, Anita Culosi expressed outrage Thursday evening that a Fairfax County police officer will not be charged with a crime for accidentally killing her 37-year-old son.
"My son is lying in a cemetery," she said, surrounded by family members holding framed pictures of her son. "That man pulled a trigger and shot my son dead. I just can't handle that. It's just pathetic that they don't find something wrong with what they did to my boy."
Anita Culosi's son, Salvatore J. "Sal" Culosi Jr., was accidentally shot to death by a Fairfax County SWAT team officer on Jan. 24 outside his Fair Oaks townhouse. He had been under investigation for illegal sports gambling for the previous three months, accepting at least $28,000 in bets from an undercover Fairfax County detective.
Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Horan announced earlier Thursday that the officer, Deval Bullock, will not face any criminal charges in connection with the killing.
"The test is, is there sufficient evidence there so I can stand before a jury of 12 and ask for a conviction based on the evidence," Horan said. "In this case, the evidence is just not there."
Horan said that because the SWAT team officer did not act with malice and did not intentionally fire, no crime had been committed.
Horan expressed his sympathy for both the Culosi family and Bullock, a highly trained 17-year veteran of the Fairfax County police force.
"I feel for the family and I feel for the officer," said Horan, who has served as Fairfax County's top prosecutor for the past four decades.

AT THE TIME of the shooting, Salvatore Culosi Jr., an optometrist, was unarmed and speaking with the undercover detective about the Pittsburgh Steelers' participation in the upcoming Super Bowl.
After Culosi handed the undercover detective $1,500 in gambling winnings, Bullock zoomed in from behind in a car. As the SWAT team officer jumped out of his vehicle, he pulled out his 45-caliber Heckler & Koch semi-automatic handgun.
As the SWAT team officer raised the gun, it fired, striking Culosi in the left side of his chest. The bullet cut through the inside of his body, fatally eviscerating his liver.
"It happened just like that," said Horan, snapping his fingers. "He said, 'Police!' and after he said "police," it went ‘pow.’"
Bullock yelled out, "Are you hit? Are you hurt?" At first, Horan said, the officer did not realize he was the shooter.
According to Horan, Bullock has no recollection of pulling the trigger. An examination of the pistol determined it was working properly, Horan said.
Police officers are trained to keep their finger off the trigger until they are prepared to fire on a suspect. In this case, Horan said, Bullock believed his finger was not on the trigger.
"He thought his finger was straight," Horan said. "He has no explanation for how it happened."
SWAT team officers frequently assist during pre-planned arrests in Fairfax County, as they have the most extensive training in dealing with hostile and potentially dangerous suspects.
"You have no idea. No police has any idea how a potential arrestee is going to respond," Horan said. "You have to assume everyone is hostile and carrying a weapon. I believe this was an accident."
One factor that may have contributed to the accidental shooting was fatigue. Bullock had been on duty since 4 a.m., overseeing an early morning deer hunt in Great Falls. When Culosi was shot that night, the officer had been awake for nearly 17 hours.

BULLOCK has been assigned to a desk while an internal investigation into the incident proceeds, said Mary Ann Jennings, the police department's spokeswoman.
"He's on restricted duty — administrative duty," she said.
It is not clear if the results of the ongoing internal investigation will be made public.
The Culosi family is planning to file a civil lawsuit against the Fairfax County Police Department, said their attorney Bernard DiMuro, of the Alexandria law firm DiMuro Ginsberg.
"Excessive force and gross negligence are the standards by which civil liability is judged," DiMuro said. "We fully intend to pursue this."
DiMuro said the Culosi family believes it is wrong for the case to be settled solely by an internal investigation. He said Police Chief David Rohrer, who has served for years with Bullock, might be biased toward protecting the officer.
"There's no doubt in our mind that if the shooter had not been a police officer, he would be facing criminal charges," DiMuro said.
In light of the perceived conflict of interest, the Culosi family on Friday asked the FBI to step in and investigate the shooting.
"As grieving parents, we are heartbroken by the loss of our son," the victim's parents wrote in a letter to the FBI's Washington, D.C. field office and to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. "Added to that grief, however, is our belief there will not be a full and impartial review of the shooting.
Had Horan decided to pursue criminal charges, the officer could have faced charges of murder or manslaughter.
Other recent cases of accidental deaths in Virginia have resulted in felony manslaughter charges.
On Saturday, Jan. 21, a 19-year-old Prince William County man was charged with involuntary manslaughter after the stolen gun he was showing off to an 18-year-old friend accidentally discharged and killed the friend.
In March 2005, a Spotsylvania County woman was charged with involuntary manslaughter after her three pit bill dogs got loose and killed her elderly neighbor.

THE CULOSI FAMILY set up a Web site last week about their son's case, located at www.justiceforsal.com.
The victim's father, Salvatore Culosi Sr., said he hopes to shed light on the police department's tactic of routinely deploying SWAT teams to execute search warrants and arresting non-violent and cooperate suspects.
"Their policy is to use SWAT teams to execute search warrants? That's just absurd," he said.
In a letter to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the Culosi family asked the county for a full accounting of the investigation and to review the police department's policies regarding SWAT teams and the use of deadly force.
The Board of Supervisors questioned Police Chief Rohrer on Monday during closed session about the case's internal investigations.
Supervisor Penny Gross (D-Mason), who said she was "disappointed" about Horan's decision not to prosecute Bullock, said more information about the internal investigation must come to light.
"We need to be able to respond to Mr. and Mrs. Culosi about the death of their son," Gross said.

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=63663&paper=0&cat=109


There's no doubt in our mind that if the shooter had not been a police officer, he would be facing criminal charges," DiMuro said.

That says it all. Hey, at least he is honest about how the game of MORE EQUAL ANIMALS is played.
 
Back
Top