Former Marine shot in Tuscon

[RetiredGySgt]

If unidentified armed men break down your door you certainly have the right to be armed and to expect that they fully and properly ID themselves and their mission before demanding that you disarm youself.
If that didn't happen the police were in the wrong.

They identified themselves BEFORE and as they broke the door down. Or didn't you read the story?

 

[Moonglow]

nothing like a police state to protect us from ourselves

Provide evidence we are a police State. If we were, first there would be no "evidence" they did anything wrong and second there would be no lawyer to take the case.

yes, killing innocent people daily represents a non-police state

 

[Moonglow]

end the drug war and this shit won't happen.

 

[RadiomanATL]

If unidentified armed men break down your door you certainly have the right to be armed and to expect that they fully and properly ID themselves and their mission before demanding that you disarm youself.
If that didn't happen the police were in the wrong.

They identified themselves BEFORE and as they broke the door down. Or didn't you read the story?

And like I said earlier, anyone can yell "POLICE" and kick a door down.

Doesn't mean they are.

The man had a right to remained armed and ready until proper credentials were shown.

 

[Moonglow]

22 hits out of 77 shots, lousy shooters

 

[9thIDdoc]

They identified themselves BEFORE and as they broke the door down. Or didn't you read the story? __________________

Yes, and I found no proof that the home owner ever knew who broke down his door or that he opened fire first.

"But Vanessa Guerena insisted she had no idea, when she heard a "boom" and saw a dark-suited man pass by a window, that it was police outside her home. She shook her husband awake and told him someone was firing a gun outside."__________________

I have no doubt that the shooting was other than malicious but seems to be a clear overreaction. The shooting would only have been justifiable with proper ID, and order to disarm, and then good cause to believe he presented deadly threat.

 

[MikeK]

If unidentified armed men break down your door you certainly have the right to be armed and to expect that they fully and properly ID themselves and their mission before demanding that you disarm youself.
If that didn't happen the police were in the wrong.

They identified themselves BEFORE and as they broke the door down. Or didn't you read the story?

Really? How did they do that through a closed door? If I decide to kick your door down tonight I'll be sure to holler real loud I'm a cop.

I guess I wasted my time telling you that ex-Marine could have taken out a few of those cowboy narcs with his AR-15 if he chose to. The fact he didn't proves he wasn't inclined to do that but was merely preparing to defend himself in case they weren't cops.

 

[MikeK]

Cops often get away with this kind of SNAFU.

It's been this way as long as I can remember.

You're quite right. But I'm old enough to remember when the sanctity of the home was respected in America and no judge would issue a break-in warrant except for the most demanding of circumstances. This incident is just one more in an increasing number of unnecessary Waco-type SWAT invasions

If you haven't yet visited these sites, please do. You'll find valuable information there.

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If unidentified armed men break down your door you certainly have the right to be armed and to expect that they fully and properly ID themselves and their mission before demanding that you disarm youself.
If that didn't happen the police were in the wrong.

They identified themselves BEFORE and as they broke the door down. Or didn't you read the story?

Really? How did they do that through a closed door? If I decide to kick your door down tonight I'll be sure to holler real loud I'm a cop.

I guess I wasted my time telling you that ex-Marine could have taken out a few of those cowboy narcs with his AR-15 if he chose to. The fact he didn't proves he wasn't inclined to do that but was merely preparing to defend himself in case they weren't cops.

He made a choice to am a weapon at the police, he also made a comment that would indicate a desire to fire. The cops identified themselves as required. Should they have shot him? I don't know I wasn't there, was it a legal shooting? Yes. They followed the laws as written. Does the family have recourse? Yes, the lack of evidence and the total lack of substantiation for an order for SWAT to raid his house, if proven, will lead to the city pay compensation.

If the family proves its case the Local District Attorney should be run out of office and possible a couple senior cops should get fired. The Judge acts on the information that the DA provides. Unless someone can provide evidence that the DA did not justify the request for the raid to the Judge, the Judge is out of this. He simply acted in accordance with the law and the request from the DA.

The officers are not personally responsible for carrying out the order as signed by a Judge and delivered to them by their superiors. The home owner confronted them armed and issued a statement that would lead a reasonable man to believe he would open fire. Further the VERY supposed reason for the raid and the USE of SWAT would lead those officers to believe he would fire. They made a snap decision based on what they believed to be good intelligence and a reasonable request from the DA.

 

[MikeK]

He made a choice to am a weapon at the police, he also made a comment that would indicate a desire to fire. The cops identified themselves as required. Should they have shot him? I don't know I wasn't there,[...]

If you weren't there how do you know he aimed his weapon at the police? And how do you know he made a comment "that would indicate a desire to fire?" And how do you know the cops identified themselves as required? Because they said so?

That young fellow was an ex-Marine. You know what that means in terms of his ability with a rifle. Yet you believe he was aiming and verbally indicating a desire to fire -- in spite of the fact that his rifle was found still on safe and that he didn't even get one shot off. There is something seriously wrong with that and I'm quite surprised you are bending over backward to affirm the cops' version.

How do you account for that?









was it a legal shooting? Yes. They followed the laws as written.







Does the family have recourse? Yes, the lack of evidence and the total lack of substantiation for an order for SWAT to raid his house, if proven, will lead to the city pay compensation.

If the family proves its case the Local District Attorney should be run out of office and possible a couple senior cops should get fired. The Judge acts on the information that the DA provides. Unless someone can provide evidence that the DA did not justify the request for the raid to the Judge, the Judge is out of this. He simply acted in accordance with the law and the request from the DA.

The officers are not personally responsible for carrying out the order as signed by a Judge and delivered to them by their superiors. The home owner confronted them armed and issued a statement that would lead a reasonable man to believe he would open fire. Further the VERY supposed reason for the raid and the USE of SWAT would lead those officers to believe he would fire. They made a snap decision based on what they believed to be good intelligence and a reasonable request from the DA.[/QUOTE]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

He made a choice to am a weapon at the police, he also made a comment that would indicate a desire to fire. The cops identified themselves as required. Should they have shot him? I don't know I wasn't there,[...]

If you weren't there how do you know he aimed his weapon at the police? And how do you know he made a comment "that would indicate a desire to fire?" And how do you know the cops identified themselves as required? Because they said so?

That young fellow was an ex-Marine. You know what that means in terms of his ability with a rifle. Yet you believe he was aiming and verbally indicating a desire to fire -- in spite of the fact that his rifle was found still on safe and that he didn't even get one shot off. There is something seriously wrong with that and I'm quite surprised you are bending over backward to affirm the cops' version.

How do you account for that?









was it a legal shooting? Yes. They followed the laws as written.







Does the family have recourse? Yes, the lack of evidence and the total lack of substantiation for an order for SWAT to raid his house, if proven, will lead to the city pay compensation.

If the family proves its case the Local District Attorney should be run out of office and possible a couple senior cops should get fired. The Judge acts on the information that the DA provides. Unless someone can provide evidence that the DA did not justify the request for the raid to the Judge, the Judge is out of this. He simply acted in accordance with the law and the request from the DA.

The officers are not personally responsible for carrying out the order as signed by a Judge and delivered to them by their superiors. The home owner confronted them armed and issued a statement that would lead a reasonable man to believe he would open fire. Further the VERY supposed reason for the raid and the USE of SWAT would lead those officers to believe he would fire. They made a snap decision based on what they believed to be good intelligence and a reasonable request from the DA.

[/QUOTE]

And why do YOU simply dismiss what they said happened?

 

[Truthseeker420]

People being arrested for speaking their mind, people being executed in their own home. WTF?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The five SWAT team members who shot Guerena believed that he had fired his weapon first, he said. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gun's safety was on and hadn't been fired"

The reason given for shooting the man proved to be a mistake.

Being armed in your own home when facing armed and unidentified strangers who have just broken in is neither against the law nor proof of deadly threat. The police were simply too quick on the trigger in this case.

 

[MikeK]

nothing like a police state to protect us from ourselves

Provide evidence we are a police State. If we were, first there would be no "evidence" they did anything wrong and second there would be no lawyer to take the case.

America is not a police state yet but we have been moving incrementally in that direction ever since Ronald Reagan accelerated Nixon's War on Drugs. That farce has been the rationalization for gradual militarization of our community police agencies and this shooting is the latest in a long list of similar incidents.

I can remember a time when a break-in of this type could only have occured if the subject was an extraordinarily dangerous felon and there was no other alternative -- and the incident would have been big news all over the U.S. But the average American citizen will be surprised to learn that these SWAT break-ins take place more than 40,000 times a year.

Forty thousand times a year. That's an average 120 times a day x 365 days. That's quite a habit for our community police to be developing. That, combined with all the surplus military equipment the police are acquiring from DoD, plus the provisions of the so-called "Patriot Act," makes it clear that all the components of a police state are in place. All it will take is for someone to push the button.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"The five SWAT team members who shot Guerena believed that he had fired his weapon first, he said. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gun's safety was on and hadn't been fired"

The reason given for shooting the man proved to be a mistake.

Being armed in your own home when facing armed and unidentified strangers who have just broken in is neither against the law nor proof of deadly threat. The police were simply too quick on the trigger in this case.

Which is not criminal while executing an armed raid of a home the police believed belonged to a dangerous person involved in the drug trade, so dangerous the local DA got a warrant that had SWAT conduct an armed raid on the home.

Further they legally entered the home and Identified themselves. They initially believed not only had he fired but that he hit one of them. One of the officers tripped and fell as they saw the homeowner with the rifle. The others believed he was shot.

The DA and whom ever fabricated the complaint are to blame.

 

[MikeK]

And why do YOU simply dismiss what they said happened?

I have good cause to know that lying is a normal component of policework. Police know what is acceptable in terms of lawful procedure and they tailor their reports and their testimony to fit those requirements. Creative fabrication comes naturally to them. Ask any criminal defense attorney.

In addition to my personal on-the-job experience with police lying, a professor I had in college, a criminologist named Benjamin Avery who wrote a book on the polygraph, told us police become so accustomed to lying in their reports and testimony their lies and deliberate distortions don't even register on the machine. Over time it becomes a matter of conditioned, instinctual pathological lying, which is beyond the ability of the polygraph to detect.

The requirement for arresting officers placing a hand on the heads of arrestees being placed in police cars is the result of common lie police would use to cover their unnecessary use of the blackjack. That lie was reporting the subject struck his head on the car while getting in. A similar situation is the requirement for at least one (NYPD) officer to walk ahead of an arrestee while descending stairs -- because of the frequent reporting of subjects with injuries having "fallen down stairs." And there are more.

If you research the details of the Waco investigation you will find the affidavit BATF submitted to obtain their break-in warrant contained more boldface lies than truths and all of the truths were distorted and exaggerated.

The story the cops told about "believing" Guarena shot at them because one of them had tripped is precisely the same lie told by the three cops who fired the 41 point-blank shots that killed an unarmed man (Amadou Diallo) in a Brooklyn hallway some years back. And I wouldn't be surprised if these are not the only two situations in which that "tripped" lie has been used to excuse an otherwise inexcusable shooting.

 

[MikeK]

The DA and whom ever fabricated the complaint are to blame.

Maybe. Where do you think the information presented in warrant affidavits comes from?

Based on the the facts in this case (no recovered evidence or convincing preliminary evidence) I strongly doubt that any prosecutor would ask for a break-in warrant. I'd wager that, as in the Waco raid, the cops had a hard-on for Guarena for some reason and submitted a creative affidavit.

But unless there is a motivated investigation we will never know. This fellow is a Mexican and the fact he's a legitimately employed ex-Marine supporting a family in a modest middle-class household doesn't mean a thing. I further believe the most he was involved in possibly involved sale or purchase of a few ounces of personal-use marijuana. For which he's been killed and his family ruined.

 

[Luissa]

I never said they should have gone there or had any proof, just said he was doing it. And I think this because I have seen many things when it comes to pot. Lol

This Marine was selling pot, there is no doubt about that.

Keeping in mind those cops were acting on a search warrant, which they did execute after killing that young man, and no evidence was recovered to support their suspicion, what do you base your conclusion of guilt upon?

Even if he was selling marijuana I can't think of a less reasonable cause to break into his home and kill him. He had harmed no one.


If you haven't yet visited these sites I strongly suggest you do and learn what is happening in your country.

Botched Paramilitary Police Raids

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/balko_whitepaper_2006.pdf

This type of thing is very high on the list of provocations for the American Revolution.

 

[MikeK]

Your rights be damned. REALITY and the LAW will side with the Cops. The only way this family gets money is if there should have been no raid to begin with.

Advocating that citizens confront a SWAT team armed is ignorant as hell. I can assure you even if he had survived but shot cops HE would be in jail. And he would be facing murder and assault charges. And unless he got a stupid Jury he would have gone to Prison.

The 20+ years you spent in the Marine Corps has obviously conditioned you to reject the concept of civil rights. The effect of that protracted experience is your perceptions have become flatly authoritarian and your preoccupation with obedience to rules has blinded you to the concept of right vs wrong.

If Guarena were suspected of distributing truly dangerous drugs (crack, methamphetamine, etc.) and/or distributing to minors, I would not be so critical of those cops. But every one of them knows perfectly well that marijuana prohibition should be legal and that its prohibition is wrong. In spite of that they remain perfectly willing to do what they've done in this examples and in many, many others similar examples.

That is why I regard narcs as the scumbags of law enforcement. I don't think of them as police officers but as mercenary goons in the service of the real beneficiaries of the drug war, which are corrupt officials and the corporatocracy.

Those narcs who killed Guarena probably will walk away without censure, as is typical in such cases -- and there are many. Their actions will be deemed "legal" which does not make them right. And that is what you choose not to deal with.