UPDATED, 10/11/06: (See below fold). Attacker Daniel Culotti, who was shot dead justifiably by his 52-year-old victim this weekend in downtown Seattle, set fire to his mother's Phinney Ridge home and daycare center in 2001. His mother, workers and seven kids escaped; he got less than two years for first-degree arson. Less than two years...when he could have killed seven children and several adults. More Washington state justice. Additionally, the Seattle Times reports today, Culotti, 25, was arrested three times this year for violating the terms of his release. What were these violations?
What says existing state law on whether these violations comprised grounds for more than a short stay in jail each time? And if no such stipulation exists, what do lawmakers think about changing that, for goodness sake? Is Culotti's ability to repeatedly violate release terms and be set free each time at all tied to chronic lack of jail space? D'oh! What is to be done? The Times article today does not both to address any of these questions. But it does spend six grafs painstakingly explaining why a man brutally kicked and punched to the ground, and verbally threatened with death by his attacker was justified in shooting him. Boy. I'm glad we cleared THAT up.
UPDATE, 10/11/06. The Seattle Times today commendably digs a bit deeper on the Culotti backstory. He was let out of jail after serving nine months of his less-than-two-years sentence for first degree arson (following his attempt to burn down his mother's home and day care center with seven children inside). Classified as "dangerously mentally ill," he had $10,000 in government funds set aside to help cover five years of his housing needs, medication and therapy. He did okay on the therapy (The Times reports), but was unable to shake an addiction to crack cocaine.
That Culotti's story is a human tragedy does not obscure that it is also about the failure of statist therapuetics in place of serious consequences for crimes. Someone who is officially classified as dangerously mentally ill, who tries to burn down a building with seven chiildren (and his mother) inside, and who despite state intervention for his mental illness continues to use crack cocaine and become psychotic, should be LOCKED UP, along with receiving various treatments. Courts and legislators in King County and Washington state, in all too many instances seem to have forgotten that a core function of government is....PUBLIC SAFETY.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at October 10, 2006 10:29 AM | Email ThisYup, that's right, Saint Ronnie. Basically, it was a package deal between him and the "we need to quit wasting money on social programs" conservatives, and the ACLU/R.D. Laing types who thought institutions=bad and too restrictive of people's rights. Supposedly there were going to be community treatment options- but they kind of forgot to fund them.
So, one of the people you can thank is Ronald Reagan the next time you run into a crazy, homeless bum...
Posted by: eponymous coward on October 10, 2006 10:29 AMThe difference between conservatives and liberals is we recognize the mistakes of RWR and learn from them.
Liberals refuse to learn, The ACLU still supports deinstitutionalization, the Great Society is an utter failure (40 years and 3 trillion dollars) and the problem is worse, and libs want more money for it.
We know kick folks like Culotti is and was not a good idea. The liberals still haven't figured it out.
Posted by: JCM on October 10, 2006 10:43 AMDeinstitutionalization is far more a product of leftist ideology and has a history that goes back as far as 1955.
It would have been nice if the Times had reported what Culotti's parole violations were. Was the guy a serial arsonist, or what? We need to understand the facts and why he was on the street Saturday.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on October 10, 2006 11:14 AMeither way, the shoot was totally justifiable and shame on the other citizens who didn't come to the aid of the victim.
Posted by: Harry Callahan on October 10, 2006 11:16 AMThe WA Ds got caught up in their own philosophy! We are too dumb to take care of ourselves, (federal) government needs to take care of us. If they felt so strongly about it, why didn't they fund it? Reagan was never governor of this state!
Posted by: Right said Fred on October 10, 2006 11:26 AMAccording to each and every one I talked to the beginning of the end was when the mentally incompetent, who were able to, were no longer required to a) get out of bed b) shower c) keep a tidy appearance d) go out and work on the hospital farm.
These people, to a person, described how people who had been able to live fairly O.K. lives under this very structured system simply fell apart and spent the remainder of their time at Western State blankly staring at the walls, chain smoking cigarette after cigarette. This was before being thrown out onto the streets. Check your facts and you will see that the ACLU’s fingerprints are all over the cases and subsequent laws that changed how mental patients are treated. I am not saying that there was some reform needed, but what I am saying is that like everything the left touches the people they purport to care so much for end up worse off than previously and society also suffers from their perverted concept of “compassion.”
JDH’s correct. The state felt it was inappropriate to have the patients volintarily tend the herds and till the fields to raise crops that were consumed on the campus. Better they populate the sidwalks…
Posted by: TedS on October 10, 2006 05:00 PMAnd based on the constitution, Scalia was correct. Why didn't the judge just give the maximum sentence allowed? Why doesn't our legislative branch change the laws and increase the time that can be servered? That would be what our government should do and how it's supposed to work.
Have you contacted your state representatives about increasing sentencing on any crimes? If not, please do. Your voice can help to keep those that commit crimes off the streets.
Posted by: Dengle on October 10, 2006 05:30 PMThe simple fact is that what Reagan did was irrelevant here.
The real problem here is that this guy is a habitual LAW BREAKER with a record and was put out onto the street. Would you dare say that Reagan was soft on criminals?
Republicans are the party that represents putting violent criminals behind bars and keeping them there. Democrats are the party of treating criminals like naughty children and slapping them on the hand before releasing them back into society. There's really no arguing that point is there?
Posted by: johnny on October 10, 2006 06:01 PMIncidents like this are the raison d'etre for the Concealed Weapon Permit. You better believe that the dacoits and thugs take notice when one of their kind is slain by an armed citizen. They'll think twice before attacking someone else on the street especially since Washington State has one of the more liberal CWP policies in the country.
Posted by: Bill K. on October 10, 2006 08:42 PMIt was the Community Mental Health Act of 1963, not court cases in the 1970's that spearheaded deinstitutionalization as policy.
By 1976 some were sensing the folly ("The Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill: A Critical View", an article by Andrew Scull in Politics and Society 6 (Summer 1976)).
The mistake is even more evident today.
Posted by: TedS on October 10, 2006 11:13 PMAs expected, this guy had mental illness and a history of problems (many of which were likely self-inflicted.) Good thing all the vindictive "turn the other cheek" Christians here are just foaming at the mouth waiting for the next whacked-out street dweller to be shot by another "upstanding citizen."
Some of you rabid gun nuts need to move to a third world country, where death squads routinely carry out these human-hunting fantasies of yours. You know, the fantasy where the "good guy" always bags the "bad guy." Just like in the movies!
I wonder if it was Mel Gibson running amok - recently fallen off the wagon again -"threatening" a paranoid gun-toting citizen. Would the SP crowd be relishing the thought of shooting him in cold blood? Or, does this celebration of death only apply to "the real criminals?"
Look - this guy deserved to be locked up and institutionalized for many years. But he didn't deserve death. If the victim was attacked on a dark street, with nobody around, I could see what his rationale would be for using deadly force. But this was mid-day on a Sunday, at a crowded Westlake Center.
Posted by: Benjamin on October 10, 2006 11:27 PMYeah, right, BillK. Like the mentally ill ever stop to "think once" let alone "think twice."
This was a guy who tried to burn his mother's house down "because it needed to be burned."
This incident might make vindictive and angry people like you feel good about your own twisted world view - but to say this shooting actually serves as some kind of deterent is a joke.
Posted by: Benjamin on October 10, 2006 11:35 PMMentally Ill people all are looking for love and acceptance. But their reality pushes their support away. The meager support provided by institutions doesn't help much. People tend to overhouse those that make them uncomfortable,but many (most democrats) are capable of living in open society with some marginal support. Mentally ill people, the serious ones, are more likely to be abused by the people around them.
Posted by: jd on October 10, 2006 11:51 PMMarissa--
no one is gloating here. your points are taken. i'm sure all feel it's a tradgedy and a lost life. however it was not a DOUBLE tragedy. no one should feel guilty for defending one's own life. feelings and basic survival are quite different issues. the latter must come first.
bloggers like me only seek to defend themselves, ask why they need to & are glad they can. assault victims will confirm it's not pretty on the receiving end. and as a victim, you don't have time to wait, calmly evaluate & FEEL, much less mount an alliance of helpers. i've been there. fight or flight. usually, you're on your own. the attacker has already removed a number of your choices by his attack. my guess is that (hopefully) you've never had to take serious defensive actions. what would you choose in a split second--understanding your attacker's feelings/mental state or your life? a "simple beating" can be VERY serious--blood clots, brain jostling, organs, etc.--and this does not mean that every response warrants a gun--responsible gun owners know that & weigh it often. you are right--it's not simple and it's sad. however, no one said life would be a snap, either. plenty to learn here for all sides.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on October 11, 2006 02:27 AMBenjamin & marissa. Bad people, do bad things and I will not let these people hurt or kill my family or friends. Yes and even protect you!
Get over it.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/index.html
Posted by: JDH on October 11, 2006 08:53 AMMr. Culotti forfeited his opportunity at life when he wantonly attacked another citizen. Paint the rest however you will - it changes nothing.
Rue the circumstances, lament the loss, agree that it was regrettable, and I think we can all agree.
Place blame anywhere other than Culotti himself (especially on his victim!) and you are out of line. Try to find ways to defend the Culotti's of this world and I'll consider it. Try to interfere with my right to defend me & mine and I'll do everything in my power to oppose you.
BTW: When attacked by your friend, the victim called out for help and no other citizen responded. The victim did what any self-respecting person must do - he took responsibility for his circumstances and his destiny and defended himself.
Whatever else you would like to make of this incident, it is about one thing; taking and accepting personal responsibility.
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 11, 2006 09:02 AMUtterly wrong. There's a series of federal court decisions starting in the early 1960s that limited authority of states to civilly commitment the mentally ill. Some of these decisions, when you look at the facts, made sense. I recall reading one from Florida where a guy was locked up largely because his parents thought his religious beliefs were weird.
The difficulty is that once you turn a public policy question from a legislative decision (sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but at least the legislature can fix it) to a constitutional question, it gets much harder to make those fixes.
In 1967 (with more reforms in 1969), partly in response to these decisions, California's legislature passed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that significantly changed the civil commitment process. Governor Reagan was in support of that change--as were large numbers of psychiatrists, who thought the existing system was terribly clumsy. California was not the only state making these changes at about the same time.
Unfortunately, judges are more the problem now than the law. I've talked to psychiatrists who work in California's county mental health facilities--and they tell me that the biggest problem is not the statutory authority, but that too many judges think of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest as a docudrama, and will not confine violent mental patients except in the most severe cases. My brother, who has been schizophrenic since 1973, has repeatedly engaged in violent attacks on others, and seldom served more than 14 days for observation. Judges simply will not lock up people until they kill someone, or darn close to it.
Here's a lot more detail, for those who actually want to understand and fix the problem, instead of just scoring political points.
Posted by: Clayton E. Cramer on October 11, 2006 01:31 PMWhich had only the effect of returning responsibility for mental health to the states--who had been solely responsible for it until the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980. So why didn't Washington State--which has always had responsibility for mental health matters--do anything?
It's very fashionable to blame everything on Reagan (out of office since 1989), but why, since Washington State is run by the hard left, hasn't the state solved this problem?
Posted by: Clayton E. Cramer on October 11, 2006 01:43 PMPeace,
Dr. R. Farrar
Stevie Wonder likely has a HUGE entourage of ARMED security staff and a SECURED home site like the Kennedy Compound--do YOU have the same?
Why not? Ban the hand gun--why? to make it only available for the elite who can afford it & their lawyers? sounds like you're promoting MORE class distinction/struggle.
As for Mr. C, yes--you & your extended Family have my sympathies. honestly. I hope for healing.
but--that does not erase the facts. someone was INVOLUNTAIRLY placed in danger of their life. reasons excused. that's a time for action--and survival. i expect anyone sane to vote for their own survival, not their own death.
Sounds like there's a missing gene in this clan.
Posted by: Dr. Schol on October 11, 2006 04:43 PMWhy did his mother leave this person with such personal problems in Seattle to fend for himself?
What did his "cousin(s)" and "friends" do for him knowing that he had such problems before he assaulted someone?
It's ironic that his "cousin(s)" and "friends" have found this blog.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on October 11, 2006 07:02 PMWhy did his mother leave this person with such personal problems in Seattle to fend for himself?
What did his "cousin(s)" and "friends" do for him knowing that he had such problems before he assaulted someone?
It's ironic that his "cousin(s)" and "friends" have found this blog."
In answer to your question: it is extremely difficult for family and friends to help a violent psychotic. It is dangerous--and usually completely unproductive for the person who is mentally ill.
I wish that some of the people who have taken to saying nasty things about this guy Culotti to understand that he was insane. For all we know, he saw a tentacled monster in front of him when he attacked the shooter.
There are bad guys out there--bad guys who know right from wrong, and who just enjoy causing suffering. A person who is psychotic may do bad things, with no awareness of what he is doing. Under those circumstances, the only realistic choice for someone under this sort of life-endangering attack is to draw and fire.
Can we get back to the core problem here? Why was someone who was categories dangerously mentally ill out on the street? A few years back, a psychotic in San Francisco shot someone with a bow and arrow, taking out an eye. He was determined to be mentally ill, and ordered to a half-way house. He never went there. The criminal justice system made no attempt to figure out he was. When next he came to the attention of the police, it was because he was cutting the throats of other homeless people--and didn't particularly care that he had been arrested. After all, he was a 2000 year old vampire. What could the police do to him?
There are some good reasons why the old civil commitment system needed reform in the early 1960s. There were some perhaps isolated (perhaps not) abuses of the process. What replaced is the disaster that put Culotti's victim at risk, and got Culotti killed.
Posted by: Clayton E. Cramer on October 11, 2006 08:48 PMThe liberals absolve the "mentally ill" of all responsibility for their actions and treat them like they have the mental capacity of a dog incapable of volition. Any misbehavior is excused because they are "troubled" or used drugs or were improperly toilet trained.
If this "mentally ill" punk had enough mental capacity to dress and feed himself and to travel about the city, he had enough capacity to know right from wrong and to restrain himself.
Posted by: Bill K. on October 11, 2006 09:52 PMAre you a "cousin" or "friend" who was asked to respond? Did you personally know the deceased?
If not why are you answering? The question called for first-hand knowledge from individuals alleging to be related to or having a personal friendship with the deceased.
Theory as to his personality, traits, and actions as well as textbook cases in San Francisco can be garnered from Dr. Phil.
"The liberals absolve the 'mentally ill' of all responsibility for their actions and treat them like they have the mental capacity of a dog incapable of volition. Any misbehavior is excused because they are 'troubled' or used drugs or were improperly toilet trained.
"If this 'mentally ill' punk had enough mental capacity to dress and feed himself and to travel about the city, he had enough capacity to know right from wrong and to restrain himself."
1. You are failing to understand what's going on. Culotti was probably schizophrenic. We joke about hearing voices and seeing things, but for schizophrenics, this is reality. They see, hear, and feel things that that aren't there. I had a girlfriend, many, many years ago, who had hebephrenic schizophrenia. The voices wouldn't let her go to sleep for several days--they kept screaming, "Kill yourself!" so loudly that she could not sleep.
I would encourage you to watch either A Beautiful Mind or I Never Promised You a Rose Garden, both of which do a pretty good job of conveying the confusion of schizophrenia. (Joanne Greenberg's book, I Never Promised You a Rose Garden is also quite powerful in getting across the problems of hallucinations so real to the victim that they become reality.)
Daniel Culotti, for all we know, saw himself being attacked. His senses were in error, but once you recognize that, his actions were probably logical. This is the reason that paranoid schizophrenics, once diagnosed, and especially if they have violent histories, should not be out on the streets. It is a disaster waiting to happen.
2. Your angry tone is accomplishing nothing, except making liberals feel even more smugly self-righteous about themselves than they already do (which is hard to imagine). Culotti's death was a tragedy, but the only real alternative was to let his victim risk death--or reform the civil commitment system to prevent situations like this from happening every single day in America. Liberals can be our allies on this, once they get over the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest fantasy about mental illness.
Posted by: Clayton E. Cramer on October 12, 2006 10:06 AMYes this is true, and what is important too is that conservatives not fall into the "past utopia" trap. The old system sucked too, in fact it was worse than all other alternatives except all of those that were in practice or had been tried up until that time.
This is not a word game I am playing, civil commitment is needed ALONG with recognition of and elimination of abuses that were in place prior to the 60's if true compassion for the mentally ill is ever to manifest itself in the world.
IMHO and unfortunately many of the mentally ill actively resist help and compulsory treatment is unavoidable so you do have a "Civil Rights" consideration that can be an obstacle. My opinion is that Libs have used an creative and tangential arguments connected to a laissez-faire concept of what a person's "rights" are to thwart any real reforms. The demands they make are as impossible to meet as their promises are unrealistic.
In a Seattle Times article Culotti sounded like real bad news including arson, prison, alcohol and drug abuse and finally assault. Contrary to the apologists who say this guy was actually the victim, as a wretched letter in the Times today contends, and unable to control himself, Culotti was able to exert enough control over himself to get released from prison in only nine months for good behavior.
These apologists for bad behavior are a slap in the face to those who have mental problems and struggle heroically to overcome them. They don't do drugs or alcohol, take their medicine and in the most important and most difficult step, re-evaluate their defective mental processes. As a result they do not go beserk on the streets.
Inside the Criminal Mind by Stanton E. Samenow is an invaluable aid to understanding the motivation of those who have no desire to control themselves or better their situtation.
Posted by: Bill K. on October 13, 2006 09:52 PMSo much for 'helpful people' coming to the rescue. Mr. Culotti could have and should have been removed by local security or local police. There was time long before it escalated to that point. There was ample warning. Something was wrong, somebody should have done something. But nobody did. Should the victim have lain down, covered his head with his hands, and waited for the beating to stop? How about the next person who got targetted? Was there any reason to believe that 'helpful people' would intervene for them?
I am sorry for Mr. Culotti's tragic life. And death. But I am not sorry at all that his victim had the right to a very effective self defense.
Posted by: Angela B. on October 15, 2006 08:54 PMDanny, You were like a brother to me and always will be I love you to death and I promise we wont stop until we catch your murderer and get him charged with life in prison. He took your life and now his needs to taken too. I will never forget your gorgeous smile and those amazing eyes. I love you Danny and I will miss you dearly.
Posted by: Jennifer Wrenchey on October 15, 2006 09:34 PMFor heavens' sake, if you know something actually factual - if you were a witness present at the time, say - take it to the police and give them actual evidence. But merely coming here to tell us that you know 'the truth' and everything we hear to the contrary is a lie....well, that's not useful at all.
Neither is the mention of Mr. Culotti's eyes.
Posted by: Angela B. on October 15, 2006 09:47 PMHe will be missed a great deal and if you were at the funeral you would have seen just how big of an impact Danny was to those around him.
He was my friend, my "christmas morning", my everything in so many ways.
He doesnt deserve this or any of the bad publicity he has been given.
He loved his family, friends, and yes baseball. His smile could make you melt and I do agree with jennifer his eyes was enchanting.
What people who have never met him need to understand is that you cannot believe everything in the news, or what you hear, because it doesnt ring true. Of course they will make him seem like a mental but understand with every man or woman there are faults no one is perfect. He may or maynot have made a mistake but there are plenty of things that everybody has done in there life that they can't take back.
Although I am mad at the person that decided to take my friends life, understand that he has to deal with that when his judgement day comes he has to live with that not anyone else.
Let Danny rest. He doesnt deserve any of the bad publicity he is getting.
To Danny I will always love you! your "My Danny".
To his family My deepest Sympathy.
Danielle Alan Culotti
November 25,1980 - October 7,2006
Danny's mother, my aunt, has not seen this website yet, and she doesn't need to. I had not seen it until a couple of days ago, although I had heard about it, because I knew that it would only make me angry. But my aunt called me the other evening upset because she had heard people were writing horrible things about Danny, her son, on the internet, so I looked for her... and this site is what I found.
Most of the people who have taken the liberty to discuss the life and death of Danny on this site did not know my cousin, do not know what he struggled with, and do not know what happened the day he was shot. Danny's family loved him, we are all devastated by the loss of someone so close to our hearts, and most of what has been posted about him is just plain disrespectful. It hurts me to know that when people (his mother included) google his name, this site comes up. Please, out of respect for Danny, who is not here to speak for himself, and for his family, who is mourning a beautiful young man, remove this article. Or at least have the decency to respond to my emails.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Liz Culotti