“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book”: The new warrior cop is out of control

[justoh]

The police have a very different account of Culosi's activities and how the investigation started.

According to the police, they had information about an illegal gambling operation being run out of a restaurant. They sent an undercover officer to the restaurant. Culosi then solicited the officer to place bets. The officer placed $28,000 in bets with Culosi over a period of several weeks. When they later executed the search warrant, they found $40,000 in Culosi's home.

This is a very different account than what is provided in the article, where the author bases his description of Culosi's gambling activities as one of placing small bets with his friends from time to time. This is based on a quotation from an anonymous friend of Culosi's, and ignores information provided by the police.

Here is the full investigation that was conducted of the incident:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police...rts/pdf/community-report-salvatore-culosi.pdf

None of this justifies the tragic shoot here. However, this author has an ax to grind and he's very selective in what facts he chooses to present.

Gee. How surprising. This is exactly the kind of behavior you would expect from someone unable to understand ostensible.

 

[BoberFett]

Less than 200 posts and justoh has already proven he's a waste of genetic material.

 

[HumblePie]

The police have a very different account of Culosi's activities and how the investigation started.

According to the police, they had information about an illegal gambling operation being run out of a restaurant. They sent an undercover officer to the restaurant. Culosi then solicited the officer to place bets. The officer placed $28,000 in bets with Culosi over a period of several weeks. When they later executed the search warrant, they found $40,000 in Culosi's home.

This is a very different account than what is provided in the article, where the author bases his description of Culosi's gambling activities as one of placing small bets with his friends from time to time. This is based on a quotation from an anonymous friend of Culosi's, and ignores information provided by the police.

Here is the full investigation that was conducted of the incident:

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police...rts/pdf/community-report-salvatore-culosi.pdf

None of this justifies the tragic shoot here. However, this author has an ax to grind and he's very selective in what facts he chooses to present.

That may all be true. I haven't done the research. Nor would I take the value of what I read as the truth from that article. There are very strong words used that generate a slant. Of that there is no doubt. One can see that from the title of the article.

How the author presented their story though is proper use of that word. Deny it all you want, but it doesn't change that. I'm not claiming the article is 100% factually correct in that statement either.

The way justoh made his point about not reading beyond the first paragraph because of a SINGLE word does imply he got hung up on the grammatical use of that word. That he never went further than that to investigate if the author actually at least told a story to validate the use of that word grammatically. Something he was made fun of by other posters as well as myself.

If he had said, "wow this is a slanted article. Just look at how badly he tried to slant the reader against the police for this case when clearly the research into the event shows XXXXXX. That reading beyond how bad that story was mis-represented shows there is no more merit to further reading of the article in my opinion."

THAT would have been a better way to convey, what you are assuming he was trying to convey and I'll give benefit of the doubt, with his original contentious post. However, that is NOT what he said or presented with that post.

 

[justoh]

Less than 200 posts and justoh has already proven he's a waste of genetic material.

Why so mean, bro? Don't be so quick to dismiss induction, bro. Don't be an ampliative inference hater. All I did was point out a good reason to suspect the integrity of the author, and I turned out to be right about him. What have you posted apart from a nasty and unnecessary insult.

Parks and recreation is rubbish. See? Doesn't feel good, does it?

 

[fskimospy]

Why so mean, bro? Don't be so quick to dismiss induction, bro. Don't be an ampliative inference hater. All I did was point out a good reason to suspect the integrity of the author, and I turned out to be right about him. What have you posted apart from a nasty and unnecessary insult.

Parks and recreation is rubbish. See? Doesn't feel good, does it?

Don't mind Boberfett, that's pretty much all he does. He runs into a thread, waves his arms and rages impotently for a minute, and then he's done. He just wants our attention and our love.

 

[Paul98]

Gee. How surprising. This is exactly the kind of behavior you would expect from someone unable to understand ostensible.

Considering how many posts you have made in this thread how about you read the initial post.

 

[BoberFett]

Don't mind Boberfett, that's pretty much all he does. He runs into a thread, waves his arms and rages impotently for a minute, and then he's done. He just wants our attention and our love.

You're still here? Don't you have bureaucrat to fellate somewhere?

 

[BoberFett]

Why so mean, bro? Don't be so quick to dismiss induction, bro. Don't be an ampliative inference hater. All I did was point out a good reason to suspect the integrity of the author, and I turned out to be right about him. What have you posted apart from a nasty and unnecessary insult.

Parks and recreation is rubbish. See? Doesn't feel good, does it?

In other words, when facts aren't on your side, you can always depend on semantics to derail a discussion.

Crawl back under the rock from which you ostensibly came.

 

[fskimospy]

You're still here? Don't you have bureaucrat to fellate somewhere?

Don't worry, I won't forget about you. You will always have a place in my heart. If you really want attention you can just ask.

 

[BoberFett]

Don't worry, I won't forget about you. You will always have a place in my heart. If you really want attention you can just ask.

No thanks, I don't need an STD.

 

[justoh]

In other words, when facts aren't on your side, you can always depend on semantics to derail a discussion.

Crawl back under the rock from under which you ostensibly came.

I'm confused and hurt by your allegations. :'(Wasn't I just vindicated for basically sherlock holmesing this thread based on only two sentences, as well as exposing some seriously sloppy thinkers? Now please no more personal insults.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm confused and hurt by your allegations. :'(Wasn't I just vindicated for basically sherlock holmesing this thread based on only two sentences, as well as exposing some seriously sloppy thinkers? Now please no more personal insults.

You proved nothing but your devotion to pedantry. You refuted none of the facts or opinions presented through the article, instead focusing on a single word in an attempt to derail the thread. You're a pox on humanity.

 

[Oldgamer]

Wow, you guys really went waaaay off topic on this post..lmao Everyone arguing over the use of one word? tff

 

[woolfe9998]

Wow, you guys really went waaaay off topic on this post..lmao Everyone arguing over the use of one word? tff

No, it's more than a word. That first sentence sets the tenor for the rest of the article. In truth, at a minimum, the entire section regarding Curosi is fatally flawed for leaving out information that is inconvenient to the author's message.

The rest of it I've read but not independently checked. However, much of it reads like it's telling only one side of a story, and since that is what happens right off the bat I tend to assume it's a pattern throughout. Essentially he takes selected material from articles, quotes from friends or family, and usually leaves out anything said by the police about the incident he describes.

This is unsurprising given that the author has a definite, strong political viewpoint (in this case, libertarian as he's affiliated with the CATO institute and used to write for Reason magazine.) Strong ideological positions don't generally yield the most objective journalism.

 

[werepossum]

I know the article is a lengthy read, but very well worth taking the time to read. The point is we are already at the stage of militarization via police forces. At least daily you see dozens of news reports and postings, and local news about abuses by police, who are dressed up as a military style unit, generally for things that are not required for such tactics.

Quoting: That such “administrative searches” have become an increasingly common way for police to get around the Fourth Amendment is bad enough. More disturbing is the amount of force they’re opting to use when they do. In the fall of 2010, police in New Haven, Connecticut, sent a SWAT team to a local bar to investigate reports of underage drinking. Patrons were lined up at gunpoint while cops confiscated cell phones and checked IDs. There have been similar underage drinking SWAT raids on college fraternities. The Atlanta City Council recently agreed to pay a $1 million settlement to the customers and employees of a gay nightclub after a heavy-handed police raid in which police lined up sixty-two people on the floor at gunpoint, searched for drugs, and checked for outstanding warrants and unpaid parking tickets. Police conducted the September 2009 raid after undercover vice cops claimed to have witnessed patrons and employees openly having sex at the club. But the police never obtained a search warrant. Instead, the raid was conducted under the guise of an alcohol inspection. Police made no drug arrests, but arrested eight employees for permit violations.

These things happening are totally overkill, and an outright abuse of civil rights.

Well said, and good article.

There is no doubt of the increased militarization of police in recent years. Plenty of warrants that could be issued by a couple of guys in standard attire are now being issued by door-down SWAT teams screaming at a family eating dinner, and this happens for lots of non-violent crimes. And it's not an anecdote, the number of SWAT-type take-downs are rising at a very fast rate. These guys watch too many movies and deck themselves out like they're in a Hollywood movie, then go exercise their massive egos.

True, and far too many times the warrant is dispensed with as well.

Well, there are two problems here. First, there is likely an official statement made about the shooting by the Fairfax police, which for some reason is not included in the article. For the author to cite something issued months later, not referring to the incident, and make the connection that protecting the man from gambling was therefore the "ostensible" reason for the shoot is likely ignoring what the police actually said at the time of the incident.

Second, even if the cops made no statement, the inference he's urging is extraordinarily implausible. No one believes that we have the death penalty for gambling, or that cops routinely shoot people for gambling. If I lived in that town and was aware of the shoot and of the circular issued months later, I would not have drawn the connection because it's absurd. If I didn't know the reason for the shoot and was concerned, I'd inquire rather than drawing implausible inferences. As would any rational person. I'm afraid the author is stretching things mightily.

Edit: the police DID make a statement about the incident. They said it was an accidental discharge. Regardless of whether that is true, it certainly undercuts the author's claim that it was "ostensibly" to protect him from gambling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032301117.html

Good point, the author should definitely have included the police department's statement. But I don't think it changes the impact of the story. If it's an accidental discharge in a situation that never should have had SWAT officers charging in with guns drawn, then saying it's an accidental discharge doesn't exonerate the police department.

EDIT: Put it this way: If I get a CCW permit and begin charging into every meeting with pistol drawn, and one day I shoot someone, do you think saying "Sorry, sorry, accidental discharge!" is going to help me one little bit?

 

[woolfe9998]

EDIT: Put it this way: If I get a CCW permit and begin charging into every meeting with pistol drawn, and one day I shoot someone, do you think saying "Sorry, sorry, accidental discharge!" is going to help me one little bit?

Yes, but my point is not to exonerate the police. I'm responding to the angle and pitch of the article's author. He basically has two points he is using this case to illustrate: that there is a trend of police using excessive personnel in gambling busts, and that these kinds of incidents intimidate the population because they cause them to believe the police are intentionally killing people who engage in illegal gambling. Neither point is supported by this anecdote when all the facts are included.

First off, it appears that this guy was a more serious criminal than the article lets on. Second, although they used SWAT officers, there were only four of them, with handguns, and only one gun was drawn. 2-4 officers for a felony bust is fairly standard. Having a gun initially drawn in a felony bust is apparently also a standard precaution for this PD and I know it is for some other PD's. Also, the investigative report indicates that they had encountered armed people at prior gambling busts, so they were erring on the side of caution here. So much for the point about excessive personnel.

As to the second point, that people could reasonably conclude that the Fairfax police consider summary execution an appropriate penalty for illegal gambling, the fact that the next day the PD said it was an accident and apologized for it pretty much thoroughly undermines the point. Furthermore, this is the first ever fatal shooting by a cop in the entire history of Fairfax, so it's not like residents could view this as a pattern over time which might cause them to suspect it was intentional.

This was an accident and a tragedy. It's also a poor example to illustrate the author's points. This author clearly had to prune the facts to make it fit.