Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

reason.com: Justice For Sal (After five years, the family of a Virginia optometrist killed by a SWAT team finally gets some closure)


ACW

Recommended Posts

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal/singlepage

The SWAT team came to Culosi's house because another Fairfax County detective, David Baucum, overheard him and some friends wagering on a college football game at a bar. "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 50 bucks or so on the Virginia/Virginia Tech football game was a crime worthy of investigation." Baucum apparently did. After overhearing the wagering, Baucum befriended Culosi. During the next several months he talked Culosi into raising the stakes of what Culosi thought were friendly wagers. Eventually Culosi and Baucum bet more than $2,000 in a single day, enough under Virginia law for police to charge Culosi with running a gambling operation. 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 moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"

To read about the further pain the family went through is infuriating. Then there's this:
Bullock was suspended for three weeks without pay, a paltry punishment given that he killed an unarmed man. Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert Horan announced in March 2006 that he would not be filing criminal charges against Bullock. That was not surprising. Horan, who retired in 2008, had never brought criminal charges against a police officer in his 40 years on the job. Horan described the shooting as an accident. Yet the same month that Bullock killed Culosi, a 19-year-old man in neighboring Prince William County was charged with involuntary manslaughter after a gun he was showing to a friend accidentally discharged and killed the friend. And just a week before Horan cleared Bullock, a youth in Chesapeake, Virginia, was convicted on the same charge for accidentally firing a gun from the backseat of a car, killing the driver.
Now, you can argue that maybe it WAS, indeed, an accident; or that maybe the officer thought Culosi did, indeed, have a gun. But still, two questions:

1) Why is a SWAT Team needed for a nonviolent crime?

2) Why is what Culosi did a crime anyway? Especially because:

The same year Fairfax County taxpayers paid for the five-month-long investigation into Sal Culosi’s casual wagering, Virginia's government spent $20 million promoting the state lottery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the next several months he talked Culosi into raising the stakes of what Culosi thought were friendly wagers. Eventually Culosi and Baucum bet more than $2,000 in a single day, enough under Virginia law for police to charge Culosi with running a gambling operation.

Isn't that entrapment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly, the SWAT team should have been nowhere near his house for a case like this, whether it was entrapment or not, or a crime or not.

That's not what the SWAT team is for.

There shouldn't've BEEN a case like this. Let me quote again:
The same year Fairfax County taxpayers paid for the five-month-long investigation into Sal Culosi’s casual wagering, Virginia's government spent $20 million promoting the state lottery.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There shouldn't've BEEN a case like this. Let me quote again:
Well, if ACW ran the world NOTHING would be illegal and there would be no police. We realize this. It is illegal to bet on sports like this. Whether you agree or disagree is irrelevant. Taxpayers spent $20M promoting legal gambling. Again, if ACW ruled, I could host a casino/sportsbook in my house and there would be no regulations. I could stack the games against you and make it impossible for you to win. But, there would surely be less killings of innocent people by the debil. You spend too much time scouring the internet for anti-police articles.

Also, did you seriously use a double contraction??? shouldn't've??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if ACW ran the world NOTHING would be illegal and there would be no police. We realize this.. You spend too much time scouring the internet for anti-police articles.

Also, did you seriously use a double contraction??? shouldn't've??

Of course....being anti-police, he would naturally be against the Grammar Police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how we take silly little nothing crimes tha people agree are silly.

And then compare them to Murdering Nuns in a hospital popeman.

Or how about murdering a man in his house when you could have called him to come to the station himself and he would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how we take silly little nothing crimes tha people agree are silly.

And then compare them to Murdering Nuns in a hospital popeman.

Or how about murdering a man in his house when you could have called him to come to the station himself and he would have.

If you read my history of posting in anti-police threads started by ACW, you would realize my position is that he simply looks to demonize police/law. I never justified the police action. I simply get tired of the cherry picking done by some on this site. You never see ACW post an article about the community involvement of the overwhelming majority of cops. You see him post articles from NYC, Fairfax, LA, Las Vegas....of police brutality/killing of "innocent" people. That is the definition of an agenda. ACW has one, and it is clearly discernible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WYou spend too much time scouring the internet for anti-police articles.

Also, did you seriously use a double contraction??? shouldn't've??

Yes I did. And that's not completely true. First off, I'm against victimless crimes and corrupt police. And second, I didn't need to scour.

Well played Mick :ols:

EDIT: And the reason is the community involvement by the vast majority of cops isn't a story. And if by "agenda" you mean disliking police being above the law you're right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read my history of posting in anti-police threads started by ACW, you would realize my position is that he simply looks to demonize police/law.

So your point is that you have a long history of showing up in posts in which police officers have killed unarmed, unresisting, people, ignoring the subject of the thread, and attacking the person who posted the story with a bunch of fictional claims about him?

Well, I'm with you, buddy. The real crime, here, isn't that somebody (apparently. We've all seen stories that were, shall we say, rather embellished) murdered somebody. It's that somebody complained about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, Larry.

From the original T-Paine:

when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

For years, the police around the country, fattened off increased budgets and ill-gotten seizures, bringing to bear surplus military weapons, high on the war on some drugs, buttressed by bureaucratic resolve to 'enforce' the law at the expense of liberty, have preyed on the citizens of this country. And the idea that it's a 'few' runs wholly counter to the experience of even those in small towns, where a police officer should not feel so removed from his own people, and of course, counter to the reality of no-knock raids at ungodly hours, gang-land style behavior from alleged 'public servants' and a complicit legal structure which almost never punishes the offenders unless they seem to be violating some PC boundary but only piecemeal even then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your point is that you have a long history of showing up in posts in which police officers have killed unarmed, unresisting, people, ignoring the subject of the thread, and attacking the person who posted the story with a bunch of fictional claims about him?

Well, I'm with you, buddy. The real crime, here, isn't that somebody (apparently. We've all seen stories that were, shall we say, rather embellished) murdered somebody. It's that somebody complained about it.

Thanks Larry. And Popeman, if you'd just add 2 words: CORRUPT police and STUPID law(s) you'd be correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is infuriating.

But I think you should update the OP to specify what the justice is, since it does represent an "official" recognition of just what an effed up series of events it was.

A lot of my prospective clients say they just want an apology. Intell them the truth, you'll never ever get an apology, but a settlement is the closest you cani hope for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read my history of posting in anti-police threads started by ACW, you would realize my position is that he simply looks to demonize police/law. I never justified the police action. I simply get tired of the cherry picking done by some on this site. You never see ACW post an article about the community involvement of the overwhelming majority of cops. You see him post articles from NYC, Fairfax, LA, Las Vegas....of police brutality/killing of "innocent" people. That is the definition of an agenda. ACW has one, and it is clearly discernible.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

There a lot of cops involved in the community. Yay. In my book, that is something they should be doing in the first place, and it certainly doesn't cancel out the bad.

Why should we feel as good for the cops for doing things that they are supposed to be doing versus getting mad over them doing things they shouldn't be doing?

I post in a lot of the "corrupt cops" threads. Does that mean I have an agenda? Is it wrong for ACW to get upset over douchebag cops?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...