“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book”

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

LightningCrash

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
105
Location
OKC
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/“wh...a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/

Excerpt:
Sal Culosi is dead because he bet on a football game — but it wasn’t a bookie or a loan shark who killed him. His local government killed him, ostensibly to protect him from his gambling habit.

Several months earlier at a local bar, Fairfax County, Virginia, detective David Baucum overheard the thirty-eight-year-old optometrist and some friends wagering on a college football game. “To Sal, betting a few bills on the Redskins was a stress reliever, done among friends,” a friend of Culosi’s told me shortly after his death. “None of us single, successful professionals ever thought that betting fifty bucks or so on the Virginia–Virginia Tech football game was a crime worthy of investigation.” Baucum apparently did. After overhearing the men wagering, Baucum befriended Culosi as a cover to begin investigating him. During the next several months, he talked Culosi into raising the stakes of what Culosi thought were just more fun wagers between friends to make watching sports more interesting. Eventually Culosi and Baucum bet more than $2,000 in a single day. Under Virginia law, that was enough for police to charge Culosi with running a gambling operation. And that’s when they brought in the SWAT team.

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team began to move in. Seconds later, Det. Deval Bullock, who had been on duty since 4:00 AM and hadn’t slept in seventeen hours, fired a bullet that pierced Culosi’s heart.

Sal Culosi’s last words were to Baucum, the cop he thought was a friend: “Dude, what are you doing?”
 

otis147

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
97
Location
oklahoma
who thought it was a good idea to outfit cops in t-shirts gleefully advocating assaulting protesters?

we get up early to beat the crowds?
we beat your father's ass in 1968, now it's your turn?
 

Hobbes

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
8,738
Reaction score
749
Location
The Nations
Looks like a row of RoboCops in that pic.

what is the justification for these laws against gambling, anyway.
Maybe one of our resident social engineers can chime in here.
 

cjjtulsa

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
7,244
Reaction score
2,335
Location
Oologah
Posse Comitatus stays intact; just put a "SWAT" team in every town, big or small, outfit them with military equipment (but not necessarily military training), and give "regular" officers some of the same equipment. Military not necessary - unless things get beyond the ability of the "authorities". Better mind your Ps and Qs, Mr. and Mrs. Public.
 

n8thegr8

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
3
Location
Oklahoma City
what is the justification for these laws against gambling, anyway.
Maybe one of our resident social engineers can chime in here.

I'm guessing it has something to do with them not being able to track the money, and thus not being able to tax it. Also, it's a good way to launder money. It all about the money.
 

LightningCrash

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,886
Reaction score
105
Location
OKC
also related
tumblr_mnykhbaQci1qb5u24o1_400.gif
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,427
Reaction score
15,663
Location
Collinsville
Just got through watching a thread go down in flames on another forum over DUI checkpoints and excessive LE tactics. It made me recall a post I made a little over a year ago on the subject of LE excess in response to a LEO, after the IA State Supreme Court ruling that a homeowner has no right to resist unlawful LE actions. I'll just leave this here:

I'm sorry, but until I review your credentials and the warrant you're serving, I do not in fact know to a reasonable degree that you are in fact a police officer with legal authority to enter my private dwelling. That's kinda hard to do when you lead with a Halligan tool and an M4.

Are you a LEO? I ask because it helps to frame the response. I'm a LEO AND a citizen. I think what we're seeing here is backlash that goes all the way back to the Ruby Ridge and Waco raids. Lately there seems to be a rash of reports regarding suspect raid planning, all the way to raiding the wrong addresses. This is a pressure cooker subject. When the pressure gets high enough, something's gotta give.

A point to consider is John Stossel's recent report on "too many laws". It highlighted raids that were obviously over the top, to include agents pointing guns at unarmed, compliant people. Where I come from, that's aggravated assault. Further that with laws that allow the police to lie to the people, but the people can't legally do the same. Other reports of citizens being arrested for video taping the police from their own property and in no way interfering with the law enforcement operation, and 18 states where it is illegal to record the police, but the police can record the people. Then you add in government meetings that are in direct violation of the Open Records Act and LE agencies telling citizens and other LE agencies to "file a FOIA request" for information pertinent to their own jurisdiction and rights.

All this adds up to a distrust of the government and it's LE agencies. So, how did it come to this? Does a police officer automatically deserve to be trusted with your life and your property and your rights, just because he has a badge? The short answer is no. Where the disconnect comes from are entrenched and embattled agencies that don't remember their primary mission, which is the safety and security of it's own community. Too many police officers think goal #1 is to arrest someone and send them to prison. I didn't say a majority, just too many.

When an agency makes a mistake, it turtles up and sometimes even lashes out at it's critics. If you plan a raid and you hit the wrong address, you're in deep ****. Do you accept your culpability and renounce your qualified immunity? No. You get told by the agency lawyers to shut your mouth and they wage a campaign designed to reduce the liability of the agency. This doesn't always happen at every agency, but it does happen, so you get the picture.

Now, let's say you're Joe Blow who possibly commits a felony a week and never has a clue that it happened, because the law is pig ignorant. Now, let's say you've watched the 6pm news every night and seen several reports over the past few months about armed robbers posing as police to steal gun collections (happened in my jurisdiction). Suddenly, it's zero dark thirty and you're awakened to hear a loud crash and people yelling in your home. You're groggy, scared and fight or flight dumps the adrenaline into your bloodstream. You grab your HD carbine and suddenly, you see a man wearing blue jeans, a thigh holster and a dark jacket wielding a gun in the hallway. You react and defend your home, because there's no reasonable explanation as to why the police would be there, because you're not a criminal. You shoot him and his fellow officers light you up. You survive (barely), only to finds that the police are saying you're one step removed from Charles Manson and now you're being charged with murder, along with a long list of lesser crimes that amount to what is essentially a "kitchen sink" indictment. You have to ask yourself, "How did this happen?".

I'm not saying police shouldn't conduct raids, but I think they've been used in far too many instances where they shouldn't. The local Sheriff pretty much told the ATF that he could go to the Branch Davidian compound and get David Koresh to come out and talk. He also told them they could simply wait and he would come to town, where they could arrest him. But that wasn't what they wanted. Same for Ruby Ridge. The ATF wanted Randy Weaver as an informant, so they convinced him to break the law where he had no intent to do so. When he told them where to go, the raid was a "show" to prove that they were bigger than him and he should "play ball".

Jose Guerena could have easily been picked up at the Arasco mine where he worked after the end of his graveyard shift. Yet PCSO elected to raid his home when he could reasonably be expected to be asleep. After they killed him, they've done nothing but obstruct and obfuscate the investigation of the raid itself.

Now you have the Indiana State Supreme Court doing a 180 on a law that dates back to the Magna Carta. The lead Justice states:
Quote:
We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.
He's saying that if an officer commits a criminal act against you, you have no recourse under criminal law (qualified immunity), you cannot resist this unlawful act and your only recourse is to pursue a civil case, IF you have the means to do so. Seriously? WTF???

I will not argue the law's right to enter the premises in each of the aforementioned cases. However, one common thread runs through all of them. In none of those cases did the need of the law to enter, outweigh the safety of the unarmed non-combatants who had broken no laws. The use of SWAT style raids in serving warrants is OUT OF CONTROL. Under the same circumstances, meaning criminals mixed with unarmed civilians, SWAT would NEVER storm a building with armed hold up men or armed and barricaded suspects, unless the lives of the innocent civilians were in immediate danger. I'm sorry, but the need to secure evidence in a criminal case should NEVER take precedence over human lives. It's cowboy police work at it's worst.

I realize that this means some drug dealers and bad guys will take longer to arrest. I realize that it will require more police resources, intel, planning, care and potential risk for the police to get the bad guys and be the hero of the day for making their community safer, but that's part of the job. This is a failure of police policy and administration to recognize a flaw in their SOP's and react accordingly. When you push it to the level that they did in Indiana, they shouldn't be surprised when lawmakers make that decision for them. Now, they've lost the respect of their community and a tool in their toolbox as a result. It's their fault, not the legislature's. It's their fault, not the citizens. It's their fault, not the court's. THEY are solely to blame for this. Now they've increased the risk to their own officers as a result. It's shameful that it's coming to this in America.

As a LEO AND a citizen, I walk in two worlds. I never take one for granted when in the other. Sadly, I believe that some have. Let's hope more people don't have to die for this to change.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom