Police shoot, kill unarmed bookie

[1911Tuner]

re:

Quote:

>I would think that aiming a weapon at someone escalates the situation. I dont mean just brandishing, that I'd understand as your trying to reinforce your authority, but to put the muzzle in thier face as an unmistakeable threat.

Your forcing a choice on the target to fight, flee, or submit. 2 in 3 chance of getting a reaction you dont want.<
**************************

Before this one goes into an uncontrolled cop-bashing...a few points:

1. The draw-down while executing an arrest is threat-management, intended to demonstrate to the perp that "This is real, so don't make the wrong move" rather than an active threat and/or escalation. Many times it's done because the cop on the scene saw something that called for his weapon to be deployed...maybe something subtle that would go unnoticed
by the average Joe Blow on the street. In tense situations like this, adrenalin also plays a huge role in the ensuing action. A finger may be pressing harder on the trigger than we're aware of. A quick or furtive move by the perp is all it takes to nudge an already twitchy finger to the point of no return. We don't have all the details yet...Remember that.

2. Most cops are pretty squared away when it comes to situations like this, and while there are a few who really aren't competent as to gun-handling and other aspects of police work...most are. To use isolated incidents like this to label all cops as Barney Fife-esque bumbling fools who shouldn't be allowed to carry a loaded gun...or as dishonest/corrupt cops who have an agenda or a dark reason to murder a suspect on the scene is both reckless and inflammatory.
Let's focus on THIS cop and on THIS situation until all the facts are in before making a judgement call.


We now return you to our regularly-scheduled flame war.

 

[jd25q]

Err, I have a problem with that

Yes I dont have any experience with arresting people, but I've always been taught that you never point a weapon at someone unless your willing to kill them.

Like I said it doesn't apply. It's a whole new ball game. Police work, and felony arrests specifically are not safe circumstances. Neither is being a felon. With both choices comes responsibility. I take the responsibility for mine and the bad guy's safety, up to the point where he crosses the line. He takes responsibility for putting himself in that position. It's not a conscious decision on his part, it just comes with his other decisions. Committing felonies is dangerous. I don't pull a gun on people coming out of church, but you bet I would when arresting a guy on charges that may result in him losing his job, home, and freedom for a number of years. People do not react rationally when they feel they've got nothing (or everything) to lose.

But you are right, you must be willing to kill them, if it comes to that.

 

[buzz_knox]

Quote:

Let's focus on THIS cop and on THIS situation until all the facts are in before making a judgement call.

Okay. This cop committed negligent homicide, and the department is liable for negligent training.

And yes, we do have sufficient information to support this conclusion. The cop's superiors have already stated he "accidentally" shot an unarmed man.
No room to go back and say "whoops, furtive movement, the perp begged for it!"

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Okay. This cop committed negligent homicide, and the department is liable for negligent training.

And yes, we do have sufficient information to support this conclusion. The cop's superiors have already stated he "accidentally" shot an unarmed man.
No room to go back and say "whoops, furtive movement, the perp begged for it!"

Then the cop and the agency will have to answer for that. My whole point was to attempt to turn the general drift of this thread from "All cops are dangerous idiots" to "THIS cop screwed the pooch." I don't feel any better about this incident than anybody else here...but it's an individual rather than a profession that we're talking about. Also agree with marshall's statement about desperate men doing desperate things when the flag flies. Men who stand to lose everything will sometimes take a high-risk gamble in hopes of
getting away clean. Rarely works...but there it is.

 

[buzz_knox]

Then the cop and the agancy will have to answer for that. My whole point was to attempt to turn the general drift of this thread from "All cops are dangerous idiots" to "THIS cop screwed the pooch." I don't feel any better about this incident than anybody else here...but it's an individual rather than a profession that we're talking about. Also agree with marshalls statement about desperate men doing desperate things when the flag flies. Men who stand to lose everything will sometimes take a high-risk gamble in hopes of
getting away clean. Rarely works...but there it is.

I agree. But it goes from being about one individual to about what happens to that individual and what led to the situation. The attitudes increasingly becoming prevalent in law enforcement (everyone's a perp until we say otherwise) and the techniques resulting from said attitudes (i.e. muzzle dominance) helped cause these problems. If we don't recognize that, then we'll have many more discussions about "isolated" incidents.

 

[Camp David]

Then the cop and the agancy will have to answer for that. My whole point was to attempt to turn the general drift of this thread from "All cops are dangerous idiots" to "THIS cop screwed the pooch." .

Good post 1911Tuner... You are right; clearly this was a single LEO in error, but if the training these police receive or procedures they follow fails to teach common sense, then all of law enforcement suffers. Don't forget... taxpayers pay for law enforcement and like the medical profession, their first job should be to do no harm! Fatally shooting unarmed suspects may be a single instance of failure, but if training/procedures are wrong, then... yes...perhaps blame should be shared. Walking up to suspects, armed or not, and drawing down on them with service firearm is an all too common occurence; if it is warranted then fine. Are young officers encouraged to do this? That seems to me the big question here...

 

[NineseveN]

At what point did the safety of the Police Officer become more important than the safety of the Citizen? Oh, I forgot, when they started calling them "Law Enforcement".

I have seen an alarming trend in Cops needlessly covering folks with their muzzle. What's wrong with low ready, or medium ready?

If someone has a firearm or a weapon, I agree, cover, command, shoot. But to point your weapon at an unarmed citizen that is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty is absurd.

LEO's, for the most part, have absolutely zero excuse to not be proficient enough with their firearms to be able to keep a weapon at low or medium ready and be able to respond quickly if needed. They have range time, it's part of their job...if they don't want to shoot 500-1000 rounds a week and train for 2-4 hours, that's too bad. I don't get to tell my boss I don't want to study intel or reports all the time because they're boring.

If the suspect has a weapon, or is a known violent felon, fair game, cover, command, shoot...otherwise, I think such a practice is sickening.

Again, at what point did the safety of the Police Officer become more important than the safety of the Citizen?

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Camp David, I agree for the most part. It seems that lately, there have been too many agressive actions that aren't called for. No-Knock/Smash the Door
warrants are too often served on subjects who either haven't committed a harsh enough crime to warrant that sort of entry...or who don't have the rep for being dangerous. The question is: Where do we draw the line of departure on this? Since it's impossible to predict how a human being will react to an arrest warrant...do the cops knock and hope for the best, or do they go all out for the surprise/intimidation approach in order to prevent allowing the subject time to mount a counterattack? It's a tricky situation,
and part of the reason that I dropped my plans to enter the LE profession many years ago after having dome the reserve/auxilliary bit. Any time that you're involved in a potentially violent situation...and virtually all police/citizen confrontations are just that...you have to be prepared for it to go wrong without warning. Cops are nervous these days. Citizens are nervous about police interaction...and the vicious circle grows and intensifies...and mistrust abounds on both sides of the question
Not sure if there even is an easy answer, but the "Us against Them" approach sure ain't it.

 

[1911Tuner]

Known

NineSeven said:
****************

>If the suspect has a weapon, or is a known violent felon, fair game, cover, command, shoot...otherwise, I think such a practice is sickening.<
******************

That's the tricky part. The cop usually doesn't know about a weapon until the suspect reeaches for it, or he's duckin' and runnin' for cover. Also, as
previously noted, there are people out there who have the potential to be extremely violent, but it isn't known to the police agency at the time. Like the question: Does your dog bite?" The answer is: All dogs will bite if you push the right button. The cop has to be prepared for the subject to turn into a killer at a hat-drop. One of the first questions that a rookie faces as to the whether a gun is involved during a trafic stop. The answer is:
"There's ALWAYS a gun present during a traffic stop. Yours!"

 

[buzz_knox]

Yet in every traffic stop I've been involved in, the officer's weapon isn't drawn. Strange how one of the most dangerous times for an officer is also one when the weapon typically stays in the holster.

 

[buzz_knox]

The question is: Where do we draw the line of departure on this? Since it's impossible to predict how a human being will react to an arrest warrant...do the cops knock and hope for the best, or do they go all out for the surprise/intimidation approach in order to prevent allowing the subject time to mount a counterattack? It's a tricky situation,
and part of the reason that I dropped my plans to enter the LE profession many years ago after having dome the reserve/auxilliary bit.

Having had cops at my door three times, once looking for suspect (cop knew he was at the wrong door the moment he saw me) and twice serving warrants (you think they'd know they had the wrong address after the first time they showed), I'm glad those officers decided to knock and hope for the best.

 

[jd25q]

So you confront an intruder in your house. You are armed. Are you at the low ready? Maybe he didn't know anyone was home, maybe he's just a coward, maybe he's sleep walking. Remember he's innocent until proven guilty. Why is your safety any more important than that of this innocent man?

It's because he made a bad choice and put himself in a bad position where you are entirely justified in doing what you are doing. Does he have a weapon? Is he violent? Can you always know that? Of course not.

Now I'm not saying you cover every felon you arrest, but you sure don't wait until you know the guy is armed either. I've got the right to defend myself as well, particularly when my duties put me in harms way.

 

[1911Tuner]

Traffic Stop

Yet in every traffic stop I've been involved in, the officer's weapon isn't drawn. Strange how one of the most dangerous times for an officer is also one when the weapon typically stays in the holster.

That's probably because of the nature of a "routine" traffic stop and that 99.9% of'em don't go wrong. Imagine the fallout if all traffic stops began with
a drawdown and "Spread'em!" from the cop. The point is made to show the rookie that there's no such thing as a routine stop...no matter how many are meade without incident, and that it only takes one to kill him. A "Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst" kind of thing.

Confronting and/or arresting a felony suspect mano e mano is a bit removed from a speeding ticket. Few people will duke it out with a cop over a traffic violation. People facing 15 years in a federal prison just might.

 

[buzz_knox]

That's probably because of the nature of a "routine" traffic stop and that 99.9% of'em don't go wrong. Imagine the fallout if all traffic stops began with
a drawdown and "Spread'em!" from the cop. The point is made to show the rookie that there's no such thing as a routine stop...no matter how many are meade without incident, and that it only takes one to kill him. A "Hope for the best but be prepared for the worst" kind of thing.

Confronting and/or arresting a felony suspect mano e mano is a bit removed from a speeding ticket. Few people will duke it out with a cop over a traffic violation. People facing 15 years in a federal prison just might.

That's interesting, as I've heard police say specifically that a traffic stop is one of their greatest concerns, as they don't know if they are pulling over grandma or someone who just murdered thirty people and wants the cop to be 31.

 

[NineseveN]

NineSeven said:
****************

>If the suspect has a weapon, or is a known violent felon, fair game, cover, command, shoot...otherwise, I think such a practice is sickening.<
******************

That's the tricky part. The cop usually doesn't know about a weapon until the suspect reeaches for it, or he's duckin' and runnin' for cover. Also, as
previously noted, there are people out there who have the potential to be extremely violent, but it isn't known to the police agency at the time. Like the question: Does your dog bite?" The answer is: All dogs will bite if you push the right button. The cop has to be prepared for the subject to turn into a killer at a hat-drop. One of the first questions that a rookie faces as to the whether a gun is involved during a trafic stop. The answer is:
"There's ALWAYS a gun present during a traffic stop. Yours!"

I agree, and I am far from a Cop-basher. Nine times out of ten, I side with the LEO that just wants to go home to their family, but I think that sometimes we allow LEO's to go too far in securing their own safety while being a detriment to ours. I can't say it's the individual officers fault, I would probably be prone to doing the same things or similar if I did in fact not decide against proceeding in becoming an LEO a couple of years ago. There has got to be some better solutions.

Pre-planned no-knocks should be more rare than they are and backed up by an overwhelming mountain of evidence and intelligence, then things should be checked in triplicate. In some places no-knocks are handled just that way, in some others they aren't.

Covering someone with the muzzle of a loaded firearm is an aggressive and deadly threat. Again, we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so until a suspect does something other than being the suspect of a crime, there is no reason to cover them with the muzzle. Most times, things go down just that way, but I can tell you that I have been covered by a muzzle by a Police Officer in a case of mistaken identity. Now, had it not been that the alleged suspect was accused of nothing more than throwing a rock through the windshield of a parked car, I would not have been quite so mad. To me, that does not rise to the level of necessitating a deadly threat, especially when the officer had not yet properly identified his suspect (I didn't even look like the guy, nor was I wearing the same type of colors or clothing).

The cop usually doesn't know about a weapon until the suspect reeaches for it, or he's duckin' and runnin' for cover.

So they should proceed as if everyone is a violent offender or has a weapon because they cannot know who does not?

Does your dog bite?" The correct answer is: He has teeth, don't he?


...but we're not dogs.

 

[Maxwell]

As I said, I got no issues with brandishing to affirm your authority to the target.... The guns out of its holster and your using it to drive home a point.

Ok, my bias and inexperience displayed here, the brandish aim-point is somewhere in the world of sky&earth thats not on someones vital area (muzzle down sounds good, depending on range of course).

Thats different to preparing for lethal force. If the target is a real threat (or could become one) then your muzzle belongs squarely on their body, no questions there.

Again, back to the rules.
1) all guns are to be treated as if they were loaded and ready to fire.
2) do not point a weapon at anything you do not intend to destroy.
3) do not place your finger inside the trigger guard until ready to fire.
4) be aware of your target, be aware of whats behind your target. (or as I prefer to say, be aware that Sarah Brady is watching you )

This guy wouldnt be the first "choir going church boy / never done nothin wrong / oh'so loved by his momma / olympic hopeful / world scholar / bright future" type that got killed in a shootout with cops, and ???? happens.

...but I still think that if your using a rifle or pistol in place of a megaphone, it dosnt belong aimed at someones torso --unless-- you think they might need to be taken out.

Rule 1
Weather it can go off or not is irrelivant, the chance it could is why you mind the rules to begin with.

 

[1911Tuner]

Final Point

Buzz_knox...the reason that a traffic stop is of such great concern is that
the cop is usually alone, and that if things go wrong, there is nobody within
close proximity to come to his aid or to watch his back. In that, a traffic stop carries a high risk to the officer. Orchestrated felony arrests are generally made by teams. Apples to oranges. They're not the same.

One final point that many may have missed in this situation that is both a tragedy and a travesty is that...Bookmaking is illegal. That we may disagree with the reasons or agendas behind that status is a matter for the politicians to decide. (Lobby for legalized gambling and go vote)

As it stands, though, it's illegal. Victimless crime? Yep. No matter.
Many laws that I don't agee with, but abide by'em anyway...for the most part. If I head down a deserted I-85 at 80 mph and see a blue light in my mirror...who is at fault? If I escalate the situation and get hurt...who is at fault? It makes no difference that I can drive safely at that speed on an empty highway...it's illegal...and if I get hit by the radar, the trooper is gonna come after me. It's his job.

Whenever a man decides to engage in an illegal activity, the risk
of arrest, prosecution, and conviction is understood and accepted, just
like going to war and getting killed is an understood risk of enlisting
in the military. Play a rough game...don't whine if you get hurt.

If this man hadn't been engaged in an illegal enterprise, he wouldn't
have been confronted by this cop on this day...and he'd likely be at home
with his family this very minute.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect.

 

[NineseveN]

So you confront an intruder in your house. You are armed. Are you at the low ready? Maybe he didn't know anyone was home, maybe he's just a coward, maybe he's sleep walking. Remember he's innocent until proven guilty. Why is your safety any more important than that of this innocent man?

It's because he made a bad choice and put himself in a bad position where you are entirely justified in doing what you are doing. Does he have a weapon? Is he violent? Can you always know that? Of course not.

Terrible argument, the answer is because he's in my house. If all arrests hapened in the Police Station or in the Officer's home, well, there ya go. Out in public, I can't draw on someone because I think they "may" be violent or "might" have a gun if he does not make a threatening gesture and my life is not observed to be in peril, now can I? Nope. If a guy is bashing the windows out of my car, or even stealing it, I can't draw and cover him, because if I end up shooting him, I go to jail, or at best get nailed into the poor house with a civil suit.

Now I'm not saying you cover every felon you arrest, but you sure don't wait until you know the guy is armed either. I've got the right to defend myself as well, particularly when my duties put me in harms way.

The problem is, that when the act of you performing your duty puts me in harm's way, I cannot defend myself and I am powerless to do anything about it, even if Barney Fife decides to ignore the second rule and touch one off into my chest cavity.

 

[NineseveN]

If I head down a deserted I-85 at 80 mph and see a blue light in my mirror...who is at fault? If I escalate the situation and get hurt...who is at fault?

In your scenario, you would be, no doubt. The problem comes when people get hurt when they don't escalate the situation through abuse or negligence.

 

[Mr. James]

Some wisdom, and some disturbing notions . . .

SWAT Tactics at Issue After Fairfax Shooting

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; B01



Salvatore J. Culosi Sr. still can't believe his son, a 37-year-old optometrist, was a suspected sports bookie. He can't believe a heavily armed SWAT team fatally shot his unarmed son, Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., outside his Fair Oaks home Tuesday night.

And Culosi can't believe that the SWAT team's sudden descent on his son, apparently causing one officer to accidentally fire a .45-caliber handgun once into his son's chest, is standard procedure for Fairfax County police conducting a search.

"We are outraged that current police protocol would ever allow something like this to happen," Culosi, 63, said last night. "The fact is that there was zero basis whatsoever for the officers involved to have any weapons drawn in this situation."

Culosi added: "Sal was alone and unarmed. He was compliant with police instructions. He made no threatening movements or gestures. There was no risk of harm to anyone. Anyone, that is, except Sal."

A Fairfax police detective had been making sports bets with Culosi for three months, court records show, and on Tuesday night police planned to arrest Culosi and search his townhouse on Cavalier Landing Court. But Fairfax Police Chief David M. Rohrer said a 17-year police veteran with long experience in the tactical unit accidentally fired his gun, killing Culosi.

The officer was not named, and police could not say why his gun went off.

Although police and firearms authorities were divided yesterday on whether SWAT teams are needed for most search warrants, as is Fairfax's practice, they agreed on another point: Officers carrying guns should not aim directly at anyone or have their fingers on the trigger until they are absolutely ready to fire.

"In my opinion, there are no accidental discharges," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. Gnagey was not familiar with the Fairfax case but said that in general, "Most of what we see in law enforcement are negligent discharges, fingers being on the trigger when they shouldn't be."

Gnagey was in the camp that thought "SWAT teams shouldn't be doing all warrants." But once there, "the weapons are not pointed at anybody."

Fairfax police declined to discuss their tactical unit policies. But police officials acknowledged that the tactical team, using bulletproof vests, high-powered weapons and other police tools, serves nearly all of the warrants after an investigation has found probable cause to seize evidence -- whether it is bloody clothes, weapons or documents.

In Culosi's case, police were looking for records they suspected he kept after undercover Detective David J. Baucom spent three months placing bets with him on NFL games, according to Baucom's affidavit for the search warrant. A document filed yesterday by Baucom indicates that police entered Culosi's townhouse at 10:13 p.m. Tuesday, about 40 minutes after the fatal shooting.

Police found betting slips, currency, "suspected cocaine" and an unspecified amount of "U.S. currency," according to Baucom's "Inventory of Seized Property." Sources close to the investigation said that police found $38,000 cash in Culosi's home and that the suspected cocaine was a small amount.

Though most Fairfax officers are issued 9mm handguns, tactical unit officers sometimes are issued more powerful weapons. Police confirmed yesterday that Culosi, who graduated from Bishop O'Connell High School and the University of Virginia, was shot with a .45-caliber pistol made by Heckler & Koch, a larger weapon that authorities said would not have a trigger that could be easily tripped.

"It's a very safe gun," said David Yates, a local firearms trainer and range safety officer. "Very high quality. Not a hair trigger. Very reliable. Very accurate."

Yates said there were two possible reasons why Culosi was shot: "Ignorance and carelessness." And because police said the officer was highly trained, he couldn't have been ignorant of gun-safety procedures, Yates said.

"We're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight," Yates said. "But it's not an accident."

Stuart A. Meyers, head of OpTac International, which trains police and counterterrorism tactical squads worldwide, said threat assessments should be done before search warrants are served. But because SWAT officers are better trained and equipped, Meyers said, "SWAT teams should serve, in our opinion, almost all search warrants with the exception of document searches and low-level search warrants."

Gnagey said tactical teams should be used only when police have reason to suspect danger. But some noted that sports bookmakers often deal in cash and might be expected to carry a gun to defend themselves against criminals, if not police.

Meyers and others said SWAT officers should have their guns drawn and ready, "but your finger shouldn't be on the trigger unless you're preparing to shoot someone."

Culosi's father said Fairfax police protocol of serving warrants with weapons drawn "should scare and frighten everyone. Such protocol needs to be immediately changed, or an accident like this will happen again."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

 

[TallPine]

Apparently, much of the LEO training these days is obtained from cop shows on TV ....

I had an experience almost 30 years ago when two Alaska State Troopers "asked" me to come out of a remote cabin, where I had gone after a romantic breakup. Clearly it was a case of mistaken identity, for as soon as I stepped outside both troopers visibly relaxed. Although one had a shotgun and the other had a semi-auto pistol in his hands, at no time that I am aware of did they actually point them at me. We had a friendly chat and everyone parted with no ill feelings.

I still wonder exactly who they were looking for ...?

 

[NineseveN]

I still wonder exactly who they were looking for ...?

Sorry, it was me.

 

[NineseveN]

I agree wholeheartedly with the statements made in this arcticle, particularly:

...they agreed on another point: Officers carrying guns should not aim directly at anyone or have their fingers on the trigger until they are absolutely ready to fire.

"In my opinion, there are no accidental discharges," said John Gnagey, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association. Gnagey was not familiar with the Fairfax case but said that in general, "Most of what we see in law enforcement are negligent discharges, fingers being on the trigger when they shouldn't be."

Gnagey was in the camp that thought "SWAT teams shouldn't be doing all warrants." But once there, "the weapons are not pointed at anybody."

+1 a thousand times over.

Police confirmed yesterday that Culosi, who graduated from Bishop O'Connell High School and the University of Virginia, was shot with a .45-caliber pistol made by Heckler & Koch, a larger weapon that authorities said would not have a trigger that could be easily tripped.

"It's a very safe gun," said David Yates, a local firearms trainer and range safety officer. "Very high quality. Not a hair trigger. Very reliable. Very accurate."

Yates said there were two possible reasons why Culosi was shot: "Ignorance and carelessness." And because police said the officer was highly trained, he couldn't have been ignorant of gun-safety procedures, Yates said.

"We're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight," Yates said. "But it's not an accident."

An ND with a high-qulity gun with a manual level safety, a decocker and a long DA pull as options to ensure no accidents happen? I would have felt better is this was a Glock we were talking about, this just makes it completely ridiculous.

Meyers and others said SWAT officers should have their guns drawn and ready, "but your finger shouldn't be on the trigger unless you're preparing to shoot someone."

Right on.

 

[buzz_knox]

One final point that many may have missed in this situation that is both a tragedy and a travesty is that...Bookmaking is illegal. That we may disagree with the reasons or agendas behind that status is a matter for the politicians to decide. (Lobby for legalized gambling and go vote)

As it stands, though, it's illegal. Victimless crime? Yep. No matter.
Many laws that I don't agee with, but abide by'em anyway...for the most part. If I head down a deserted I-85 at 80 mph and see a blue light in my mirror...who is at fault? If I escalate the situation and get hurt...who is at fault? It makes no difference that I can drive safely at that speed on an empty highway...it's illegal...and if I get hit by the radar, the trooper is gonna come after me. It's his job.

Whenever a man decides to engage in an illegal activity, the risk
of arrest, prosecution, and conviction is understood and accepted, just
like going to war and getting killed is an understood risk of enlisting
in the military. Play a rough game...don't whine if you get hurt.

If this man hadn't been engaged in an illegal enterprise, he wouldn't
have been confronted by this cop on this day...and he'd likely be at home
with his family this very minute.

Cause and effect. Cause and effect.

The problem with that thinking is that it excuses inappropriate or illegal acts by the cops. "Hey, you asked for it by being a crook" is often used as excusing "tune ups" by cops. American Cop magazine had an article stating in part that if you run from cops, you have to expect you might get knocked around after being arrested.

If this cop hadn't been criminally negligent in his duties, the bookie would be alive today. Nothing else really matters. The cause and effect is the cop screwed up and shot someone who had not been found guilty of a crime for which death was a legal punishment, and who had not offered resistance.

Just remember, the cop who unlawfully shot this guy is now a perp himself. Since he committed the crime of negligent homicide, so anything that happens to him now is part of that. Right?

"Whenever a man decides to engage in an illegal activity, the risk
of arrest, prosecution, and conviction is understood and accepted, just
like going to war and getting killed is an understood risk of enlisting
in the military. Play a rough game...don't whine if you get hurt."


I notice that the risk of being shot by an incompetent cop doesn't fall within the list you've asserted. Could it be that you don't even buy your own argument? Yes, the bookie should have been arrested, tried, and if convicted, sentenced. None of that will ever happen because the cop screwed up and shot a compliant, unarmed suspect.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

knox...You seem to be missing the point. I'll try again.

It's all about threat management versus risk factor. Statistics.

The majority of traffic stops are completed without incident
versus the number of felony arrests that escalate into an armed
confrontation. A man facing a speeding ticket isn't highly likely to
kill a cop...unless he's got 3 or 4 kilos of cocaine in the car.
(The one in a thousand) A man facing a decade or two at Club Fed
may at least consider shooting his way out...and some do.

The two situations require different levels of threat management.
If we'd suddenly have a high incidenc of traffic cops killed
during traffic stops involving Red Chevy trucks in Alabama you
can bet that the level would rise sharply whenever a red Chevy
truck was stopped in Alabama.

The last statistic is:

Any time that a loaded gun is leveled at another person...for whatever reason...there's a risk that somebody is gonna get shot.

Not condoning or excusing what happened. Just pointing out that
cops and robbers is a dangerous game for both sides. Don't want to have trouble from a cop...competent or otherwise? Don't engage in known illegal activities, because if it's a felony...and you're confronted...you're probably gonna be lookin' at the wrong end of a gun. You're nervous...He's nervous...
and all it takes is a wrong move or the perception of non-compliance to tighten his finger on the trigger.

I stopped disobeying speed limits several years ago...and I stopped getting tickets along about the same time. Amazin' how that works.

And:

Incompetent people are in every profession all over the country. When one surgeon leaves a hemostat in a patient's abdomen, do we immediately label
all surgeons as morons? No. We deal with that surgeon and that incident.