Defensive Carry banner

good thinking and correct use of a CC weapon

7K views 104 replies 58 participants last post by  RemMod597 
#1 ·
Seattle Times-

This is the story of the self defense shooting of a mentally ill arsonist who had previously served time for dousing his mother's day care center with gasoline and setting it on fire:

A 25-year-old man who was fatally shot while attacking a stranger Saturday at Westlake Plaza (Seattle, WA.) had previously served time in prison for setting fire to a day-care center his mother operated out of her Phinney Ridge home.
Daniel Culotti was shot shortly after 11 a.m. by a 52-year-old man he was assaulting in an unprovoked attack, according to Seattle police. The victim of the assault was carrying a handgun and had a concealed-weapons permit, police said.
In July 2001, Culotti had attacked his mother, Melinda Culotti, inside the family's former residence on Palatine Avenue North near Woodland Park Zoo. He later returned and doused the floors inside the house with gasoline, setting the house on fire.

For that, the man served nine months and was placed on probation. And he's been arrested three times since then for "violating the conditions of his release."



On the last day in the life of this obviously dangerous man, he was randomly assaulting passers-by until he picked the wrong victim -- an older (African American) man who was legally carrying a gun:

According to Seattle police, a woman called 911 at 11:08 a.m. Saturday to report that a man was acting erratically, yelling at passers-by and randomly assaulting strangers near Boren Avenue and Pine Street. Officers sent to the scene couldn't find the caller, the man or any victims, police spokeswoman Debra Brown said.
Twenty-three minutes later, police dispatchers radioed that shots had been fired at Fifth Avenue and Pine Street, she said. Moments earlier, witnesses told police, a man in his 20s apparently attacked the 52-year-old man, punching and kicking him until he fell to the sidewalk. The older man pulled out a .357-caliber Ruger revolver and fired one round, striking the man in the abdomen.
The older man "was not winning the fight" - the other man "just starts attacking him, he's on the ground and a shot is fired," Brown said, describing witnesses' accounts.

What the armed man did was quite rational:

Once you are on the ground, it is hard to run, and hard to protect yourself. The victim did what I think any rational person would have done: he drew his handgun and fired, killing Culotti.

Not only do I agree, this case is one of the best arguments I have seen for concealed carry. The legal system and the police simply cannot keep society safe from dangerous psychotics. If a conviction for arson only gets them off the street for nine months, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that law abiding citizens are the only force that can possibly stop them.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
What the armed man did was quite rational:

Once you are on the ground, it is hard to run, and hard to protect yourself. The victim did what I think any rational person would have done: he drew his handgun and fired, killing Culotti.
You realize this is only justified because of the age of the two men and likely the disparity in health conditions.

I am 24, and if an unarmed 25 year old randomly attacked me and knocked me to the ground, I would have a real hard time proving that I was justified in shooting the person.

You can't just fall to the ground and claim self defense.
 
#8 ·
So you are saying if you are 25 and a 24 year old man is punching you and kicking you, beating you while you are vulnerable on the ground you aren't in fear for your life? Age does not matter in this situation, the man was in fear for his life. So he acted in what I see as a very justified way. I would have done the same thing if someone was beating the snot out of me while I am on the ground. At that point I am in fear for my life.
 
#4 ·
Sounds like a shoot consistent with Washington Law. We are allowed to use deadly force to stop an immediate felony assault against our person.

I am pleased it happened in Seattle (the most anti place around here), that victim had a valid CLP, he had a .357!, that he is a minority, and that he acted in such a professional way.

When it was clear he was in serious danger, he stopped the threat.
 
#5 ·
You guys seem to be missing the definition needed to justify lethal force. If someone punches me multiple times, it may be felony assault. That doesn't mean I'm in fear for my life and that I would be justified in shooting that person.

This is scary, and people need to learn the law.
 
#9 ·
Sounds like Grady might of been in Seattle,age has nothing to do with disparity of force,you can be killed or permanently injured with one blow to the head,not to mention being knocked out and then being totally defenseless,there have been cases where individuals were stabbed and never even saw the knife until it was too late
 
#22 ·
Sounds like Grady might of been in Seattle
:rofl:

Yep, I noticed that, too:
Seattle Times-... The older man pulled out a .357-caliber Ruger revolver and fired one round, striking the man in the abdomen.
Revolvers ain't dead yet. :smile:

Good shot, good stop.

And he was obviously carrying where he could access the weapon in an emergency. :hand10:

Too bad it was necessary, but it sounds like it was necessary.
 
#10 ·
Originally Posted by Jcabin You realize this is only justified because of the age of the two men and likely the disparity in health conditions.
What school is your Law degree from? Are you licensed to practice in the state of Washington?

If I'm on the ground and the attacker is still beating and kicking me I think i could make a case for disparity of force. People have died from such beatings.
 
#11 ·
Florida State Statute says that deadly force may be used "if you or someone else is in emanate, immediate danger of death or great bodily harm."

There are numerous incidents of people being beaten to death with the only weapons being hands and feet used against them. One good kick to the temple is all it takes. Yes you will have to articulate your actions to a grand jury but you will be alive to do so.
 
#33 ·
In Michigan it's basically the same, you can use deadly force to prevent serious injury. Since I am not from Krypton, someone older than say 8 years old could quite easily blind me, or cause me to fall to the ground, at which point a single kick could render me sterile, unconsious or dead. I'm not waiting to be on the ground before I draw. A 24 year old attacks me, I am defending myself at the first attempt to strike me. Granted hopefully I will have attempted to retreat, warn the person to leave me alone, that I am not looking to fight them, and that I am not the aggressor.

Any one that thinks they can take on an aggressor just because they are nearly the same age had better know that their hand to hand skills are the best in the world because if theirs are not, the aggressor's just might be!
 
#15 ·
If you didn’t help create the situation, and out of the blue someone attacks you, in a state with the castle doctrine in place (it usually reads that you have the right to use up to and including the use of lethal force to defend yourself) you don’t have to wait till you are beaten into a state of unconsciousness to deem in serious enough to shoot the attacker.
 
#20 ·
It's not really, but honestly I think it's OK that they mentioned it. It's not racially inflammatory and it shows people that it's not just "******* white conservatives" who carry.
 
#26 ·
Jcabin - Just curious, when would you consider self-defense justified?
 
#27 ·
The older I get the less tolerant of stupidity and disrespect that I get. Its obvious the guy that got shot was a basket case. It was just a matter of time until he picked the wrong person to play billybadass with and he finally found him.

The guy was a trouble maker. He had NO respect, never learned it. As far as I'm concerned, he was no better than a dog that wants to take a bite out of someone just because they walk by. He was arrested for setting fire to a day care center, for crying out loud. In some states deadly force is authorized to prevent arson. My state is, even California is. He was lucky that the right guy didn't see him attempting it. He sets the house of his mother on fire and attacked her. What kind of animal does that?

Those are just the things that we know about. Lets not forget that usually by the time someone gets arrested for domestic assault, that it usually occurs dozens of times before they ever get caught.
For a man to brazenly attack pedestrians, proves that he was off his rocker.

As far as I'm concerned he deserved to get shot. Another scumbag bits the dust and society has one less problem to deal with.
I'd like to buy the shooter a drink.
 
#28 ·
I think the fact that that he was older being attacked by a younger man DOES make it more justifiable than if the two were the same age. Not saying that it wouldn't be justifiable if they were in fact the same age. Age, in my opinon does matter. If a 7 year old kid came at me with a baseball bat, I may take one weak hit, but I could probably easily disarm him without putting two round of .45 into the kids chest. Imagine what that'd look like to a jury. Could 7 year old kid KILL me with a baseball bat? Well, yeah. But I doubt I'd have to use deadly force to stop it and protect my life.

With that said, I think age does affect this. I don't disagree with what the man did. Good for him! He's alive and there is one less peice of garbage for the world to worry about.

That's just what I think :)
 
#30 ·
if someone is clearly beating my ass while I am on the ground already defeated clearly this is self defense. age doesn't matter,t his isn't some bar brawl where we are throwing some punches at each other...i'm on the ground being stomped! this can kill me or cripple me!
 
#35 ·
If you reverse things, as in do what it takes to stop the threat, even in that addled person's mind, when his victim was down and beaten already, any threat he MAY have mistakenly percieved to himself was over. When he continued to pummel the man on the ground is where that victim obtained the right to shoot and stop the threat to HIMSELF. That would apply to any age, whether armed or not. And to address him being mentally ill ( of course ) and not in control of his faculties,the victim would have no way of knowing this and even if he did, it would'nt matter as far as the threat goes. An immediate threat of severe bodily injury or death can be defended up to and including lethal force in MOST states. Unfortunately, some states are a little confusing and confused in this matter. My opinion is that the shooting was perfectly justified
 
#81 ·
If you reverse things, as in do what it takes to stop the threat, even in that addled person's mind, when his victim was down and beaten already, any threat he MAY have mistakenly percieved to himself was over. When he continued to pummel the man on the ground is where that victim obtained the right to shoot and stop the threat to HIMSELF. That would apply to any age, whether armed or not. And to address him being mentally ill ( of course ) and not in control of his faculties,the victim would have no way of knowing this and even if he did, it would'nt matter as far as the threat goes. An immediate threat of severe bodily injury or death can be defended up to and including lethal force in MOST states. Unfortunately, some states are a little confusing and confused in this matter. My opinion is that the shooting was perfectly justified
Excellent point in bold.
 
#37 ·
Someone like me - a fairly small (160 lbs) male in his 50s? Maybe, or maybe not. Depends on the DA, the jury...but I was told to expect my actions to be scrutinized carefully. If the guy had a club or steel toed shoes and I was on the ground? Probably. Sneakers, no visible weapon and scrawny? Probably not. One guy in the class was in his 20s, about 6 foot & 200 lbs - he was told he'd better be fighting a REALLY big guy or he would be expected to take a few lumps before shooting.
I'll be sure to pay myself on the back for showing restraint when i'm lying dead on a slab in the morgue. If I am being beaten bloody on the ground I don't think i'll be thinking of "how will a jury see this"

in this scenario you ALREADY taken your lumps and are on the ground and the beating continues.
 
#42 ·
I'll be sure to pay myself on the back for showing restraint when i'm lying dead on a slab in the morgue. If I am being beaten bloody on the ground I don't think i'll be thinking of "how will a jury see this"...
Well, if you've been beaten bloody and the guy is continuing, then you'll probably be OK. If I've been knocked down only, then I probably couldn't shoot and be let off. I'm in my 50s, but I still run regularly, ride horses, haul bales of hay & sacks of feed...I'm not crippled.

It comes down to proportionate force - and even wars are fought under those rules. In a combat zone, I couldn't gun down a kid for throwing a rock. When I worked targeting, we didn't break out nukes as option one. If military in combat can be expected to show some restraint, then so can cops (see the guy killed in LV at Costco just recently) and so can civilians carrying guns.

So the question becomes, "What does a reasonable man consider appropriate force?" That answer varies with place & time. West Texas in 1880 had a different answer than now, and I suspect San Francisco juries would give a different answer than Phoenix. If you truly are in fear of your life, shoot. But men are expected to show a certain amount of courage and restraint as well. In this case, it seems the DA agrees the victim - who is NOT the guy killed - used reasonable force in responding to the threat. Good on him. I might be held to a different standard, and a football player to yet another one.
 
#39 ·
As a 72 year old senior citizen. If someone pushes me down he better be walking away. If he continues the attack the last thing he will hear is "BANG"
 
#40 ·
I can't believe this is being argued on this forum of all places. If your on the ground after fighting, loosing, and still are being beaten and you're still thinking if you should shoot or not then you're either going to die or end up in the hospital.

Like others have hinted at, the last thing that should be in your head at that point is how much the court bill will be or if you'll get in trouble. Defend yourself! Fighting didn't work, what other option could you possibly have!! If you think running is an option when you're overpowered to the ground and hurt then you should try sparring with someone to find out for yourself.
 
#63 ·
I can't believe this is being argued on this forum of all places. If your on the ground after fighting, loosing, and still are being beaten and you're still thinking if you should shoot or not then you're either going to die or end up in the hospital.
C'mon. Let's be realistic. There are plenty of alternative outcomes. The OP scenario involved many witnesses any one or more of whom may have ended the attack at any instant - effectively covering oneself from the blows or even turning the tables with proper technique - not to mention the possibility of the cavalry to the rescue.

If you equate a bloody nose and some defensive scrapes with "ending up in the hospital" and then with cause for shooting a man then stay in hiding under your bed. Take your lumps home and lick your wounds. It happens all the time. What are you talking about?

OTOH, Crossing one's fingers - hoping and waiting - is not effective response to an attack. As posters say, an attacker who persists threatening serious bodily injury when there is no threat to him is asking for escalation. But other scenarios without witnesses or such disparity of force by a felonious nut and no other weapon on the scene - aren't as automatic.

The discussion is appropriate to the forum and this "Scenarios" topic.
 
#43 ·
Different states weigh this differently but we all have a duty to retain our weapons. If some guy is a real bad-ass and he goes bezerk on me, how am I to know that he won't pop me with my own gun and maybe even unload on other bystanders with my own weapon once he's got the better of me? How would I even know if he is a bad-ass until perhaps once it's too late? Once he takes your gun it is too late for you to shoot an unarmed man but not for him!

If I start losing the fight I will end the fight with my weapon if I'm able still.

This is a tough judgement situation I know, but, I might let some family member that I know wasn't going to kill me kick my ass while I'm armed but not a total stranger who I do not know what their motives are.

Another reason to avoid a fist fight at all costs while packing. Of course, the hands and feet are always ready, none the less.
 
#44 ·
If I have been knocked down, and I have deployed my OC spray already to no avail, I think that in order to prevent being beaten further, I would use lethal force to stop the beating, that goes for anyone
 
#46 ·
There is more to disparity of force than just age, sex or weight differential. I'm a big guy, with two bad knees. Maybe you have a heart condition or bleed easily. In the end, self defense is an affirmative defense where you must convince that a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would feel your actions are justified.

If I'm jumped from behind, knocked to the ground and in the process of being beaten down, I might just find that reasonable.
 
#47 ·
"a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would feel your actions are justified."

Without witnesses or evidence that present overwhelming proof of either self defense or manslaughter, JohnK87 hit it on the head. What would a reasonable believe and do under the same circumstances?
That said, the wrong judge, prosecutor, or jury can turn things bad in a hurry. The time to consider the legal ramifications of shooting an assailant is the day you decide to carry. At the moment of truth, you can only trust your judgement - "Will I be able to get out of this alive without firing my weapon?" The situation dictates the action.
 
#48 ·
jcabin is either delusional, or perhaps PA law requires you to be beaten within an inch of your life before your ALLOWED to be in fear for your life.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top