Police Behaving Badly
Radley Balko | March 21, 2007, 11:05am
The parents of Salvatore Culosi, the Virginia man killed by a SWAT team in 2006 while under investigation for gambling on sports games, have filed a $12 million lawsuit against the city, the police department, and the officer who shot him. I hope it goes well, but qualified and sovereign immunity are high hurdles for plaintiffs in these kinds of cases to clear. To their credit, in addition to damages, their suit seeks major reforms to the way Fairfax uses its SWAT team. Read their wrenching account of how Fairfax officials have treated them here.
In related news, here's some truly horrifying video. Note that until the video hit the news, the guy had only been charged with misdemeanors.
Dave W. | March 21, 2007, 12:24pm | #
Dave W- I'm not sure how that equals pro-cop spin.
FOX has to decide how to report the story in a way that people won't be so clear they are getting a whitewash that they start looking to other media sources (like here) for alternative views.
Also, FOX has to make sure that the people who do stumble on other media sources, after watching the FOX report, don't feel like they had been misled.
So FOX decided that the best way to handle the "threats and intimidation" angle was to spin it so that it sounded kind of harmless, instead of being the most important aspect of this story (as it probably is, at least to me). If someone in the media does focus on the "threats and intimidation" aspect (as the media should), then many of the people who saw the FOX story will think, in a what-me-worry, sheeplish way, "Oh, yeah, they mentioned that on the FOX report, but it was no big deal -- I could tell by the reporter's phrasing and body language that that was not serious."
I don't think it is that sinister when a person in a position of responsibility gets drunk and beats someone up or accidentally shoots them in the face. When you are drinking, s**t happens. However, I think it is very sinister when the powerful person is protected by cohorts: protected by intimidation, protected by turning help avoiding BAC tests, help by filing only misdemeanor charges (in this case, help by filing no charges (in Cheney's case).
FINAL THOUGHT: I don't think it is an accident that we are seeing this tape on FOX, instead of on the YouTube. I think the month of "threats and intimidation" against the owner of the tape mutated into a sort of negotiation (a crooked negotiation, but a negotiation nonetheless) with the tape owner at some point. In that negotiation, the cops had some leverage ("threats and intimidation") and so did the tape owner ("I am going to put this up on YouTube if you keep threatening me.")
We see the end result of this negotiation, which is that the tape is made public, but made public with FOX's accompanying commentary, rather than framed the way YouTube or
20/20 might have framed the story.