Radley Balko links in his latest to an admittedly sad story about an individual shot and killed during an accidental discharge while being arrested for a gambling offense. Radley concludes that a police SWAT team killed him and that their use of excessive force frequently leads to these incidents, but I have my doubts. For starters, SWAT officers are, if nothing else, much more proficient in weapons handling than average cops, who may take their guns out to the range twice a year. It sounds more like an ad hoc tactical team. But even if this victim were killed by an accidental discharge from a SWAT officer that would not necessarily show anything wrong with SWAT teams in general.
Consider this infamous video of an ordinary Florida street cop who had an accidental discharge while telling kids about the dangers of accidental discharges. Or this one where a deputy nearly kills a suspect by accidentally discharging her service pistol. Any cop during a moment of carelessness can have an accidental discharge and departments should compensate victims accordingly. These “accidents” are completely avoidable by following the three cardinal rules of safe gun-handling. Having participated in firearms training with both SWAT and ordinary police, I can tell you that SWAT officers are an order of magnitude more safe and more capable than ordinary street cops.
I’ve been looking into whether SWAT teams in general use deadly force too often. I understand there is at least one study out there that looks at such incidents, and I’ve written to the author requesting a copy. See David Klinger, ââ¬ÅDeadly Force in SWAT Operations: Evidence From Two National Samples.ââ¬Â Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Washington, DC; November, 1998. This paper is cited in an article that states, “[T]he available evidence indicates that although contemporary SWAT teams are equipped with a variety of deadly weapons–including sniper rifles, submachine guns, and assault rifles–they rarely fire them outside of training. A recent study of forty SWAT units from agencies serving 250,000 or more people disclosed that these teams discharged firearms only in sixty-four of the several thousand incidents they handled from 1990 through 1996. Because the only shots fired in many of these sixty-four incidents were directed at nonhuman targets (such as vehicles and street-lights), it is apparent that the shooting of a citizen by a SWAT team is an extremely rare event.”
My ultiamte position on the anti-SWAT argument is a sceptical one. I think SWAT teams and their proliferation are basically a good thing that add an important tool into the police tool kit. I also think that SWAT teams on balance likely reduce the use of violence and deadly force in effecting an arrest. Finally I think that even arrests for nonviolent suspects have a siginificant potential for violence from the person getting arrested, particularly if he faces a long prison sentence. It’s not easy to conclude that warrant service in a great number of cases does not benefit from the employment of a SWAT team. I concede that some SWAT teams make mistakes, may be less capable than other teams (particularly in smaller towns), may be overly eager to use force, may cause major trauma and inconvenience if they raid the wrong home, and may in particular instances behave negligently in the use of deadly force. But I think that regular, non-SWAT officers are more likely to do all of these things and do them more often, because of the less rigorous selection process they undergo and their relative lack of training in the use and threat of deadly force.
The proper comparison is not between a world without mistaken arrests and misuse of force and the actual world we live in. The right comparison is between departments that don’t have SWAT teams or rarely use SWAT teams when compared to comparable departments that do. As far as raw numbers go, it appears SWAT teams are not using deadly force very much, just as most cops do not. But even to better understand the effects on the margins, this kind of study would be interesting and important. At best, in opposition to SWAT teams, we’ve seen a collection of stories. Such a method barely does justice to the subject matter. It is, as I’ve said before, the equivalent of the Church Burning Scandal from the mid-1990s. It turned out there were no more church burnings then than there were in the recent past, and that the whole thing was a hoax. There, as in this case, we should be careful lest our society mistakenly crafts policy using nothing better than the availabiltiy heuristic.
Subscribe To This Feed
“But even if this victim were killed by an accidental discharge from a SWAT officer that would not necessarily show anything wrong with SWAT teams in general.”
No, it shows that using SWAT teams to serve warrants against suspected gamblers is a bad idea. If this man was a violent criminal with violent tendencies, and the officer’s gun was drawn and accidentally discharged, it would be much more understandable than this situation. His point was that serving an arrest warrant on a suspected gambler with no history of violence is what led to the accidental discharge in the first place.
“I think that even arrests for nonviolent suspects have a siginificant potential for violence from the person getting arrested, particularly if he faces a long prison sentence.”
On the other hand, I think that that “potential for violence” can be escalated quite a bit by descending on minor criminals with the same team that is used for hostage situation takedowns and major raids. It instills a certain amount of militarism and urgency (and undue seriousness) into a situation that might have gone down without incident otherwise. Yes, it might scare them into submission, but it might also have the opposite effect: scaring them into panicmode, which wouldn’t necessarily happen if a couple low-key officers knocked on his door.
Anyway, I’ll certainly grant you that some studies should be done, because there’s way too much “I think…” going on here; and yes, I’ll also grant you, I think Radley sometimes makes too much of the nuggets that he keeps posting. But you also give way too much deference to the use of these paramilitary squads in minor warrant servings…which is understandable, given your military and police history and background.
“But even if this victim were killed by an accidental discharge from a SWAT officer that would not necessarily show anything wrong with SWAT teams in general.”
No, it shows that using SWAT teams to serve warrants against suspected gamblers is a bad idea. If this man was a violent criminal with violent tendencies, and the officer’s gun was drawn and accidentally discharged, it would be much more understandable than this situation. His point was that serving an arrest warrant on a suspected gambler with no history of violence is what led to the accidental discharge in the first place.
“I think that even arrests for nonviolent suspects have a siginificant potential for violence from the person getting arrested, particularly if he faces a long prison sentence.”
On the other hand, I think that that “potential for violence” can be escalated quite a bit by descending on minor criminals with the same team that is used for hostage situation takedowns and major raids. It instills a certain amount of militarism and urgency (and undue seriousness) into a situation that might have gone down without incident otherwise. Yes, it might scare them into submission, but it might also have the opposite effect: scaring them into panicmode, which wouldn’t necessarily happen if a couple low-key officers knocked on his door.
Anyway, I’ll certainly grant you that some studies should be done, because there’s way too much “I think…” going on here; and yes, I’ll also grant you, I think Radley sometimes makes too much of the nuggets that he keeps posting. But you also give way too much deference to the use of these paramilitary squads in minor warrant servings…which is understandable, given your military and police history and background.
Let’s face it, though, the chief concern is not the aestetic one of “what kind of society do we have” if SWAT teams are employed on warrant service. The chief concern is that innocent (or nonviolent) people will be needlessly harmed during an arrest. I agree, this is a serious issue, and if there are times SWAT teams are used poorly or promiscuously it’s a policy that should be changed. I also agree that we don’t want cops generally to be paramilitarized and alienated from the citizenry. I just think the proof, or rather lack of it, is in the pudding. The statistical support for the “SWAT gone wild” thesis is lacking. I also think the alternative will often be worse as arrests are inherently dangerous police activities and will likely be made more so by regular officers drawing guns. (I have a client who had a gun put in her face during a DUI stop–no SWAT there).
No two regular officers are going to be arresting a major bookie by knocking on his door. This guy is not just a gambler; he’s the guy who takes bets (and enforces debts). He likely has some enemies. He’s likely had a leg or two broken. He likely has bribed cops, mafia folks, and others to stay in business. I don’t know all the details, but it’s a little naive to suggest a major bookie is completely harmless.
My viewpoint may be a bit skewed as I’ve known Sal Culosi since 1st grade, played soccer with him for years and can honestly say he and his family are simply fantastic. His sister said it best by saying that he did not deserve to die like this.
The issue is did the SWAT team really need to have their guns drawn AND aimed at his heart. I understand that lethal force is meant to be just that, but guidelines that allow such force were so far from being warranted in this case it’s simply tragic.
In this situation the SWAT team could have had guns drawn and aimed at foot level only to raise and fire upon provocation. This seems common sense to me. In any event, policy needs to be adjusted promptly so that we don’t end up loosing someone that although he may have made some poor, non-violent choices recently, was genuinely a good person and had helped many.
May God accept him into heaven with open arms and somehow provide comfort to his family and friends who are left to proceed on with there lives and grieve.
“I agree, this is a serious issue, and if there are times SWAT teams are used poorly or promiscuously it’s a policy that should be changed.”
Here’s the problem with this particular facet of this issue, Chris: in all the incidents I hear about, nobody is really punished for stupid mistakes or malicious acts. Maybe, admin leave w/ pay for a week, etc. This is the reality. And the “police culture” of de facto immunity for most infractions means that this is unlikely to change…especially when their actions are backed up by wayward policy. At the very least, Radley’s exposure of these incidents might alert more people to the unpunished injustices that have taken place, and might in turn lead to policy changes and/or new standards for behavior.
But, assuming (and I think it’s a safe assumption) that this police culture of immunity and lack of self-criticism within departments will always be a part of police forces, I believe that it’s valid to argue that there should be a change in the way SWAT/paramilitary teams are utilized.
“No two regular officers are going to be arresting a major bookie by knocking on his door. This guy is not just a gambler; he’s the guy who takes bets (and enforces debts).”
A “bookie” with no record of violence. You’re right, you don’t know the details, so let’s not make any positive assumptions about how many legs or thumbs he’s broken, or how many government officials he’s bribed. That does not serve your argument well.
Not only that, but the warrant that was served was for a document search. Merely assuming that this guy was violent because he “enforces debts” is irresponsible. And, as John notes, serving this “document search warrant” with guns drawn and pointed at his heart was irresponsible too. Yes, this could have happened with joe blow cop too, but the argument here is not against guys in SWAT uniforms, it’s against the tactics used, and when they are used.
Let me be clear. I think SWAT teams do this sort of thing better than regular police with or without guns drawn, who are more likely than regular SWAT cops to have a negligent discharge. So I disagree with Radley when he says, “you’d be hard-pressed to argue against the fact that Fairfax’s all-SWAT-all-the-time police is the reason Culosi is dead”
I also don’t think there is any excuse for shooting someone negligently if you follow the cardinal rules of gun safety. Such an officer should be at least fired if not worse.
If it’s just a tactical criticism in general against having guns drawn, I disagree. I don’t think having guns drawn need be dangerous if you know what you’re doing and it might even be prudent. I don’t know if this guy was violent but it’s based on my general knowledge of bookies, some of whom I know of personally. If it’s untrue in this case that he was a threat, then obviously my major premise is wrong. I think it’s premature to assume he was totally not a threat or for the police to have assumed so. I also think if he was any kind of threat it was likely prudent to employ the SWAT team.
I think it’s fine that Radley’s doing what he’s doing, exposing these incidents. I would agree with you and him too that the kinds of punishments handed out in the cases of these deadly mistakes should be more than a slap in the wrist. I’m trying to represent the other side here and provide some perspective in favor of SWAT teams in general. Any individual tactical decision is always up for criticism. But the question of whether SWAT teams in general are bad and overused is an open one, and my position is that they’re generally not a problem, they probably reduce actual violence, and in that respect they’re defensible.
Let me be clear. I think SWAT teams do this sort of thing better than regular police with or without guns drawn, who are more likely than regular SWAT cops to have a negligent discharge. So I disagree with Radley when he says, “you’d be hard-pressed to argue against the fact that Fairfax’s all-SWAT-all-the-time police is the reason Culosi is dead”
I also don’t think there is any excuse for shooting someone negligently if you follow the cardinal rules of gun safety. Such an officer should be at least fired if not worse.
If it’s just a tactical criticism in general against having guns drawn, I disagree. I don’t think having guns drawn need be dangerous if you know what you’re doing and it might even be prudent. I don’t know if this guy was violent but it’s based on my general knowledge of bookies, some of whom I know of personally. If it’s untrue in this case that he was a threat, then obviously my major premise is wrong. I think it’s premature to assume he was totally not a threat or for the police to have assumed so. I also think if he was any kind of threat it was likely prudent to employ the SWAT team.
I think it’s fine that Radley’s doing what he’s doing, exposing these incidents. I would agree with you and him too that the kinds of punishments handed out in the cases of these deadly mistakes should be more than a slap in the wrist. I’m trying to represent the other side here and provide some perspective in favor of SWAT teams in general. Any individual tactical decision is always up for criticism. But the question of whether SWAT teams in general are bad and overused is an open one, and my position is that they’re generally not a problem, they probably reduce actual violence, and in that respect they’re defensible.
” I think SWAT teams do this sort of thing better than regular police with or without guns drawn….”
What, shoot people in the heart when they dont mean to?
OK OK cheap shot. And maybe cheap shot is not the best word choice.
Away from SWAT polemics, a good piece of advice on gun safety was from a girlfriend’s father, an old good ol boy from Tejas, who asked her:
“Have you ever seen an unloaded gun?” Answer: Never.
good to keep in mind.
Now, hold on a second. I happened to know this “bookie.” He was my eye doctor — that was his real job. Gambling was apparently just a social thing for him.
Sal Culosi was a really nice guy, a professional and kind to children (such as my boy, who at three years old is a terror when daddy is strapped down with dialated eyes). This isn’t a candidate for the SWAT team. He would have surrendered to a meter maid.
It’s not like the cops didn’t know who he was. They sent undercover operatives to his house for six months. This was a failure of judgment, as well as training.
Now, hold on a second. I happened to know this “bookie.” He was my eye doctor — that was his real job. Gambling was apparently just a social thing for him.
Sal Culosi was a really nice guy, a professional and kind to children (such as my boy, who at three years old is a terror when daddy is strapped down with dialated eyes). This isn’t a candidate for the SWAT team. He would have surrendered to a meter maid.
It’s not like the cops didn’t know who he was. They sent undercover operatives to his house for six months. This was a failure of judgment, as well as training.
For those of you who didn’t know Dr. Sal Culosi, let me paint you a picture. Someone who never raised his voice, never threatened anyone, was patient with people who would probably drive you insane, a man who loved his friends and family and would do anything for them, a man who would more than likely stop and give you a ride to a gas station when your car broke down on the highway and everyone else zoomed past you. That is Sal Culosi. Anyone else who says different doesn’t/ didn’t know him. I am enraged to here people who don’t even know someone talk about how he must have broken legs, thumbs, or bribed officials. Lets not forget that the people that gave him the label of “bookie” are the same ones that assassinated him.
“I’ve been looking into whether SWAT teams in general use deadly force too often.”
Like the ubiquitous study that purports to measure whether gun possession is “useful” for self-defense by measuring homicides, the problem is that the yardstick is not appropriate.
Certainly it is true that SWAT teams are highly trained – however the purpose that they are trained for is essentially a specialized form of urban warfare, abet with a policy preference of not actually killing the people with whom they come into contact.
However, there is a vast perceptual difference between two uniformed officers politely knocking on a door and presenting a search warrant (if one were anciently baroque, one might even allow the subject thereof to read said warrant prior to entry) and having 20 body-armor clad, masked, men armed with fully automatic weapons break down doors, toss flash-bang grenades, and scream at the top of their lungs while all point automatic weapons at whatever they assume to be the subject of their warrant.
The operant question in this particular incident is why the undercover officer, who had clearly been in Culosi’s presence numerous times, could not have simply informed him that he was under arrest and arrested him? It is the difference between that, and the idea that SWAT was “necessary” because a search warrant was being served, that is the true measure of whether SWAT is “overused” to serve warrants.
The question of over-use of SWAT teams to serve routine warrants is not a question of, “How many people did SWAT teams actually kill?”, but of the enormous power shift toward the perception that possibly greater “officer safety” justifies subjecting the law-abiding public at large to displays of overwhelming force at the hands of masked government agents pointing fully-automatic weapons.
It seems somehow ironic that one should have to point out that historically, visits from the KGB in the USSR were conducted far more politely, even when the KGB’s intent was to make you disappear permanently.
It is perhaps the difference between the politeness of the KGB of an actual police state and the “fear-inducing tactics” of modern SWAT-enhanced policing where the proper measurement of “overuse” of SWAT in ordinary policing lies.
If we, as citizens of a democratic republic, are the masters of our government shouldn’t we be able to expect that our servants, the police, should be required to be at least as polite as the KGB??
In my opinion, the problem is not whether “SWAT teams in general use deadly force too often,” but whether there is any accountability for wrongful use of that deadly force. In other words, when the wrong door is kicked down or when the wrong people are shot and killed, can We the People see that the wrongful actors are punished? And in the rare cases that the malfeasor is punished, is the punishment appropriate? What if I had accidentally shot Dr. Culosi in the act of performing a citizen’s arrest? I suspect that if I had, Mr. Horan would have had no qualms over charging me with a homicide. Deval V. Bullock was not so charged. Something is not right here. A wrongful killing is a wrongful killing. Why should it be designated as somehow “less wrong” because it is perpetrated by a law enforcement officer rather than by a private citizen?