Concealed Handgun Used to Stop Attack in Seattle

Westlake, Washington Tuesday, October 10, 2006 -- A 25-year-old man who was fatally shot while attacking a stranger Saturday at Westlake Plaza 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. . . .

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.

"It happened pretty fast. Probably by the time anybody thought to intervene, it was already over."

The 52-year-old had a concealed-weapons license and was in legal possession of the handgun, Brown said. Police have not released the man's name because he was not booked into jail.

"He was very cooperative," she said, noting the man waited for officers to arrive and turned over his weapon; he was interviewed by police and later released. . . . .

More information on the attack is available here.

Thanks very much to Tom Armstrong for providing this information to me.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a great story, thanks for posting it!

It brings to mind something I have been considering for a while.

In the aftermath of a *justifiable* homicide, it seems it is common for the police to confiscate your gun. They may not charge you with any crime, they may never arrest you or jail you for any time, but they still confiscate your gun.

I appreciate that police protocol in such situations will vary, but in the above scenario, how can it be considered reasonable to disarm a person that is charged with no crime? If you have just shot (maybe killed) someone, there could be any number of associates, family and/or friends, that might decide to 'avenge' the shooting. You may need your gun more than ever in the days/weeks following the event.


10/11/2006 12:21 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear DK:

I agree that in a perfect world they wouldn't take the victim's gun after the attack, but until they are clear what happened this approach is at least understandable. Thanks.

10/11/2006 3:31 PM  
Blogger saturdaynightspecial said...

HE'S GOTTA GUN ! GET THE GUN !! If you fail to surrender your gun, on demand, you can receive a spine breaking tackle by our heroes the police.

In our country we are not considered "innocent until proven guilty". We are considered guilty until "cleared" of all wrongdoing. In court (fortunately) the burden of proving guilt is (for now) with the prosecution.

Modern day America worships the government (citizens are all criminals)...government can do no wrong...and citizens are 2nd class to the government... we live for our government and if the government says so then you can easily die by the government.

One reason for all of this is because we all attend government schools and are brainwashed there by government employees. Our children are forced to recite the 'pledge of allegiance' everyday. In the pledge is the word 'god' reinforcing the unproven notion (or the fact of supernaturalism) a supreme being does in fact exist. We are all bombarded with dogma from an early age. If the government says so then it must be so.

Another reason is due to all the phobes (hoplophobes, gun phobes and terror phobes) constantly demanding the government keep them safe and secure. 'Providing for the public's safety' is number one. The royal Police are terrified of death and will demand all types of procedures on citizens who come in contact with them: hands must remain on the steering wheel (in plain view) at all times: we must announce to them if we have weapons on our person ("do you have hair gel on your person"): we should display and prove self control to them or we are obviously guilty of something: we must immediately fall to the ground (to show respect for the lives of the last responders) regardless if the ground is cold and wet.

When a crises occurs the government will use it as an excuse to eliminate rights and liberties. When a cop is killed then we (the law-abiding citizen)must allow for for them to perform searches that will guarantee their safety and trample the 4th amendment.

And every possible rule is now in place that destroys common sense and forces citizens to capitulate to every thug, leaving us helpless to the government (and the criminals) who are the only ones that could possibly keep us safe and secure.

Regardless of "the right to keep and bear arms" police will try to ban factories that manufacture machetes. If they can't ban the manufacture of pepper spray they will ban it's use or where and when it can be used. Self defense is a crime - it must be - the government says so. Dark secluded alleys are gun-free zones. Government is our worst enemy.

Now you know why gunners own more than one gun.

10/12/2006 6:19 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

Your link and the text both go to the previous Apple-Mecca URL

10/12/2006 2:40 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home