Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 1/18/2011 1:19:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/18/2011 5:19:55 PM EDT
Not sure if serious....
Link Posted: 1/18/2011 5:32:12 PM EDT
All the violent crime out there and they waste all this $$$ on some minor betting that the cop then raises the
stakes on to make a case.
Link Posted: 1/19/2011 6:36:21 AM EDT
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD
Link Posted: 1/19/2011 7:47:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.

Link Posted: 1/19/2011 8:15:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



"Set Up" is *exactly* how I read it..

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"


So if he wasn't set up, how do you interpret this?
Link Posted: 1/19/2011 9:47:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By kcobean:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



"Set Up" is *exactly* how I read it..

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"


So if he wasn't set up, how do you interpret this?


I'm going to change a few words....IM AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WAS WHAT HAPPENED....its to see if you would still be saying "set up"

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to buy crack, which he had done several times before. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"

AGAIN IM NOT SAYING THE GUY WAS A DRUG DEALER......

My point is it was not a "set up". It sounds like it was a police case they were making an arrest on. And I'm not defending what happened here.
Link Posted: 1/19/2011 10:50:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By kcobean:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



"Set Up" is *exactly* how I read it..

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"




So if he wasn't set up, how do you interpret this?


I'm going to change a few words....IM AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WAS WHAT HAPPENED....its to see if you would still be saying "set up"

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to buy crack, which he had done several times before. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"

AGAIN IM NOT SAYING THE GUY WAS A DRUG DEALER......

My point is it was not a "set up". It sounds like it was a police case they were making an arrest on. And I'm not defending what happened here.


It was a gambling ring, not drug dealers.
Link Posted: 1/20/2011 3:30:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2011 3:35:41 AM EDT by UNIT6639]
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



I read the whole story, so what was the cop doing? He was in a bar and over heard the guy and his friends betting so he decided to get him a bust, but no he didnt set him up, whatever man, I hope the guy is happy that he got some guy killed, if he wanted a bust he should have went out and earned one from a deserving criminal, maybe, like a criminal selling crack, there are plenty of them in FF county.

How many of us have made "gentelmans" bets with our buddies? If I was sitting at a bar and over heard this convo going on, my spidey sense wouldnt even have tingled, NOW! if crack were mentioned then yea, the cop should have been all over it and if the same outcome had went down to the guy, well, he shouldnt have been selling crack rock.

Not trying to start an argument, I just do not feel that any of this should have happened to this guy in the first place, I would feel like shit if I was that cop.

Link Posted: 1/20/2011 8:05:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



I read the whole story, so what was the cop doing? He was in a bar and over heard the guy and his friends betting so he decided to get him a bust, but no he didnt set him up, whatever man, I hope the guy is happy that he got some guy killed, if he wanted a bust he should have went out and earned one from a deserving criminal, maybe, like a criminal selling crack, there are plenty of them in FF county.

How many of us have made "gentelmans" bets with our buddies? If I was sitting at a bar and over heard this convo going on, my spidey sense wouldnt even have tingled, NOW! if crack were mentioned then yea, the cop should have been all over it and if the same outcome had went down to the guy, well, he shouldnt have been selling crack rock.

Not trying to start an argument, I just do not feel that any of this should have happened to this guy in the first place, I would feel like shit if I was that cop.



I read the linked story from above. Sounded like a one sided story to me from the family. I would like to hear the police side but doubt we ever will. In the Washington Post they stated the judge refused to let police enter history of cocaine use and gambling unless his family wanted to dispute the investigation.....by what the judge ruled in the story I would say the family's lawyer did not want this in court.

My point being is there are at least three sides to this story...what the police claim...what the family claims....and then what really happened. I was not there. I doubt any of you were. All I'm saying is we should not start saying stuff based upon a one sided story on the internet.
Link Posted: 1/20/2011 9:15:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By kcobean:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



"Set Up" is *exactly* how I read it..

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"


So if he wasn't set up, how do you interpret this?


I'm going to change a few words....IM AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WAS WHAT HAPPENED....its to see if you would still be saying "set up"

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to buy crack, which he had done several times before. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"

AGAIN IM NOT SAYING THE GUY WAS A DRUG DEALER......

My point is it was not a "set up". It sounds like it was a police case they were making an arrest on. And I'm not defending what happened here.


The risk in arresting someone who is selling drugs (a notoriously high risk behavior where weapons/violence are part of the game) vs the risk in arresting someone whom you prompted into a friendly wager over what the state allows are quite different, and the cop's inability to differentiate got an innocent man killed. But hell yeah, let's go out and shoot us some more white-collar criminals for doing what they want with their money.
Link Posted: 1/20/2011 9:16:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ffemt11b:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By kcobean:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



"Set Up" is *exactly* how I read it..

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"




So if he wasn't set up, how do you interpret this?


I'm going to change a few words....IM AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WAS WHAT HAPPENED....its to see if you would still be saying "set up"

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to buy crack, which he had done several times before. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"

AGAIN IM NOT SAYING THE GUY WAS A DRUG DEALER......

My point is it was not a "set up". It sounds like it was a police case they were making an arrest on. And I'm not defending what happened here.


It was a gambling ring, not drug dealers.


It wasn't even a gambling 'ring'....it was just a couple of buddies betting on a football game. Cop is a douche and should have gone to prison for murder.
Link Posted: 1/20/2011 6:09:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2011 6:10:59 PM EDT by west2746]
Originally Posted By kcobean:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By kcobean:
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.



"Set Up" is *exactly* how I read it..

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to collect his winnings. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"


So if he wasn't set up, how do you interpret this?


I'm going to change a few words....IM AM NOT SAYING THIS IS WAS WHAT HAPPENED....its to see if you would still be saying "set up"

On the night of January 24, 2006, Baucum called Culosi and arranged a time to drop by to buy crack, which he had done several times before. When Culosi, barefoot and clad in a T-shirt and jeans, stepped out of his house to meet the man he thought was a friend, the SWAT team moved in. Moments later, Bullock, who had had been on duty since 4 a.m. and hadn't slept in 17 hours, killed him. Culosi's last words: "Dude, what are you doing?"

AGAIN IM NOT SAYING THE GUY WAS A DRUG DEALER......

My point is it was not a "set up". It sounds like it was a police case they were making an arrest on. And I'm not defending what happened here.


The risk in arresting someone who is selling drugs (a notoriously high risk behavior where weapons/violence are part of the game) vs the risk in arresting someone whom you prompted into a friendly wager over what the state allows are quite different, and the cop's inability to differentiate got an innocent man killed. But hell yeah, let's go out and shoot us some more white-collar criminals for doing what they want with their money.



Did you see anywhere in what I wrote saying what action was taken that night was right? I'm sure you didnt because I never wrote it. What I said was the police did not "set the guy up". And again the linked story is one sided from the family. Its been reported since it has happened that it was a "gambling ring" unless you listen to the family. If the guy was not doing anything illegal then why was the family lawyers not having the whole investigation as part of the civil case? Its because judge said the police lawyers could then use the evidence of his cocaine use and past gambling (from the washington post story). If the family lawyers had nothing to keep from coming out in court then why did they not take the cops to cleaners? Why settle?

And again I'm not defending the police actions that night.
Link Posted: 1/20/2011 6:55:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2011 10:39:44 PM EDT by larrycwdc]
Originally Posted By west2746:
Originally Posted By UNIT6639:
So, they set the guy up, then he gets killed over some friendly bets, way to go Fairfax county PD


He was not set up. Read the whole story.


While I tend to agree with the thrust of some of the points you raise in response to feedback subsequent to this contribution, west2746, the article that was originally linked by nethole relates, in part:

The SWAT team came to Culosi's house because another Fairfax County detective, David Baucum, overheard him and some friends wagering on a college football game at a bar. "To Sal, betting a few bills on the Redskins was a stress reliever, done among friends," a friend of Culosi's told me shortly after his death. "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." Baucum apparently did. After overhearing the wagering, Baucum befriended Culosi. During the next several months he talked Culosi into raising the stakes of what Culosi thought were friendly wagers. Eventually Culosi and Baucum bet more than $2,000 in a single day, enough under Virginia law for police to charge Culosi with running a gambling operation. That's when they brought in the SWAT team.

Periodically threads pop up in the forum about some of the dangers resulting from interacting with the police ... and two facts. One, that police may lie to achieve their goals (which may or may not be linked to the pursuit of Justice, writ large). And two, one never knows the cause of one's interaction with the police until too late to adopt a defensive posture. When Whore-an, and others of his ilk, ensure that accountability is not even a remote possibility, police 'problems' never go away. They just get some right guard.

In case some have not viewed the animations yet, I'll take the liberty of embedding them below. I found two things especially noteworthy about the animations. I strongly believe Fairfax County's legal staff was similarly impressed, and therefore paid off the survivors to avoid the civil court case.

About 45 seconds into the first video (below, at 0:46), note the position of the spent cartridge from the discharge of Bullock's pistol. It's not highlighted in the version of the animation posted to YouTube. (The animations on YouTube have no audio; I'm certain the versions that would have been presented as evidence had a voice-over.) I don't believe there's any way that expended brass could fly all that way towards Sal, if Bullock's shot was fired while he exited the vehicle. The information about the bullet's trajectory in the second animation also presents a compelling case that Bullock's defense was contrived. (I believe Bullock 'couldn't recall' what happened ... and the car-door-recoil story was presented by counsel and the Commonwealth's expert witness as a 'what must have taken place' cause.) The spent brass should be depicted in the second animation to reinforce the point about the probable firing point based solely on the bullet's trajectory.
































































And how about that thin blue line, eh? Everyone there was so focused on Sal, that no one had any idea where Officer Bullock was at when he killed Sal with that well-aimed bullet ... center of mass, just like he was trained. Except Officer Bullock was trained to keep his booger-hook off of the bang-switch. This epic fail cost Sal Culosi his life.

(Edited for typos, and in an attempt to better convey my intended message.)
Link Posted: 1/20/2011 9:47:32 PM EDT
I can not say what did or did not happen that night. NO idea. Again my only point was saying he was not "set up".


Link Posted: 1/21/2011 3:21:29 AM EDT
How did that shell casing get WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY up there? He must have a bad extractor on his weapon, what are FF county guys carrying? If they are carrying glocks, my 22 usually drops my casings in a pile to my right, I can usually pick them all up a few feet away , they don't end up way out in front of me following the bullets path.

But ok, he was not set up, and the guy may or may not have been a drug user, there are 3 sides to the story and all that. This just reminds me again why I moved out of that county and ultimately as far away from that county as I could get.

Link Posted: 1/21/2011 10:27:37 AM EDT
Just to be clear....I never said he was a drug dealer. Never heard anything in the news that anybody ever said he was. I changed his crime from gambling to dealing drugs in the above post to illistrate a point only.

As far as the shell casing. I dont know. But just because a case hits the ground at one point does not mean it remains there in the same spot all the time. And if the police really wanted to cover things up or lie about something...how easy would it have been to just move the sell casing? I mean who took the crime scene pictures and did all the work and collected the evidence? As far as I know it was the police. I believe the police when they say it was an accident. NOT saying it happened the way they claimed it did. NOT saying the police were not responsible because they were. I was not there and have not see anything besides what the family has released and what the news has reported...just like everybody else here. But nobody has ever put forth any reason the officer would shoot this guy. Well besides the nuts saying he was just a blood thirsty cop killing for the fun of it. How about it really was an accident. Maybe the officer had his finger on the trigger when he shouldn't have, maybe he was not properly trained. Again I do not know but as a resident who lives in Fairfax County I do not see the police shooting people just because they want to or for the fun of it.

If I remember the police claimed from the first news reports that it was an accidental shooting. I believe this. I do not recall any stories ever saying the guy who got shot did anything that would justify him getting shot. If the police really were trying to cover up or lie then why did they not claim the guy may have had a weapon? or he moved in a threatening manor? Never heard the police or news claim anything like this.

So to sum up what I think....I think this guy was breaking the law and was not set up by the police. I do not feel the actions taken by the police were 100% right but hindsight is always easy after something happens. I think the shooting was a tragic accident and the officer did not mean to shoot the guy. I agree that the dead guy did not need to or deserve to get killed over gambling. The county is now paying for the mistakes that were made.

Link Posted: 1/21/2011 12:13:59 PM EDT
When the Federal Judge ruled the animations could be shown in court the county quickly negotiated a settlement.

That would tend to indicate how they though it would go in court.
Link Posted: 1/21/2011 11:22:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2011 11:46:11 PM EDT by larrycwdc]
Originally Posted By west2746:

{snip}

I think the shooting was a tragic accident and the officer did not mean to shoot the guy. I agree that the dead guy did not need to or deserve to get killed over gambling. The county is now paying for the mistakes that were made.


You, west2746, are satisfied that the "county is now paying for the mistakes that were made?" Good for you!

Puhleez.

I'm not satisfied. I am as outraged now, as I was then. Such 'accidents' can not be allowed to simply happen. And I am not even remotely involved this incident, except to the extent that I'm a NoVa resident who is sensitive to inequities in law enforcement. I can't speak for others, but my outrage results from two factors:
  • The double standard used by Whore-an (and exhibited by other Commonwealth's Attorneys) in seeking justice under the Law. Tragic incidents take place every day. People that cause these tragic incidents never mean for it to have occurred. Why should Officer Bullock get a free pass on this? His selective memory –– not recalling what happened the following week, when he was first interviewed as required by policy –– and his inability to keep his finger off of the trigger –– in spite of years of service including specialized training –– paint him as unsuitable for police service. At least. His bullet hit center-of-mass. That's where his service weapon, I believe it was an H&K pistol, was pointed. And his finger pulled the damn trigger. There was no diabolical car-door rebound. Bullock killed the guy. Bullock didn't kill him with malice aforethought. But kill him he did. And then he lied about not being able to recall the incident. Or if he's telling the truth, such poor recall skills should get him booted off the force ... most ricky tick.

  • Because Bullock and the Fairfax County Police Department were not held to account in the Judicial system, the survivors sought the only lawful remedy, civil action. Whore-an didn't care a lick about the potential cost Fairfax County taxpayers would have to bear when he elected not to file. The Police Department brass and County Supervisors didn't care a lick about investigating the potential wrongful death of a citizen resident ... who had bet enough money on a football game, and held poker games at his house, to earn a visit from the SWAT crew. (I believe all of these extra-duty guys and gals used to lap-up the overtime pay for these warrant services. Some probably still do.)
The lack of accountability demonstrated by all but one individual in this tragedy is disgusting. Period.

Sal Culosi was personally accountable. The accountability was, however, thrust upon him. And he was held accountable by Officer Bullock's actions. Something tells me Sal Culosi would've tried to avoid accountability, but if it came down to brass tacks, I suspect he would've rather paid a fine, or gone to jail. Instead of being killed. But Officer Bullock didn't give him that choice. Officer Bullock couldn't keep his finger off of the trigger while he was aiming center-of-mass at the 'dangerous perp' who merited warrant service by Officer Bullock and the SWAT crew. As soon as he heard the "Bang! ...," and saw the results, "You're dead ..." I imagine that Officer Bullock thought, "Time to shut my mouth, and start 'forgetting' this momentous event."

I hope such injustice is never visited on you or yours, west2746 ...

I sincerely hope that Officer Bullock's ability to accurately recall events is questioned by every defense counsel that he encounters. This sterling example of Fairfax County Police Department's finest can't recall how he killed someone a week after the fact? Is that so? How can he recall with such certainty that so-and-so ran a red light three or four months ago. What ... Bullock wrote the facts in his notebook? Where was that notebook at when he killed a man?

Bullock might be the greatest guy since St. Francis of Assisi. The fact that he's still a cop is repugnant to me. Those that defend the outcome of Bullock's case are repugnant to me.

Fairfax County and their Police Department should be concerned about preventing future occurrences by sterling officers employed by the Department. Because everyone trumpets the '14 hours' of duty that Bullock had before that diabolical car-door killed a man, I presume that a new policy has been implemented such that FCPD officers can have duty only under rigorously enforced time standards, such as apply to OTR truck drivers and civil aviation pilots. Has anyone heard of such restrictions being implemented? Or are FCPD officers with that 'extra duty golden ticket' still racking up as much overtime as they can?

.
Link Posted: 1/27/2011 3:02:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/27/2011 3:03:18 PM EDT by larrycwdc]
... as the district court ultimately (if only impliedly) concluded, the Plaintiffs have generated genuine disputes of material, historical fact in reliance on:  (1) eyewitness accounts from officers who were present at the time of and immediately after the shooting who arguably contradict Officer Bullock on some points;  (2) expert opinion evidence, including reenactment evidence, which Officer Bullock never sought to have formally excluded from consideration by the district court;  (3) forensic evidence gathered from and derived from the scene of the shooting (including the presence of the Dr. Culosi's cell phone);  and (4) a series of internal inconsistencies in Officer Bullock's own accounts, of which there are more than four, as to how the shooting occurred.


Regarding the quoted text. My apologies to members of the 'thin blue line.' I learned this information just now, and believe the words I previously employed were unjust. I'll leave the incorrect words as I originally wrote them, if for no other reason than to illustrate how I tend to 'lead with my chin.'

Regarding the quoted text. Four versions of the story ... including one provided the night of the shooting are mentioned in the decision? I'd sure like to read 'em all.

The Circuit Court decision from which the quote is extracted can be read in its entirety at this < –– Link ––>.

.
Link Posted: 1/27/2011 4:14:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By larrycwdc:
... as the district court ultimately (if only impliedly) concluded, the Plaintiffs have generated genuine disputes of material, historical fact in reliance on:  (1) eyewitness accounts from officers who were present at the time of and immediately after the shooting who arguably contradict Officer Bullock on some points;  (2) expert opinion evidence, including reenactment evidence, which Officer Bullock never sought to have formally excluded from consideration by the district court;  (3) forensic evidence gathered from and derived from the scene of the shooting (including the presence of the Dr. Culosi's cell phone);  and (4) a series of internal inconsistencies in Officer Bullock's own accounts, of which there are more than four, as to how the shooting occurred.


Regarding the quoted text. My apologies to members of the 'thin blue line.' I learned this information just now, and believe the words I previously employed were unjust. I'll leave the incorrect words as I originally wrote them, if for no other reason than to illustrate how I tend to 'lead with my chin.'

Regarding the quoted text. Four versions of the story ... including one provided the night of the shooting are mentioned in the decision? I'd sure like to read 'em all.

The Circuit Court decision from which the quote is extracted can be read in its entirety at this < –– Link ––>.

.


None of the court actions preceding the negotiated settlemetn have much real weight.

The county settled when they though t they would lose in Federal court on the merits.

They decided that the payout they negotiated was less than what the court might award.

That says a whole lot right there.
Link Posted: 1/31/2011 9:23:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2011 9:24:30 PM EDT by dcfireman]

I agree with you Brick, 100%. I'm not weighing in on guilty, not guilty, etc. But as a veteran of several civilian vs. municipality lawsuits, it usually comes down to money. Many times, whether any of these go further in any court, is decided by the gov't bean counters, not lawyers, prosecutors, or public defenders. At some point during the entire legal proceedings, a bean counter has a set dollar amount in their books - when the time comes close, and it looks like it will cost more to pursue/defend/drag on by paying their attorneys, secretaries, cops, clerks, defendants to work on a case - they give the order to 'pull the plug' (settle out of court). I've had this happen to me twice - both times, I was sure I was right (in the eyes of the court), only to have the city attorney call me up, and politely tell me to put the dress uniform away, the city settled, and there wasn't anything he or I could do about it...






Link Posted: 2/1/2011 5:46:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dcfireman:

I agree with you Brick, 100%. I'm not weighing in on guilty, not guilty, etc. But as a veteran of several civilian vs. municipality lawsuits, it usually comes down to money. Many times, whether any of these go further in any court, is decided by the gov't bean counters, not lawyers, prosecutors, or public defenders. At some point during the entire legal proceedings, a bean counter has a set dollar amount in their books - when the time comes close, and it looks like it will cost more to pursue/defend/drag on by paying their attorneys, secretaries, cops, clerks, defendants to work on a case - they give the order to 'pull the plug' (settle out of court). I've had this happen to me twice - both times, I was sure I was right (in the eyes of the court), only to have the city attorney call me up, and politely tell me to put the dress uniform away, the city settled, and there wasn't anything he or I could do about it...

The highlighted lines above are the center of this entire court preceedings. It all comes down to dollars. Even if in the right; if it is going to cost Fairfax County to much money to to prove they are in the right, they will settle rather than spend the money. Happens in almost all county/municipalities. Out of court settlements rarely indicate guilt or innocence of the parties invovled when dealing with a public agency.
Top Top