America, proving once again, that countries do not learn from their own history:
As one friend of Culosi's told me, "To Sal, betting a few bills on the Redskins was a stress reliever, done among friends...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."
Apparently, it was. Fairfax police detective David J. Baucom met Culosi in a bar one evening last October, befriended him, and was soon making wagers himself. According to those close to Culosi I've spoken with, it wasn't long before Baucom began upping the ante, encouraging Culosi to wager larger sums than what the friends were used to. Baucom would later report in an affidavit that he'd wagered close to $30,000 with Culosi over a three-month period, and had lost nearly $6,000.
Baucom eventually encouraged Culosi to wager at least $2,000 in a single day, the lower threshold under which Culosi could be charged under state law with "conducting an illegal gambling operation." On January 24 of this year, Detective Baucom assembled the Fairfax County SWAT team, and marched off to Culosi's home to arrest him.
To put it nicely, he egged him on then had him arrested. If that is not within the spirit of entrapment, then I don't know what is at this point. Then a trigger happy SWAT officer shot Culosi. It all happened because the police interfered in a non-violent, consensual "crime" between people with the means to support their vice without being a burden to anyone, especially their families.
By their own admission, Fairfax County Police abuse the privilege of deploying a SWAT force by bringing it to bear on a myriad number of offenders who are simply not sufficiently threatening (or threatening at all, as was the case here) to justify their use. It happens, though, for the most banal of all reasons: laziness. It is easier and safer to rush in with the full SWAT effect and so thoroughly terrify people into just surrendering to the police. Unfortunately, this has also proved terrify people into shooting cops in situations that would not have happened if police forces could not legally use military-style weapons or armor except in extreme cases.
What cases like this prove, and it's not the first time that SWAT and similar methods has been horrendously abused in Northern Virginia, is that local governments cannot be trusted with heavily armed police. That is why I think the only solution to this sort of problem for Virginia is for the state to disband all local SWAT units and build its own SWAT units for the state police that may be called on by local governments when the need arises, similar in concept to the National Guard. At the bare minimum, what we need is a law that allows SWAT to only be used in cases where there is a very high likelihood of extremely violent behavior that cannot possibly be resolved with normal police methods.
The point that matters about Culosi's case is that it proves the danger in letting the police bring such force to bear in non-exigent circumstances. No one in their right mind can look at this case and actually believe that a SWAT was necessary, given how little criminality was involved. If the police are willing to bring a SWAT to bear on such a case, how long before the only crimes that one does not risk facing a SWAT for are common traffic violations? It's bad enough that the cop practically created this case through deliberate and malicious manipulation of Culosi, it's even worse that they saw fit to turn it into a three-ring circus by treating him like an extremely violent criminal.
this kind of story really pisses me off...that people still buy the fact that police are there to protect and serve is mind-numbing to say the least...
Those with no real power love to use what little they possess.
What should really piss y'all off, besides the obvious overuse of the SWAT units, is the fact that they held the police to such a low standard. Had any "civilian" handled a weapon like that, they would now be sitting in a Fairfax County jail.
The problem begins when the 'master' is not allowed to have weapons (by definition "special" weapons) that the alleged 'servant' (that was, at one time, police and other public 'servants') has.
It merely adds insult to injury that the 'master' has weapons confiscated, while the servant's are paid for with confiscated $$$.
And finally, of course, it becomes truly offensive when ANY infraction by the 'master' is punishible by death at the hand of the 'servant', who is immune from any negligence or dereliction, not to mention violation of oath...
I try to tell people that the police are a function of the society that they come from and thus if the people can't handle the weapons, the police can't handle them. The reaction I always get from that is pure emotion "well, I just don't want people to have them."
How can you argue with that? They don't even try to be logical about it. You can't argue with that. I'm afraid that nothing short of forcing people to do these things will restore basic freedoms.
I'm a bit more cynical (realistic? ;) on that score, Mike. Certainly I don't believe you can (or should) force people to accept freedom. [At least not for themselves. Ultimately people who refuse to accept someone ELSE's may find themselves killed...]
Back when I was doing a radio show, one of the topics that I frequently addressed was a peripheral point to this, which resulted in my skepticism:
I honestly do not believe our society today is even remotely educated enough, or mature enough, to restore a truly republican form of government. (As John Adams said, "this constitution was fit for the governance of an educated and moral people only." I have been forced to conclude that the post-republic of Amerika, which has turned its back on the Creator, is today neither.)