SWAT Weekend

I spent much of my Thanksgiving weekend behind the computer, thanks to unfolding events in the Kathryn Johnston case, and testy, sometimes petty blog exchanges with defenders of these types of invasive police tactics.  If you're interested, visit TheAgitator.com and scroll.

Unfortunately, there was also more bad news on the SWAT front over the weekend.  First, we learned of yet another raid on an innocent, elderly woman.  Sixty-eight year old Merced County, California resident Mary Silva was on the receiving aid of a 6:30am raid because a distant relative police were looking for in connection with drug activity listed Silva's address as his own after a previous arrest.  Fortunately, Silva escaped Johnston's fate.  She escaped with only some fright, a broken door, and damage to her home.  The local sheriff's attempt to deflect responsibility rings rather hollow, though:

"Let's point the finger where the blame really belongs, at the individual who's using (Silva's) residence to conceal where he's really living," Pazin said. "It's unfortunate (Ramirez) was using some type of elderly relative to hide his true residence."

That is unfortunate.  It's also unfortunate that Pazin's officers didn't conduct a more thorough investigation before kicking down an elderly woman's door.

Meanwhile, there was also a major development in the case of Sal Culosi, the Fairfax, Virginia optometrist shot and killed last January when a SWAT team apprehended him for suspicion of gambling on football games with friends.  Someone leaked the results of the recently completed internal police investigation to the Washington Post -- over Thanksgiving weekend, naturally.  The internal investigation recommended that Officer Deval Bullock, who says he accidentally shot and killed Culosi when his gun unexpectedly discharged, be suspended for three weeks without pay, and removed from the SWAT team.

That's at least something.  But you wonder what Culosi would have gotten if he'd have mistaken the SWAT team for intruders, met them with a gun, and accidentally shot one of them with an inadvertent discharge of his weapon.  I doubt that three weeks without pay would be the worst of his concerns.

If you can believe it, Bullock's fellow officers are apparently "outraged" at the punishment, calling it excessive, and "off the charts" in relation to other punishments meted out for previous infractions.  A man is dead because of his mistakes.  Three weeks seems rather lenient, if you ask me.  Of course, you could make a good case that Fairfax County police are a bit spoiled.  Local prosecutor Robert Horan hasn't brought charges against a police officer a single time -- in more than 40 years on the job.

It's also unfortunate that more than ten months after the shooting, Culosi's family had to learn about the results of the investigation from a newspaper reporter, and not the paid public officials who allegedly serve them.

Comments

John | November 27, 2006, 9:22am | #

"who says he accidentally shot and killed Culosi when his gun unexpectedly discharged"

Guns just don't go off. What a pile steaming bullshit that is. There is nothing unexepected about a weapon going off. It went off and killed that guy because he pulled the trigger. That is called manslaughter. The cop needs to be in jail.

madpad | November 27, 2006, 9:56am | #

Police are a tough nut to bring to justice. They're too close to the D.A.s who are reliant on them for gathering evidence.

I know it's not a S.W.A.T. issue, but I'm surprised this site hasn't put some attention on the "50 Shot Bridegroom" debacle in New York.

Creech | November 27, 2006, 9:59am | #

Any cops out there? Please answer this: why is it so damn hard to simply stake out the location and arrest the alleged perp when he leaves to buy a six pack or something? It isn't like a hostage situation. And maybe you'll find some evidence actually on him/her so he can't claim the stuff in the dresser drawer belongs to his friend who must have left it there when he visited last week.

jb | November 27, 2006, 10:03am | #

John,
If that's true, then how do you explain the incidence of stupid criminals who shoot themselves in the nuts when drawing/holstering their guns?

Extremely unscientific data: It's so common that a while back the Darwin Awards stopped accepting submissions like that unless there was something else funny about the situation.

tarran | November 27, 2006, 10:08am | #

Actually both John and jb are right.

A well-maintained gun will not go off accidentally.

A poorly-maintained gun with worn parts can go off accidentally.

Mr Deval should be charged with murder - at the minimum he is guilty of negligent homicide.

John | November 27, 2006, 10:12am | #

"If that's true, then how do you explain the incidence of stupid criminals who shoot themselves in the nuts when drawing/holstering their guns?"

Yes, people do accidentily shoot themselves because they have their fingers on the trigger and are stupid. A cop is trained and shouldn't ever accidentily pull the trigger. The bottomline is cop or no, if I point a gun at you and it accidentily goes off, that rises to the level of manslaughter. Certainly not murder but manslaughter.

Larry A | November 27, 2006, 10:18am | #

"It's unfortunate (Ramirez) was using some type of elderly relative to hide his true residence."

You'ld never expect an arrested person of using a false address, would you? Not something you might want to check out?

But the search warrant deputies gave Silva lists an entirely different address -- not Silva's house or the house next door. ...
Pazin said deputies may have transposed numbers in the address on the warrant, but that law enforcement acted in good faith when they entered Silva's house.

Let's see. Deputies have a warrant for a person, "transpose numbers in the address," and end up at the home of a relative of the accused. Riiiight.

Summary: One hundred officers from nine agencies including three SWAT teams raid eight locations at a cost of $25,000. They manage to arrest seven people. Of the detainees three are released without charges, one is released but may later face a drug charge, one bails out on a weapons charge, and two are actually dangerous enough to lock up. Of the two one faces drug charges, and one actually may have killed someone. The raids miss their primary target, who is still at large. Was it worth it?

Local media were invited to watch parts of the raid, and cameras rolled while SWAT team armored vehicles surrounded houses in a part of Merced County that Pazin called the "Bermuda triangle" of gang activity.

Bingo!

"I'd hate to imagine that we were accused of sitting on our hands and there was some kind of gangland firefight in the street and an innocent person gets hurt."

Wouldn't want the gangbangers to compete with the SWAT team.

Isaac Bartram | November 27, 2006, 10:20am | #

I know it's not a S.W.A.T. issue, but I'm surprised this site hasn't put some attention on the "50 Shot Bridegroom" debacle in New York.

I've also noticed that it's getting a lot more attention in the international media than it is domestically. Probably because it so neatly sums up everything that's wrong with America for them.

Has anyone thought to ask what is it about all these these covers the cops have to be under?

David | November 27, 2006, 10:39am | #

I'm trying to reconcile the amazing "accidental" shots that police make with the evidence that they can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn when they're intentionally shooting at someone.

John | November 27, 2006, 10:39am | #

"Local media were invited to watch parts of the raid, and cameras rolled while SWAT team armored vehicles surrounded houses in a part of Merced County that Pazin called the "Bermuda triangle" of gang activity"

If I remember correctly, the original raid on the Branch Dividian compound was a staged event for the media to help the ATF brandish its credentials with congress. The bottomline is that cops of any sort CANNOT BE TRUSTED. They must constantly be kept under adult supervision.

P Brooks | November 27, 2006, 10:39am | #

"A civil rights activist working for the family has now called for a federal investigation. It's unfortunate that federal oversight is so often necessary in these types of cases. But I've followed enough of them to know that local police often aren't capable of properly holding themselves accountable, nor are local prosecutors, who necessarily tend to have close relationships with the police."

-The above quote was lifted from one of the "Agitator" posts in reference to Kathryn Johnston-

I don't hold out much hope for productive intervention on the part of the feds, when it is they who have fomented these situations, by arming and equipping local paramilitary terror squads, and emphasising the aggressve enforcement of the drug laws. And, as we all know, the inevitable mission creep inherent in government programs has led to the use of SWAT teams to enforce gambling warrants, and other, esssentially threatless (from the standpoint of the police, at any rate) scenarios.

I do not, despite my initial visceral response to this sort of unconscionable abuse of legal force, want to see cops gunned down as they serve a warrant. But I absolutely, positively, want to see them subject to severe and effective punishment (viz- prison) for their fuck-ups.

John | November 27, 2006, 10:44am | #

"I do not, despite my initial visceral response to this sort of unconscionable abuse of legal force, want to see cops gunned down as they serve a warrant."

The best protection against that is to wear a uniform and clearly identify themselves. Very few people want to turn a drug charge into a capital murder charge. Badges and uniforms are the best protection cops have. The fact is that if I am intent on killing a police officer, no amount of paramilitary weaponry will prevent me from doing so. If I am hold up in a house and am armed, my action of shooting the first cop through the door will beat any reaction. Yes, they will shoot me, but there is little the police can do to keep me from taking someone with me. By conducting these no knock raids, the police do nothing to protect themselves from a really determined killer and create the significant additional risk of someone shooting them who wouldn't have otherwise done so because they think their home is being invaded by criminals rather than the police. Cops need to get it through their thick heads that these raids, while exciting are just putting people in danger.

madpad | November 27, 2006, 10:55am | #

I've also noticed that it's getting a lot more attention in the international media than it is domestically.

I can't speak for your observations but I got most of the stories off the web from U.S. outlets. Sharpton's doing marches and lot's of blather about.

I also read that all five of the cops in question were relieved of their weapons - which is an extreme in such cases - and that NONE of them had ever fired their weapons before in the line of duty.

According to one of the articles, the subtext was that they expected heads to roll due to the obvious over-reaction (one officer fired over 30 of the 50 shots and emptied 2 full clips into the car) and disputes with eye-witnesses. Also, apparently in NY, there are strict rules of engagement and shooting at a car - no matter what the circumstances - is a nono. The thinking being, if you have time to shoot at a moving car, you have time to get out of the way and to safety.

Who knows...I don't believe anything till it happens, myself.

I've talked with cops before about stuff like this a while back. They were friends who provided security at a bar I was working in.

Their attitude was way down on anyone who doesn't immediately submit to whatever an officer is doing...the rationale being that no matter what's going on, defying officers hightens the emotion and sense of danger to the officer.

I dunno...I have the luxury of not living in fear of such things but it sounds like a pretty irresponsible, judgement-free way of doing things.

Aresen | November 27, 2006, 10:59am | #

John is exactly right in his comment about police officers being trained in the use of weapons. [Or ought to be properly trained.]

Even if they are not, they should be held to the same standard of conduct as the general public.

John | November 27, 2006, 11:01am | #

"Their attitude was way down on anyone who doesn't immediately submit to whatever an officer is doing...the rationale being that no matter what's going on, defying officers hightens the emotion and sense of danger to the officer."

I would agree with that as long as the cops identify themselves. If you intentionally screw with a cop, you are putting yourself in danger. The problem is when the cop kicks in your door with no identification not wearing a uniform.

madpad | November 27, 2006, 11:22am | #

I can see taking measures to defend oneselfsand others in the line of duty and I can see even going a little extreme to ensure compliance.

But shooting people and beating people up ala Rodney King, is flat going too far.

But one place where cops DON'T beat people up or put a slug on them is on the COPS t.v. show. So maybe we should have camera on them at all times.

Jon H | November 27, 2006, 12:26pm | #

Creech writes: "Please answer this: why is it so damn hard to simply stake out the location and arrest the alleged perp when he leaves to buy a six pack or something?"

The department is probably too cheap to pay for the overtime that would probably be required.

Or, the cops don't want to work the hours.

It's so much faster to just bust in guns blazing, and more of an adrenaline buzz.

Rhywun | November 27, 2006, 12:28pm | #

The carnage in Queens seems to be the result of an "undercover prostitution sting". I hope they're proud of themselves.

On a brighter note, Michael "Kramer" Richards must be breathing a sigh of relief now that Sharpton et al. aren't paying attention to him any more.

mediageek | November 27, 2006, 12:31pm | #

"his gun unexpectedly discharged"

BULLSHIT!

The officer deliberately aimed a loaded weapon at another man and pulled the trigger. He violated every rule of basic gun safety, and an innocent man died as a result.

Guns don't inadvertently discharge any more than cars start themselves and run pedestrians down.

mediageek | November 27, 2006, 12:34pm | #

"If that's true, then how do you explain the incidence of stupid criminals who shoot themselves in the nuts when drawing/holstering their guns?"

Violation of the four basic safety rules of gun handling:

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 AND WHAT IS BEYOND

I've seen children recite these rules from memory.

A Concerned Citizen | November 27, 2006, 12:38pm | #

I understand how police work is the jobs program for stupid and big white males in this country, but can we at least execute the ones who are so stupid they kill the wrong people by accident?

richard weeds | November 27, 2006, 12:42pm | #

...he accidentally shot and killed Culosi when his gun unexpectedly discharged...

The police don't kill people, guns do.

madpad | November 27, 2006, 1:04pm | #

Violation of the four basic safety rules of gun handling:

I grew up around guns - my stepdad was an Army Officer and a cop. I've been shooting since I was 9-years old.

Nobody violates safety rules faster than a 'professional.' And police have been known to shoot their balls off too.

Exceptions notwithstanding, the safest, most disciplined guys I know aren't cops, they're hunters who hunt with their kids.

John | November 27, 2006, 1:22pm | #

The UCMJ has an offense for "negligent homicide". It does not exist in the common law or the civil law of any state I know of. The idea is that the military engages in inherently dangerous activities with a lot of big dangerous equipment and it is therefore in the public interest to hold people criminally accountable when their negligence results in someone's death. I think this law needs to be passed in the civilian world and applied to law enforcement personel in the line of duty. The fact is that they are given guns and a lot of dangerous toys, are trained and expected be able to interact with the public safety. They need to be held to a higher standard. One a law enforcment officer screws up on the job and causes someone's death, it ought to be a crime. Not a go to jail forever crime, but a felony conviction that ends their career and ensures that they never work in law enforcement again. That combined with some probation and in some cases a few months jail time would go a long way to solving this problem. Without such a crime, police will continue to have the "better to be tried by 12 than carried by six" attitude and more innocent people are going to be killed.

madpad | November 27, 2006, 1:51pm | #

John,

'Negligent Homicide' is an offense in many jurisdictions.

I agree wholeheartedly but a lot of things have changed over the years that have created an almost mystical sympathy for police and the dangers they face.

Blame it on T.V. or what have you but the signs are not disimilar from a self-centered cult or mafia where by the lore has passed down that police are more deserving of deferential consideration rather than held to a higher standard.

Mayors and District Attorneys cannot, by virtue of the curent political situation in this country, be successful without the aid of the police so they are unlikely and unwilling to crack down on police misbehavior or negligence.

And we all know how good a job public servants do of policing themselves.

Old Dog | November 27, 2006, 2:01pm | #

since cops are held to a higher standard, regardless of whatever it is you really believe, it's even easier for cops to end up as the defendant in court

Aresen | November 27, 2006, 2:08pm | #

madpad's 10:55 comment says Sharpton is organizing protests. Even though I detest Sharpton, he could be useful in this context.

Otherwise these incidents are going to continue until somebody with big-time political connections gets killed AND the whole thing is caught on tape.

madpad | November 27, 2006, 2:21pm | #

since cops are held to a higher standard, regardless of whatever it is you really believe, it's even easier for cops to end up as the defendant in court
One thing's for sure, the relatives of people who've been needlessly killed by S.W.A.T. team members who were subsequently NOT charged - as has been the case in almost ALL of the incidents reported on this board, probably wouldn't agree with you.

But hey, we could argue about this all day. Unfortunately, there's precious little data to back up either of our assertions and a whole lot of emotion, perception and maybe some actual experience on both sides.

A call it a draw.

I want to make clear, I'm not anti-police and I have a great deal of respect for many of the folks I know who wear a police uniform. But I have also seen and heard of abuses as well.

Aresen | November 27, 2006, 2:26pm | #

Old Dog

"since cops are held to a higher standard, regardless of whatever it is you really believe, it's even easier for cops to end up as the defendant in court"

Evidence, please. Just how many of the cops in these botched raids have wound up doing serious time? As opposed to the situation of Cory Mayo, who got the death penalty for trying to defend himself and Sal Culosi and Katheryn Johnson, who both got an instant death penalty.

blogimi Dei | November 27, 2006, 3:15pm | #

1990's "cop killer" truly offensive.

2000's "cop killer" truly defensive.

Fuck the police coming straight from the underground...

Brendan Perez | November 27, 2006, 3:23pm | #

"Their attitude was way down on anyone who doesn't immediately submit to whatever an officer is doing...the rationale being that no matter what's going on, defying officers hightens the emotion and sense of danger to the officer."

I see. If I defy a cop, his danger-o-meter now goes up and he's now more likely to kill/injure me.

Sounds like they're manufacturing a justification to act like power tripping assholes and seting up a defense for shooting/tasering people who've posed no real danger.

If a cop feels more endangered because someone isn't asking "how high?" when he says "jump", then he has major problems and should stay home to avoid being endangered.

The police, more than anyone, need to feel the swift, cold hand of justice that they're so quick to sic on other people. Let a cop be arrested for disorderly conduct when he/she starts screaming at someone in the middle of the street, they can bail themselves out, take a day out of work to go to court and then pay fines.

I've never been arrested yet, but have had encounters and witnessed encounters that leave me with very little respect for police officers. The ones that aren't power tripping, lying assholes generally stand by and do nothing regarding the ones who are. Even worse, the good cops will usually stand behind
the bad ones well beyond any reasonble threshold of bad behavior.

I've seen cops shove people into cars with little or no provocation The other (supposedly good) officer will laer try to justify it to a spouse or parent who later arrives at the scene as some sort of reasonble form of restraint.

Until cops stop a.)acting like the criminals they're supposed to be protecting us from, and/or b.)covering up for the above, they will get no respect from me.

If someone busts down your door in the middle of the night, it's probably a criminal. They could be wearing street clothes and be unemployed or they may wearing uniforms and work for the police department; either way, treat the latter like the former until it can be ascertained if have justification to be there.

In what other field do things like this happen, where legal, ethical, moral violations are routinely covered up by co-workers?

Imagine if every bank treated theft from customer accounts like no big deal as long as it was under a couple hundred dollars, perhaps suspending the teller for a week or so with pay while they investigated? Imagine that bank branch managers were mostly indifferent to the complaints of customers who reported missing money, sometimes the manager going as far as to accuse the complainant of lying and threaten to seize the remainder of the account's contents and close it. Imagine further that it was routine,common, maybe even expected, for other tellers to cover up these actions.

There would be massive outrage, which would be followed by a mass movement away from that bank.

I used to think police services were one of the few things that the free market shouldn't do, now I would love to see it. Could it really be any worse than what we have and what we will have if we just keep letting this shit happen?

madpad | November 27, 2006, 4:00pm | #

Sounds like they're manufacturing a justification to act like power tripping assholes and seting up a defense for shooting/tasering people who've posed no real danger.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. There's a real, "My job is life or death. I don't know what's behind the car door or the house door. Anyone can kill me at any minute..." thinking that seems to justify any behavior.

Accepting for a minute that cops certainly are going to be in those situations more often than most people, I get it.

But beyond a certain level of precaution, one wonders where judgement and insticts come in to play if police react to every level of hostile engagement with the same level of heavy - and sometimes deadly - force.

John | November 27, 2006, 4:07pm | #

"That's pretty much what I was getting at. There's a real, "My job is life or death. I don't know what's behind the car door or the house door. Anyone can kill me at any minute..." thinking that seems to justify any behavior."

A lot of it is self importance. Everyone wants to beleive that they are doing the most important job ever, that their life is in danger every day and that every criminal is armed and dangerous. There is a real macho bullshit culture to a lot of police.

Nobody Important | November 27, 2006, 4:20pm | #

I've probably posted this before, but what the heck?

from the Colorado Revised Statutes (emphasis added)

18-8-103. Resisting arrest.

(1) A person commits resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer, acting under color of his official authority, from effecting an arrest of the actor or another, by:

(a) Using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or

(b) Using any other means which creates a substantial risk of causing bodily injury to the peace officer or another.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was attempting to make an arrest which in fact was unlawful, if he was acting under color of his official authority, and in attempting to make the arrest he was not resorting to unreasonable or excessive force giving rise to the right of self-defense. A peace officer acts "under color of his official authority" when, in the regular course of assigned duties, he is called upon to make, and does make, a judgment in good faith based upon surrounding facts and circumstances that an arrest should be made by him.

(3) The term "peace officer" as used in this section and section 18-8-104 means a peace officer in uniform or, if out of uniform, one who has identified himself by exhibiting his credentials as such peace officer to the person whose arrest is attempted.

(4) Resisting arrest is a class 2 misdemeanor.



18-8-104. Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer.

(1) (a) A person commits obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical services provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, such person knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the prevention, control, or abatement of fire by a firefighter, acting under color of his or her official authority; knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of medical treatment or emergency assistance by an emergency medical service provider or rescue specialist, acting under color of his or her official authority; or knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders the administration of emergency care or emergency assistance by a volunteer, acting in good faith to render such care or assistance without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident.

(b) To assure that animals used in law enforcement or fire prevention activities are protected from harm, a person commits obstructing a peace officer or firefighter when, by using or threatening to use violence, force, physical interference, or an obstacle, he or she knowingly obstructs, impairs, or hinders any such animal.

(2) It is no defense to a prosecution under this section that the peace officer was acting in an illegal manner, if he was acting under color of his official authority as defined in section 18-8-103 (2).

(3) Repealed.

(4) Obstructing a peace officer, firefighter, emergency medical service provider, rescue specialist, or volunteer is a class 2 misdemeanor.

(5) For purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Emergency medical service provider" means a member of a public or private emergency medical service agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such emergency medical service provider.

(b) "Rescue specialist" means a member of a public or private rescue agency, whether that person is a volunteer or receives compensation for services rendered as such rescue specialist.

surf | November 27, 2006, 4:32pm | #

What happened to Andy Griffith?

As had been pointed out previously, it wouldn't surprise me if this dangerous everprevelant powerlust would decline if the officers only worked in the cities they patrolled.

That, and ending prohibition....

TheNewGuy | November 27, 2006, 4:53pm | #

I am a tac-team guy but have been out of it for a couple of years. I was a fully-trained operator, but my role was primarily as a tactical medic....

I'm known to my local LEOs. I'd hope they'd have the courtesy to approach me if an allegation were raised, if only for their (and my) safety. I'm a veteran, and my training and gun ownership might qualify me for a no-knock, but I'm also a pillar of my community, a reasonable man, and I have no history of violence.

But to answer your question: if it came to a raid, I'd never attempt to resist a tac-team swarming into my home with MP5's. If they're halfway competent, I'd be committing suicide by going for a weapon. I'd save my ire for later, and get my pound of flesh in court.

Picking your battles is what separates the living from the dead.

TrickyVic | November 27, 2006, 5:17pm | #

"""But you wonder what Culosi would have gotten if he'd have mistaken the SWAT team for intruders, met them with a gun, and accidentally shot one of them with an inadvertent discharge of his weapon. I doubt that three weeks without pay would be the worst of his concerns."""

The reality is we do not have equal rights to self-defense. For us, a real threat must be present. If you get mugged, you can't shoot the mugger when he walks away, the threat is gone. For them a preceived threat is good enough. "I thought the candy bar was a gun" That's a quick way for anyone else to go to prison.

I don't see anything wrong with cops living under the same rules we do.


"""What happened to Andy Griffith?"""

He retired and Barney took over.

madpad | November 27, 2006, 5:56pm | #

I'd save my ire for later, and get my pound of flesh in court.

Hey, Agreed, TNG. But the running theme for most of the cases illustrated on this board have fallen into 3 scenarios.

1. TAC Team burst in with nebulous identification to a house with a citizen already scared of drug dealers who (apparently) thinks the invaders are criminals rather than police. Citizen dead or injured.

2. TAC Team fully identifies themselves but shoots with deadly force anyway killing a person later found out to be unarmed.

3. TAC Team invades and does everything by the book...except the residence was chosen based on a wrong address OR based on info from an (always reliable) informant (Can also be a factor in the scenarios 1 and 2).

In most cases, police review boards (bafflingly) find nothing wrong, making legal action pretty difficult.

So what's a body (pun fully intended) to do?

CS | November 27, 2006, 10:36pm | #

The Sal Culosi case is an example of testostorene and adrenaline overwhelming whatever gun sense Officer Bullock had. As I understand it, Bullock was so eager to join in the fun he violently threw open the police car door and jumped out, handgun pointed at Sal and finger on the trigger. At which point the police car door reached its fully open angle and bounced back, hitting Bullock's gun hand and causing him to inadvertently squeeze the trigger. This could be a scene out of Reno 911 - if it weren't so tragic, it would be comical. I'm not sure if criminal charges are appropriate, but Bullock should definitely be fired and never allowed to work as a police officer again.