Right to defend your home?


PDA






swagner89
May 25, 2011, 03:03 PM
How many of you, upon being woken up by unidentified commotion and screaming in your house, would immediately reach for your HD weapon? I know i would. But what if this happened?

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-did-police-kill-my-dad.html

Does this worry you guys as much as me?

If you enjoyed reading about "Right to defend your home?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M-Cameron
May 25, 2011, 03:10 PM
this is why 'no-knock' warrants are a horrible idea.....


....do a search, there are plenty of people( and pets) who have been killed by swat teams in the middle of the night.

General Geoff
May 25, 2011, 03:11 PM
http://www.shadowflareindustries.com/images/police.jpg

Ryanxia
May 25, 2011, 03:21 PM
M-Cameron said it, horrible idea. If a group of guys were breaking in (one broke a window in the article) I would defend my family with my AR to say the least.

Even if they are police officers, there is no reason that they should be allowed to break in without knocking and showing you their warrant first (although there may be a few extreme situations). The reason I say this is because so what if they are LEO's if they don't have probable cause or a warrant they have NO LEGAL RIGHT to enter my home.

But it's ok, as long as everyone has their beer and facebook who needs rights?
Sorry, /end rant.

Sam1911
May 25, 2011, 03:34 PM
We have several now locked threads on the recent developments regarding warrantless entry:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=593678
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=592640

And a very different thread on responding to law enforcement entering your home:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=583899

All might be worth reading.

Standing Wolf
May 25, 2011, 03:37 PM
(although there may be a few extreme situations)

Nope. Better nine and ninety criminals escape justice than one innocent man be harmed by the law.

The nation's cops and police chief sincerely believe trampling upon a few minor civil liberties is an unavoidable necessity, since it's so hard to catch criminals. I don't doubt it is hard to catch criminals. Some of them actually are clever and cunning, and many and probably even most wouldn't hesitate an instant before committing additional crimes to elude capture.

So?

Nobody ever said law enforcement is as easy as bolting widgets together in a factory. It's not an easy job. It's not a fun job. It's not a safe job, and it never has been, and it never will be.

None of that justifies throwing away our civil rights for the sake of making police work easier and/or less frustrating and/or safer and/or anything else. If we don't still have our civil rights, the rest of what's called "law" isn't law, but a despicable, loathsome sham. Breaking the law to enforce it made and always will make perfect sense to tyrants such as Lenin and Stalin and Mao, but it's anti-American!

If it breaks into my house, I'm going to shoot it.

gdcpony
May 25, 2011, 03:44 PM
I don't like the extremist view the article takes. Sometimes LE must do things in such ways. However, this doesn't seem to be one of those times.

If I were faced with a similar situation, I would have probably done similar and met a similar fate. I would hope there was a chance for some yelling of ID'd before hand though. It could get very bloody with 4 armed people in my house three of them female and two of them kids. That would never work out well for anyone and I actually think I would be glad not to be alive afterwards.

ErikO
May 25, 2011, 04:01 PM
I doubt that any other law-abiliding citizen or resident alien would have done anything different than the marine did. And would fare about as well.

"Love my country, fear my government" used to be my sig line. That was long before the Gadsen got co-opted.

This is as political as I will get here.

swagner89
May 25, 2011, 04:10 PM
i think we would all agree that an illegal arrest is wrong, and that you have a right to defend yourself against it: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

however, like GG's cartoon indictates, just because you are in the right, doesnt mean you'll not be just as dead. my concern is, what can you as an individual do to prevent this from happening?

Sam1911
May 25, 2011, 04:28 PM
what can you as an individual do to prevent this from happening? As an individual, not a whole heck of a lot. Mistakes with lethal consequences do happen as a matter of chance, whether from confused law enforcement officers or from a slip with a power tool, or an inattentive driver. Most of the things that endanger our lives are orders of magnitude more common than these kinds of mistaken entries.

What can you do to reduce your chances of this specific problem?

Don't do "stupid" things with "stupid" people which helps you avoid tangential associations that could bring you this kind of attention.

Make your home reasonably "hardened" and alarmed so that you aren't caught completely unaware by intruders -- whomever they turn out to be. (Get a dog -- even if they are quickly neutralized, they will make noise and alert you before the first thump on the door.)

Work out good lighting for your home that can be activated remotely, so that once you know someone's attempting entry you can see who it appears to be.

Have a plan to respond in an effective way to any unexpected entry. This shouldn't probably be kicking open the bedroom door and opening fire with a shotgun. More along the lines of hunkering down behind cover, making intruders come to you through a choke point you control, having someone contacting 911 as fast as possible.

None of this might have saved this man's life, but the shoot/no-shoot decision is made extremely quickly. Explosive confrontation is generally the worst way to proceed. (Even if you take down the first intruder you see, you aren't going to prevail against a whole SWAT team and once the shooting starts it probably won't stop until you're no longer in a position to care). A single second more for all parties to evaluate their next move might have made the difference. The earlier in the event you are awake and thinking the more chance you have of making yourself known as an innocent, and making wise choices about how/when to show yourself and/or who to shoot or not shoot.

9mmepiphany
May 25, 2011, 04:53 PM
what can you as an individual do to prevent this from happening?
In this case, maybe not be part of a crew that commits a series of home invasion robberies of drug dealers.

In this case LEOs conducted an investigation and established enough probable cause to convince a judge to issue a series of warrants for the entries. Also bear in mind that this legal warrant service was during the day and not at night. While the officers were mistaken, in hoping that the wife and child would be out of the home, the objective was to arrest all the home invasion members before they could warn the other gang members

Ryanxia
May 25, 2011, 04:57 PM
Well said Standing Wolf. Now THAT'S the American spirit! (sorry if that's not PC :P )

USAF_Vet
May 25, 2011, 04:58 PM
I don't have an issue with no-knock warrants because I know how crafty criminals can be in avoiding justice.

But if the cops serving said warrant screw up by getting the wrong address, then they should be held accountable to the higher degree, along with the DA and the judge who signed off on the warrant. Do your homework, get the facts right and if you have the slightest modicum of doubt, try again tomorrow instead of busting down the wrong door today.

Better nine and ninety criminals escape justice than one innocent man be harmed by the law.

swagner89
May 25, 2011, 05:38 PM
In this case, maybe not be part of a crew that commits a series of home invasion robberies of drug dealers.
Don't do "stupid" things with "stupid" people which helps you avoid tangential associations that could bring you this kind of attention.

Lemme get this straight- is this another way of saying, "he deserved it"?

#1- we have a right to freedom of association. people with which we associate do lots of things that others dont approve of, i.e. just owning firearms. that doesnt make you guilty.

#2- we have a right to due process. the courts have the burden to prove guilt. the victim was never convicted of any crime- the initial investigation was about marijuanna-the sheriff fabricated the home invasion story afterward to cover his tracks

#3- we have the the right not to be searched without authority of law. the warrant was not legitimate. it didnt meet the law's requirement to state particularly the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; it was open ended.

these police raids could easily happen to anyone of us, regardless of guilt. we have the constitution to protect our rights from government infringement. I thought this was "The High Road"... To rationalize egregious violations of these rights as the fault of the victim is frankly shocking to me.

9mmepiphany
May 25, 2011, 05:49 PM
Can you point me to a link to the facts that the warrant was based on, that you are basing points 2 and 3 on?

I haven't been able to find it to read the actually documents and was unaware that they had been released

swagner89
May 25, 2011, 06:19 PM
here's another article by same author that has links:
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w214.html

jgiehl
May 25, 2011, 06:29 PM
My first and foremost thought is what a shame.
What a shame that a husband and father who was only trying to protect his own died.
What a shame that a former defender of our country was killed.
Just a shame.

My second thought is, I should not say because it will be deleted and I will most likely be reprimanded in some sort. But you get my drift.

Just an absolute shame.

9mmepiphany
May 25, 2011, 06:41 PM
here's another article by same author that has links
I've read the bog entry and it doesn't have any links to the warrant or affidavits to support or refute your assertions in post #14...it does however have the commentary you have repeated there...as a matter of fact, the blog says that the documents are not available to be examined for content.

Wouldn't it seem more reasonable to wait until they are available before asserting that "the warrant was not legitimate"

HOME DEPOT GEORGE
May 25, 2011, 06:46 PM
Here is some interesting reading on no knock warrants. The cases on here are very well detailed LINK- http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

LibShooter
May 25, 2011, 07:18 PM
i think we would all agree that an illegal arrest is wrong, and that you have a right to defend yourself against it:

Well, yes and no. I do believe an illegal arrest is wrong. However, if you know the guys busting into your house are cops, you gotta meet them with open hands held high. Even if they have no right or reason to be there.

First, no matter how well trained and well armed you may be, you are going to lose a gunfight with the SWAT team.

Second, if you were innocent when they broke down your door, you aren't anymore after you put a round into one of the boys in blue. That may not be right or fair or even Constitutional, but that's how it's going to play out in court most of the time.

Third, the time to press your case is in the calm environment of the police station or courtroom, not screaming through a splintering door at a team of amped up police officers there for a fight.

Having said all that... "No knock" warrant service has to stop. It's just too dangerous for folks on both side of the door.

(While we're at it let's stop the "War on Drugs" that make judges and prosecutors think these warrants are needed, but that's another story.)

Heretic
May 25, 2011, 07:38 PM
And they wonder why people have no respect for cops anymore.god,I'm depressed.

swagner89
May 25, 2011, 10:30 PM
Wouldn't it seem more reasonable to wait until they are available before asserting that "the warrant was not legitimate"

Wouldn't it seem more reasonable to wait until he was charged with a crime before assassinating him? Nobody seemed worried about facts before asserting him guilty. You really think the government would release the documents that implicate themselves? please. suppose the warrant was clean. suppose they found even one shred of evidence to charge him with a crime. he should've been able to defend himself in court. they've taken away that right forever.

forget the warrant. suppose he was guilty of home invasion and selling drugs. does that deserve the death penalty? does that give the police the power to disregard the constitution and dispense capital punishment however they please? does that justify the institution of martial law and collateral damage? do the ends justify the means?

The details of the warrant aren't really the point here. constitutional protections are being blatently and criminally disregarded by the police. Dont rationalize this away; if this tragedy can happen to Guerena, it can happen to any one of us. the bill of rights is there to protect us from an out of control government. its funny how this site is full of people ready to defend the second amendment, but, who needs the others?

9mmepiphany
May 26, 2011, 12:41 AM
forget the warrant....

...The details of the warrant aren't really the point here.
I'm pretty sure it was you who made them the point in post #14, are you conceding those points now that we know that you have based them on nothing more than speculation.

Wouldn't it seem more reasonable to wait until he was charged with a crime before assassinating him? Nobody seemed worried about facts before asserting him guilty.
Are you saying that LEOs should wait until someone is charged before they can take enforcement action? So if a rape victim were pointing out their attacker, as they were walking away, you would have the officers take no action to detain them until they had been charged?

A couple of little points:
1. I don't think killing him before he was charged or after would qualify the killing as an assassination.
2. LEOs don't assert guilt, they don't find/attach/determine guilt...a person's guilt doesn't play into the actions they take. Their actions, as codified, are based on belief established through their investigation

WhistlinDixie
May 26, 2011, 12:56 AM
I was kind of lukewarm and indifferent about this whole thing until you put it like that, Swagner. You're absolutely right. To trample on constitutional rights to make it easier to serve a warrant? It's just not worth it.

crm7290
May 26, 2011, 01:29 AM
Legally for the swat teams what are the ramifications of breaking into the wrong home? If they came into my house could I press charges against them? Would they fix what they damaged?

My girlfriends apartment complex had firefighters breaking down doors that they ordered locked to make sure no one was still in apartments that they had just evacuated. Guess who had to foot the bill for a new door and for a hotel room for the week that it took to put the doors in. It definitely wasn't the fire department.

Would they just say we did it in the interest of your safety and let themselves off like they did to my gf?

swagner89
May 26, 2011, 01:47 AM
Glad you agree Dixie.

9mm, you are totally missing my point. How can i defend myself in my home, if i can't tell if the invaders are common criminals, or SWAT? police are supposed to be restrained by the constitution. but if the police ignore my rights, i cant be assured to be safe from them. In the heat of the moment, Guerena did not know who the invaders were or their intentions. with a split second to analyze the situation, he had to assume that the invasion was hostile. under this assumption, he made decision to defend himself and his family. I and probably everyone on this forum would do the same. Unfortunately he met with dire consequences of that decision.

But is there something else he could have done? The only other alternative I can think of is to not defend himself. He could have stayed prone in bed, and allowed the SWAT to advance on, restrain and arrest him. Then he would still be alive to take care of his family, and able to defend himself in court.

What does this mean for you and me? what do i do if i suddenly realize that someone is forcefully invading my home? well, i want to stay alive. so, knowing that the SWAT could break down my door at anytime, i'd better just lay down and submit. Any neglible sign of non-compliance will likely result in a hail of gunfire. i choose not to defend myself. I stay alive. and I have my day in court to defend myself.

But what if i lay down to submit, and it isn't the cops?




The second amendment is completely useless without the fourth.

General Geoff
May 26, 2011, 03:36 AM
2. LEOs don't assert guilt, they don't find/attach/determine guilt...a person's guilt doesn't play into the actions they take. Their actions, as codified, are based on belief established through their investigation
They do operate on probability of guilt.

9mmepiphany
May 26, 2011, 03:40 AM
What does this mean for you and me? what do i do if i suddenly realize that someone is forcefully invading my home?
I gather that you did not read the links provided by Sam1911 in post #5...specifically http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=583899

They do operate on probability of guilt.
I wouldn't say that, I'd say they operate on the belief in reasonable probability and legal procedure. If you get too wound up in guilt, it becomes very hard to do your job, when you see folks getting off because the courts say they should. Guilt is decided in the courts...I'd like to think by a jury of your peers. Innocence never is...you are presumed to be innocent in court until proven otherwise

Sam1911
May 26, 2011, 07:07 AM
Don't do "stupid" things with "stupid" people which helps you avoid tangential associations that could bring you this kind of attention.
Lemme get this straight- is this another way of saying, "he deserved it"?

#1- we have a right to freedom of association.
Nope. Not saying he "deserved it," but I am hugely unsurprised that you made that leap.

You asked what you could do to prevent (I said reduce) the chances of this happening. One of those things is to eliminate the things that might put your name on an investigator's notepad legitimately.

You have the right to do all sorts of things -- like take a walk down an inner-city Detroit avenue at 2:00 am wearing a Rolex on each arm, a 10 ct. diamond on a 1" thick gold chain around your neck, a blindfold, handcuffs, and a "kick me" sign. That's your right. But like many things that are within your rights, the consequences are not guaranteed to be pleasant.

So, you have the right to associate with drug dealers and gang members. But understand that this greatly increases your chances of having to interact with the police. It is not impossible that this interaction may involve a search of your home and possessions (with a warrant or without). It is therefore possible -- if still unlikely -- that force could be used due to misunderstandings or even through your actions in response.

It may all be a mistake. The LEO department or agency involved may apologize, may exonerate you from any wrong-doing, may even settle a civil case and pay lots of money in compensation. But you may still be dead.

That's not "fair." That's just life.

So, when you ask what you can do to reduce the chances of this happening to you, I say you can try to eliminate those associations that might bring law-enforcement officers into your life for non-random reasons.

people with which we associate do lots of things that others dont approve of, i.e. just owning firearms. that doesnt make you guilty.Owning firearms isn't against the law (in most parts of the US) and rarely gets you or your associates investigated and/or searched without pretty significant other factors involved. Drug dealing and other criminal enterprises do. Again, you have the right to associate with such people, but it doesn't help reduce your chances of an unpleasant interaction with law-enforcement.

Sam1911
May 26, 2011, 07:23 AM
#2- we have a right to due process. the courts have the burden to prove guilt. the victim was never convicted of any crime- the initial investigation was about marijuanna-the sheriff fabricated the home invasion story afterward to cover his tracks

#3- we have the the right not to be searched without authority of law. the warrant was not legitimate. it didnt meet the law's requirement to state particularly the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; it was open ended.
I have no idea whether these things are true or not. I can't comment on them. Investigators and/or a court will decide if violations were committed and if so who should pay for them.

these police raids could easily happen to anyone of us, regardless of guilt.Yes, I said that before. It is impossible to completely remove all risk of this happening, but these are still very rare events, and there are ways you can work to reduce those chances.

I thought this was "The High Road"... To rationalize egregious violations of these rights as the fault of the victim is frankly shocking to me. No one is doing so. There is a difference between contemplating ways to avoid negative outcomes and excusing official wrongdoing. IF the law enforcement officials involved broke the law, violated rights, and behaved unethically, I do hope they are severely punished as an example to others. But I don't have more than the most superficial facts in this case, and I won't be sitting on the jury, so I'll reserve my opinion on that.

However, the advice still stands that IF you are truly concerned that this could happen to you and you want to take steps to reduce the chances that it will there are things you can do.

It is your right not to have an alarm system and to activate it. But that would help give you more notice, i.e.: a few extra seconds in which to make assessments and decisions.

It is your right not to have a dog. But a good one will bark and alert you to intruders before they approach the house.

It is your right not to have good lighting, a response plan, a defensible strong point with approaches you can control. But those could be helpful at increasing your survival chances.

It is your right to associate with drug dealers or other criminals. But...

Sam1911
May 26, 2011, 07:50 AM
Wouldn't it seem more reasonable to wait until he was charged with a crime before assassinating him?I haven't seen anything that claimed they came to the house to kill him. He wasn't yet charged with a crime and they weren't there to punish him.

Nobody seemed worried about facts before asserting him guilty.No one had (or yet has) asserted that he was guilty. They didn't get that far. He wasn't killed as a consequence of his guilt -- he was killed in what would be defense of officers' lives during the course of an entry/search/arrest. I know I'm making assumptions here that the officers involved are at least averagely lawful, but cops don't shoot suspects unless they think there is a pretty serious and immediate risk to themselves or others. They are there to find evidence and put someone into custody to await a trial. So, someone in that team thought that they or someone else was going to be injured or killed while doing their duty if they didn't shoot. That might have been an incorrect belief, and there could have been any number of compounding mistakes -- but they (unless this is a much larger problem than is being claimed) didn't go to his house to kill him.

suppose they found even one shred of evidence to charge him with a crime. he should've been able to defend himself in court. they've taken away that right forever.Yes, he should. And, had they been able to take him into custody peacefully, he would have. However, something about the investigation and arrest went very badly and the officers felt they had to shoot. It could have been that he did indeed grab a rifle and point it at them. No one would really blame the officers for shooting him at that point.

forget the warrant. suppose he was guilty of home invasion and selling drugs. does that deserve the death penalty? does that give the police the power to disregard the constitution and dispense capital punishment however they please? does that justify the institution of martial law and collateral damage? do the ends justify the means?Again, while the situation is terrible -- and indeed may be another nail in the coffin of "no-knock entries" -- you are blowing this up into something is absolutely isn't. Those officers were not administering capital punishment. They weren't enforcing a judgment against him. Killing him was not the deliberate means to some end -- it was the unfortunate result of the officers' perception of armed resistance to what they felt was a lawful search and arrest. And for you to use this kind of overheated language is not honest and really just clouds the issue.

its funny how this site is full of people ready to defend the second amendment, but, who needs the others?Do not be insulting. Most of us are die-hard Constitutionalists. I have no love for no-knock warrants and warrant-less searches. IMHO they are violations of the 4th Amendment. It would be very easy (obviously) to become enraged at the thought of what MIGHT have happened here. But we also try to be scrupulously honest and clear-headed when we dissect events like this -- and NOT swayed by whatever opinions, hearsay, and wild speculation might be tossed around concerning an event like this.

Sam1911
May 26, 2011, 07:55 AM
What does this mean for you and me? what do i do if i suddenly realize that someone is forcefully invading my home?
I gather that you did not read the links provided by Sam1911 in post #5...specifically http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=583899

Yes. We've had an 88-post thread running on that exact question. It is absolutely worth the time to read.

Toaster
May 26, 2011, 01:06 PM
There have been fatalities of LEO by persons defending their homes because of this "shock and awe" system of delivering a warrant. With so many injuries/fatlities on both sides of the fence, perhaps the best answer is for all levels of Law Enforcement - federal, state, municipal, to rethink this tactic and find a better way to act upon the whole situation. Door kicking, screaming and yelling, lack of assessment of the situation before shooting isn't working out too well for either side. Just sayin'.

hirundo82
May 26, 2011, 01:12 PM
Can you point me to a link to the facts that the warrant was based on, that you are basing points 2 and 3 on?

I haven't been able to find it to read the actually documents and was unaware that they had been released

The warrants were sealed a few days after the raid when media attention began.

swagner89
May 26, 2011, 02:12 PM
There have been fatalities of LEO by persons defending their homes because of this "shock and awe" system of delivering a warrant. With so many injuries/fatlities on both sides of the fence, perhaps the best answer is for all levels of Law Enforcement - federal, state, municipal, to rethink this tactic and find a better way to act upon the whole situation. Door kicking, screaming and yelling, lack of assessment of the situation before shooting isn't working out too well for either side. Just sayin'.

Exactly. all of the comments in defense of the police on this thread are predicated on the idea that military style lethal force invading homes is somehow necessary to "protect" the country.

he did indeed grab a rifle and point it at them. No one would really blame the officers for shooting him at that point.

Your logic is complete flipped. I absolutely blame the police for shooting him. There was no need for the cops to bust in on him in the first place. If they had just knocked on the door first to serve the warrant, this innocent man would still be alive today.

wild cat mccane
May 26, 2011, 02:20 PM
Yet I wonder how many support the Patriot Act in here.

Carl N. Brown
May 26, 2011, 03:13 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

Huffington Post, "Jose Guerena Killed: Arizona Cops Shoot Former Marine In Botched Pot Raid", First Posted: 05/25/11 05:42 PM ET Updated: 05/26/11 12:25 PM ET

The Arizona police cannot keep their cover stories straight.

The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (http://pimasheriff.org/files/1013/0463/5381/OIS050511.pdf PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.

This case involves Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik who so famously postured blaming the Giffords rally shootings by Loughner on right wing talk radio and/or the Tea Party.

Drail
May 26, 2011, 04:56 PM
This is 2011. No government agency "needs" a warrant anymore. They can't keep us all safe if they have to play by the rules.:barf:

macadore
May 26, 2011, 09:52 PM
This is another case of an unreasonable search. Searches of this type are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. Where is the ACLU when you need them?

Whiskey11
May 26, 2011, 10:42 PM
Carl N. Brown - Allow me to point a firearm at you and you tell me if the firearm is on safe or not, or unloaded or loaded. It is horribly unfortunate what happened to this man, but pointing a firearm (or anything that is not easily distinguished as NOT a firearm) at a police officer is a sure fire way to get yourself killed.

Regardless of how I, and others feel, the officers gained entry to the home with a warrant that was issued by a Judge who was presented with enough evidence presented to establish probable cause to issue the warrant. This is important regardless of what happened. He was NOT assassinated, he was taken down because he did something that caused the officers to feel their safety was compromised. It doesn't matter that after the entry he was found to be innocent, or the weapon on safe, or any other qualifiers for "victim" status.

What does matter is what the threat was that initiated the firefight. Did the homeowner point a firearm at an officer? If he did then I have NO doubt in my mind that the shooting was justified, regardless of warrant turning up with nothing. In the eyes of the law, it was a legal entry, certified by a judge through the issuing of the Warrant to search the premise and arrest the homeowner.

What does it mean for us? It means exactly what Sam1911 was saying. Remove yourself from crowds or situations that could potentially put you into a situation involving law enforcement.

swagner89
May 26, 2011, 11:49 PM
What does matter is what the threat was that initiated the firefight.

The threat that initiated the firefight was the POLICE invading the victim's home. The police had plenty of choices to serve the warrant; they could have knocked on the door. they could have waited until he walked outside. they could have surrounded the house and called to him with a megaphone to come out. They could have at least given him the chance to put his weapon down. They could have done many things differently if they truly cared about the public safety. Their choice was to force him into a defensive reaction that they could then characterize as aggression. This was MURDER.

The only reason i can guess as to why posts on this forum are defending this atrocity, is that it is natural to feel that "i'm innocent. this could never happen to me. therefore the victim must have been guilty." WRONG. Guerena was innocent, and anyone who thinks that they are immune because they are innocent are fools.

elano
May 27, 2011, 03:31 AM
This story makes me furrious! I am willing to bet the real reason cops like to do this type of invasion to serve warrants is to get the rush and possibly get to see some "action." I can see no other reason when there are so many other options. It seems the "law enforcement" community and the regular citizens are butting heads as to where the bill of rights line is. In my opinion, the police need to back off.

Davek1977
May 27, 2011, 04:38 AM
Having a friend who actually served with this Marine, it sounds as if the entire situation was handled poorly, especially the media's representation of what happened as opposed to the facts, which happened to come out much later.

Sam1911
May 27, 2011, 08:03 AM
The police had plenty of choices to serve the warrant; they could have knocked on the door. they could have waited until he walked outside. they could have surrounded the house and called to him with a megaphone to come out. No disagreement there on the face of it. As I said before, I don't think no-knock entries are either a good idea nor Constitutionally valid. However, I (and WE) don't know all of the details that went into the decision to proceed this way.

They could have at least given him the chance to put his weapon down. You really don't know that, and I'd doubt it is actually at all true. When serving a felony warrant, if an officer suddenly discovers the subject (or any occupant) of the building pointing a weapon at them, it is ridiculous to suggest that they would, or should, give that person a moment to decide to put that weapon down. That moment would, more often than not, be the moment they catch a bullet or two. If the officers have cover and are not being immediately threatened, there may be reasonable opportunity to de-escalate like that. Entering a room or hallway to discover someone leveling a firearm at you from a handful of feet away? No.

This was MURDER.
Again, you are using heated terms that do not reflect the truth: murder requires malice aforethought. In other words, a premeditated intent to kill someone. IF this event is found to be unlawful, the charge would be probably be voluntary manslaughter. But those charges can almost never be brought against law-enforcement officers acting in their official capacity to serve a warrant. Again, I don't personally like the way these entries are being conducted, but when a police officer lawfully enters a home, is threatened with a deadly weapon, and kills the person threatening them, that is not murder.

The only reason i can guess as to why posts on this forum are defending this atrocity, is that it is natural to feel that "i'm innocent. this could never happen to me. therefore the victim must have been guilty." Absolutely NOT. I've said several times, this could happen to anyone (however unlikely that may be). No one is judging Guerena to have been guilty. He was never tried for anything and, so far, no evidence has been announced to indicate that he might have been involved in wrongdoing.

anyone who thinks that they are immune because they are innocent are fools.Sure. Of course, anyone who really spends a lot of time worrying that this will happen to them is probably missing the opportunity to worry about several hundred other causes of death which are much more likely to befall them than is unjustified injury by a police entry team.

macadore
May 27, 2011, 08:10 AM
It doesn't matter that after the entry he was found to be innocent, or the weapon on safe, or any other qualifiers for "victim" status.

I disagree with the shoot first and as questions later attitude prevalent among some police.

What does matter is what the threat was that initiated the firefight.

The threat that initiated the firefight was police invading a sleeping citizens home in the middle of the night. They didn't have to do that. The man's defense of his family was warranted. His execution without a trial was not.

Did the homeowner point a firearm at an officer? If he did then I have NO doubt in my mind that the shooting was justified, regardless of warrant turning up with nothing. In the eyes of the law, it was a legal entry, certified by a judge through the issuing of the Warrant to search the premise and arrest the homeowner.

So the lives of police mean everything and the lives of ordinary citizens minding their own business mean nothing. Glad you cleared that up. This was not justified and should not be legal. The law needs to be changed.

What does it mean for us? It means exactly what Sam1911 was saying. Remove yourself from crowds or situations that could potentially put you into a situation involving law enforcement.

Like sleeping in your home at night with your family?

Who polices the police? The police in many places have too much power and too little responsibility. This is not a blanked indictment. Some departments are very responsible. Some are criminals with badges. The responsible police should not defend the criminal police.

rwilson37643
May 27, 2011, 08:46 AM
As a former Marine, former LE instructor, and future lwyer, and armed citizen, I see plenty of problems on every side in this incident. I havn't the time to address them all at this time, but the most immportant question is how do you keep this from happening to you? It seems to me, that the short answer is to use the prepaid cell or other telephone before using the AR would go a long way towards this end. Prior planning for emergency response to include a designated safe room with said communication device is a must.

crossrhodes
May 27, 2011, 09:21 AM
As a prudent person and retired marine. If, in the middle of the night, breaking windows and no very loud & clear identification..... Well I just don't know. My instinct would be to fire when they entered the bedroom. But I do have a 700 ilium light on my AR and would try to ID first. This is a bad situation no matter how you look at it. I'm up in the air about No Knock warrants. We just had a bad situation in Barton Vt with the Sheriff and a No Knock and had the potential to be REALLY bad for both parties.

Carl N. Brown
May 27, 2011, 09:41 AM
At least five out of the eight local murders 2004-06 were druggies entering domiciles to steal money or drugs. Four of the murder victims were drug dealers by-the-way.

Quite frankly, though, breaking and entering at night is naturally going to draw a defensive response regardless of who is being broken-and-entered upon. Personally I do not expect my door to be kicked down by the police, but more likely by a criminal. Local police just don't often use the sledgehammer labelled SWAT as their law enforcement tool of first choice.

Perhaps these no-knock raids should be suspended on grounds of officer safety.

Flynt
May 27, 2011, 09:49 AM
Police should exercise a far, far greater level of restraint when entering a home -- compared to other venues.

SlamFire1
May 27, 2011, 09:55 AM
I found the break in to Jose Guereña’s house by a un announced SWAT team highly disturbing. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-did-police-kill-my-dad.html The fact they shot 70 rounds in 10 seconds at him, purposely prevented medical staff from giving assistance and let him die, just increases my sense of unease.

Maybe we should require that SWAT team members be required to read and recognize numbers before they are given guns.

It would also help if they understood the significance of street names.

This would lessen the chances of them breaking into the wrong house and shooting up the occupants.

Based on the experiences of others, Cops can be pretty dense. A friend of mine was caught speeding after a highpower match. He informed the officer that he had guns in the car. When the officer called in the serial number of my Bud’s National Match AR, the serial number was an alpha-numeric sequence, (like CAR-12L1115) but the officer only called in the digits (e.g 121115) . There were seven stolen guns with the serial number 121115 and my friend ended up going to jail for the night!

elgin111
May 27, 2011, 12:36 PM
There's not much I can add that hasn't been addressed by Sam1911 and 9mm, but more information is being released... including the video shot while the raid was happening. (found on cnn.com)

Interesting points from watching the video... first, it is broad daylight. I think I read somewhere that it was 9a - not the middle of the night. Secondly, sirens are wailing. Third, you can clearly hear the police knock on the door, shout "police, search warrant", and see them stand around waiting. Granted, not a long time, but it wasn't a "no knock".

Just my two cents... but, since I wasn't there, it's not really worth even that amount.

Ed

Bonesinium
May 27, 2011, 01:12 PM
So you are sleeping in your home, you hear a banging on the door, a window break, and some muffled yelling. You grab your AR, and walk out your bedroom door and see a bunch of people with guns. You are then immediately shot 20 times. Your wife calls 911, you are still alive. There is no other people in the house besides your wife and child. The police refuse to allow any medical treatment for over an hour until you are dead, and then still prevent any medical personal on the scene.

It sounds like this guy was dead no matter what he did. As you can see from the video, he was shot almost immediately after they broke down the door. I know if I was sleeping, and awoke to some yelling and my door being kicked in, I would emerge from my room pointing my gun in that direction. Because there is no way I would have heard what they said if I was asleep.

If you forget how the initial incident went down, say it was all valid and everything was done right, just for the sake of the argument. If they truly didn't allow medical treatment, for what appears to be, ever, that seems to me like they wanted him to die. I can't really see how you could justify letting someone, criminal or not, lay there shot for over an hour, with medical personal there, and not treat him at all. That might as well be murder...

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 01:49 PM
The threat that initiated the firefight was police invading a sleeping citizens home in the middle of the night

Quite frankly, though, breaking and entering at night...these no-knock raids
the break in to Jose Guereña’s house by a un announced SWAT team

As has been posted before and now substantiated on the helmet cam footage:
1. this entry occurred during the day...not at night
2. the officers knocked loudly, announced who they were and demanded entry...it wasn't a No-Knock entry
3. after knocking, they waited for a response before forcing entry
4. they did not enter and immediately begin shooting, several members had enter before the first shot is heard

hermannr
May 27, 2011, 02:01 PM
Just another reason that a drug problem should be addressed as a medical problem, not a criminal problem.

Most of our firearm, gang related problems had to do with "prohibitions" that had no reason to exist other than one group of people, feeling "holier than thou" trying to impose their will on another group of people.

Think of all the late night raid "no knock" warrants you have heard of...how many were not because of some "prohibition" (that is drug, or in the 30's alcohol). Why do they want a "no knock" warrant? because the "evidence" can be flushed down the toilet and they might not get their conviction.

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 02:03 PM
I can't really see how you could justify letting someone, criminal or not, lay there shot for over an hour, with medical personal there, and not treat him at all.
Medical personnel never go in before the house is secured. Since they believed that the victim was part of a home invasion gang, it would not be unreasonable to believe that there might be other shooters in the home. Given that he said, "I have something for you", I'd be concerned about IEDs or other trip devices...these are fairly common as criminals become more aware that they are subject to attacks

Sam1911
May 27, 2011, 02:13 PM
More information comes to light: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_ffd3cd6b-6564-59a9-8b43-a1635ae66bd4.html

So what does it appear that we now know?

The most recent information seems to suggest that:
The police did not go to the wrong house.
The police announced their presence and reason for being there before entering.
The police did not arrive in the middle of the night.
The police appear to have been confronted by the deceased who was armed with a rifle.
The officers shot and retreated for their own safety. (Why so many shots? A huge number of police and self-defense shootings end whenever the ammo runs out. That's just human nature in such stressful situations.)
The time lag appears to have been due to officers needing to ensure that no further hostile suspects remained in the structure for their safety and that of medical personnel -- which need does trump the desire to offer medical assistance to someone injured while appearing to resist arrest/search.

And...

The warrant covered four residences owned and inhabited by Guerena's family, who do indeed appear to have given authorities plenty of reasonable suspicion that they were involved in narcotics, making the warrant appear entirely lawful and reasonable.

This last item, ties in well with my comment from posts 10 and 29. Jose Guerena may have been utterly innocent of any involvement whatsoever in drug use or trafficking. But the alleged, or apparent actions and involvements of his relatives lead directly to his home being listed on a search warrant, and him facing a SWAT entry team, unfortunately over the sights of his rifle.

Let me state clearly that I'm not championing the law enforcement officers' actions. The investigation is probably far from over, and more information will almost surely come to light. But this is a far cry from the outraged questions presented in post 1 and many others throughout the thread.

Like the old game of "telephone" back in elementary school, we hear a little of a story and begin to repeat it amongst oursleves and the story grows and changes to become something we need to be up-in-arms over. We like to be outraged and kick back against oppression. It feels good (it does to me, too). But we certainly don't do ourselves any favors when we don't scrupulously understand the facts before we vent our outrage.

zeos
May 27, 2011, 03:01 PM
here is video from the incident (http://www.kgun9.com/category/172043/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5894488&flvUri=&partnerclipid=)

at least the bloggers were wrong about the no knock part, but I can't hear any shots before the swat starts shooting and there is no explanation why paramedics were not allowed to treat the victim. At one point they talk about not going back in because he may still be a threat; well excuse the heck out of me but is it not your <edit> job to confront threats? if he was still a threat they could have shot him 60 more times and if he wasn't they could have sent in the paramedics.

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 04:04 PM
This is often the misconception between duty to confront and contain.

You'll also note in the tape and the commentary that the sirens were clearly on (wife says they weren't) before initial entry and that it took almost half and hour before they were able to evacuate anyone willing to come out of the house (to avoid innocents being in the line of fire). It is a bit hard to imagine a mother leaving her 3 year old in the house alone.

Sending in the robot was much safer than possibly engaging someone laying in wait for them to enter

hobodemon
May 27, 2011, 04:28 PM
Back on topic: Defending your home.
In my homestate of KY, you have a right to assume that if someone is knocking at your door in a rude manner at an inconvenient hour they are attempting to enter unlawfully and you may shoot that person through the door without looking at them. Now, my front door is made of glass, so unless that person was my ex-roommate (currently serving time for burglary, that's why we're no longer on speaking terms), I'll probably see what they want.
Back off topic: Announcing a raid.
The cops in the video blasted a siren and shouted "police warrant etc" for 8 seconds before entering, and on the video it doesn't even sound like they were shouting very loud. The siren itself could easily have been mistaken for a car alarm. We'll never know if the ex-Marine inside realized they were cops or not in the last few seconds of his life, all we know is that when he was shot his weapon was on SAFE.
Now, how many ex-Marines do you know who use mechanical safeties in lieu of the one between their ears?

hirundo82
May 27, 2011, 04:48 PM
Medical personnel never go in before the house is secured. Since they believed that the victim was part of a home invasion gang, it would not be unreasonable to believe that there might be other shooters in the home.

If it took the SWAT team over an hour to secure the scene and make sure there were no more shooters, there is a need for some serious retraining.

Plus, what major metropolitan SWAT team doesn't have a medic? Their website (http://pimasheriff.org/about-us/organization-charts/operations-bureau/support-operations-division/tactical-response-section/s-w-a-t/) even mentions it:

The SWAT program is composed of several distinct elements: Tactical, Negotiations, EOD, Canine, and Tactical Emergency Medical Support (TEMS).

zeos
May 27, 2011, 05:09 PM
Sending in the robot was much safer than possibly engaging someone laying in wait for them to enter

regardless of whether he was the pot dealer they thought he was or just a hard working veteran like the wife and blogs say, he still had a right some medical attention. by some reports the guy had 60 bullets in him, your saying they couldn't subdue someone they shot 60 times without the help of a robot. instead they stood around for an hour while the only eyewitness to their mistakes died.

that fact alone smacks of that old saw about nyc bus drivers being told that if they hit someone backup and make sure they kill them.

Sam1911
May 27, 2011, 05:19 PM
he still had a right some medical attention.

Plus, what major metropolitan SWAT team doesn't have a medic?

Yes, but if the officers haven't finished checking every room for accomplices/others who may be lying in wait to ambush them when they re-enter the building, it isn't reasonable to expect them to send in the paramedics to catch the next volley of bullets.

Using an exploratory robot as they did makes a lot of sense for officer safety, and probably even in preventing further injury or death to anyone inside. The fact that it takes a lot longer to stage and send in that machine than it does to send a squad (back) in to clear the structure is an unfortunate reality.

merlinfire
May 27, 2011, 05:28 PM
Something needs to change in political and legal channels here. Its true that in the microcosm, defending yourself against a state-sponsored home invasion will simply end your life and in the eyes of some vindicate the use of force.

But in the political channels and legal channels something needs to change. This is a gross miscarriage of basic justice and human rights, and we are allowing this to happen nationwide, not just AZ. We as Americans need to stand up and DEMAND from our government that no-knock warrants END NOW. Too many innocents have died, and even those upon whom a suspicion was cast, they would never be able to stand trial and be judged by a jury of their peers. This is a violation of their basic civil rights granted by the constitution.

Sam1911
May 27, 2011, 05:31 PM
We as Americans need to stand up and DEMAND from our government that no-knock warrants END NOW.

Holy cow, dude... did you read the last ELEVEN posts? This was NOT a "no-knock" warrant service.

This was a standard felony warrant entry, announced, in the daytime...http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_ffd3cd6b-6564-59a9-8b43-a1635ae66bd4.html

merlinfire
May 27, 2011, 05:37 PM
This was NOT a "no-knock" warrant service.

I'm hearing conflicting reports. I've read in some places that his wife claimed the police did not identify themselves. Its possible they just didn't hear them, maybe.

That still doesn't really explain why its the smart thing to do to ambush a man at home, where his weapons probably are, when they could have just as easily gone to his workplace where he was at every day. But then, I wonder if they'd be able to perform a "criminal forfeiture" of his property if they didn't arrest him at home?

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 05:39 PM
If it took the SWAT team over an hour to secure the scene and make sure there were no more shooters, there is a need for some serious retraining.
your saying they couldn't subdue someone they shot 60 times without the help of a robot. instead they stood around for an hour while the only eyewitness to their mistakes died.
Did you guy not understand the video clip?

The officers withdrew after exchanging gunfire. They called out for anyone inside the residence to come out and it took almost 30 minutes before the wife and child were out of the house. Not knowing how many more possible shooters were inside the house, they sent in the robot. I don't think that is the same as "standing around"

When you exchange gunfire with someone, your first obligation isn't to render aid...that is how a lot of LEO died in the '60s...the first thing you do is secure the area. Then you try to get anyone not involved in the shooting to come out...locally, we would have evacuated the neighboring houses before proceeding also

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 05:45 PM
I'm hearing conflicting reports. I've read in some places that his wife claimed the police did not identify themselves. Its possible they just didn't hear them, maybe.
I'll take from this that you did not watch the video that we have been discussing for the last few post...since post #57

That still doesn't really explain why its the smart thing to do to ambush a man at home, where his weapons probably are, when they could have just as easily gone to his workplace where he was at every day.
It was a Search Warrant, not an Arrest Warrant...it has to be served at the place to be searched

Zoogster
May 27, 2011, 05:57 PM
#3- we have the the right not to be searched without authority of law. the warrant was not legitimate. it didnt meet the law's requirement to state particularly the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; it was open ended.


No longer true as of a week ago, go to the link provided to the thread created describing the Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that has determined warrants themselves are no longer needed (as long as officers say the right thing afterwards, "we thought they might be destroying evidence".)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=593678

That case even involved the wrong house, so right house wrong house, they don't even need to obtain a warrant. Things subsequently found even without a warrant are also admissible as evidence based on that case as well.
While warrants themselves are quite easy to get these days. When was the last time you heard of a judge losing their job because they signed off on a bad warrant? For every judge that wouldn't sign it there is another judge to call up that will, and LEO learn which judges work with them and let them operate more easily rather quickly.


This Supreme Court Decision generally means LEO are only subject to state laws or restrictions on warrants now, federal Constitutional protections no longer apply and search warrants are no longer needed. It also means all evidence obtained is admissible irregardless of whether it was found in a warrantless search without permission.

crossrhodes
May 27, 2011, 06:12 PM
I'm going to have to watch the video. But an hour to secure the place? sorry gents but those of us who have been in the CQB business know that is to long for that situation. Like I stated, I'll have to watch the video to make an educated decision. Like they say...two sides of the story and then the truth.

hermannr
May 27, 2011, 06:31 PM
9mm....there was no "Exchange of fire". The fire was one direction only. The marines AR was never fired. The SWAT team emptied their mags into someone who wasn't even awake.

This wasn't an "arrest" it was an execution. I, for one, have a real problem with what happened.

A while after I came back to the US from Vietnam, I was assigned to Fort Benning, GA. Unknown to me, we rented a place that was closer to the artillery impact range than the firing range.

One night they were doing a night fire, and the artillery rounds went wizzing through the air way to close to our house then I was prepared for. My wife said I came three feet off the bed yelling incoming and then crashed into the wall full tilt. (headed for the bunker in my mind). I have no way to know what this poor guy felt, or thought, but I do know what happened to me.

I have said it before and I will say it again..."no knock" warrants are totally un-necessary, and can cause considerable unintended problems. Death in this case. I would rather have 10 "possible" criminals free than one innocent man dead. Waiting "seconds" is not enough time for anyone to respond to a knock on the door, let alone someone that is asleep, it might of well have been a no knock..

Twiki357
May 27, 2011, 06:35 PM
According to the latest news reports, the warrants were issued based on a tip. The murdered ex-Marine had no criminal record and (At least as so far as is known) was not involved in ANY criminal activity.

So far, it appears that the warrant was issued based on erroneous information by an unnamed informant without any preliminary investigation or verification. I only wish that the judges who sign these warrants could be held liable for their conduct and be financially responsible to reimburse the taxpayers for the lawsuit that will result.

Twiki357
May 27, 2011, 06:39 PM
Oh, as for him shooting at the LEOs, some of the news reports are saying that his weapon was not only unfired, but the safety was still on.

macadore
May 27, 2011, 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by macadore
your saying they couldn't subdue someone they shot 60 times without the help of a robot. instead they stood around for an hour while the only eyewitness to their mistakes died.

You got the wrong guy. I didn't write that.

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 07:11 PM
You got the wrong guy. I didn't write that.
You're correct, I misquoted, it was zeos... I corrected the original

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 07:17 PM
9mm....there was no "Exchange of fire". The fire was one direction only.
Sorry, I did not mean to imply that there had been. I was referring to the normal procedure of not rushing back into a home after there has been a perception of gunfire. I should have used the term barricaded subject when shots are fired...barricaded simply meaning, not in the open, rather than actually behind a barricade

zeos
May 27, 2011, 09:30 PM
The officers withdrew after exchanging gunfire. They called out for anyone inside the residence to come out and it took almost 30 minutes before the wife and child were out of the house. Not knowing how many more possible shooters were inside the house, they sent in the robot. I don't think that is the same as "standing around"

I understand what they did and it was probably legally defensible, but i'm saying it was morally wrong to leave him in there. If it meant putting themselves or the other occupants in danger to finish clearing the house they should have done it. imo it is their job to put their lives in danger to serve the public and they clearly have no problem putting civilian lives in danger.

the shooting isn't what bothers, I understand mistakes happen, to me its what happened after that bothers me. any amount of time spent not doing what is necessary to get help to that guy, and to me waiting 30 minutes for a robot falls in this category, is morally unjustifiable.

9mmepiphany
May 27, 2011, 11:11 PM
imo it is their job to put their lives in danger to serve the public
I refer you back to my answer in post #58. They also do not serve the public, they protect society...there is a difference

BTW: if something is legally defensible, it is by definition moral...as morals are the rules set by the society; the laws that spell out legality. It is a common confusion of morals and ethics

martialartsblackbelt
May 27, 2011, 11:24 PM
many on here have said it. No knock warrants are dangerous for both parts.
if i was the Marine. i would have done what he did. if i was a swat member i likely would have fired.
perhaps make all no knock warrants use only less then lethal weapons.
i.e flash bang. riot shot guns, tazers.
that in it self might persuade the police to seek only knock warrants.

LibShooter
May 27, 2011, 11:57 PM
This wasn't an "arrest" it was an execution. I, for one, have a real problem with what happened.

Has it come to this? The police officers in this case obtained a warrant and served it at 9am with sirens blaring. They knocked on the door and announced their presence. Even then the guy met them with a rifle. They should have shot him. The 4th and 2nd Amendments don't give us the right to point a gun at cops in the legal pursuit of their duties. And it doesn't require officers to check to make sure the rifle pointed at their heads is off "safe" before defending themselves.

If the homeowner seriously thought a dozen armed men on his porch in the middle of the morning were likely to be criminals he was probably going to meet a violent end sometime. The guy is very lucky his testosterone poisoning didn't get his family killed that morning, too.

macadore
May 28, 2011, 12:44 AM
BTW: if something is legally defensible, it is by definition moral...as morals are the rules set by the society; the laws that spell out legality. It is a common confusion of morals and ethics

That assumes the people making the laws agree with the people in the society. In many cases, the laws are made by the people in power. Society be damned. I think this is one of those cases.

A veteran at home with his family was killed by police because they thought he might have drugs. This may be legal, but it is not moral.

avs11054
May 28, 2011, 01:06 AM
According to the latest news reports, the warrants were issued based on a tip. The murdered ex-Marine had no criminal record and (At least as so far as is known) was not involved in ANY criminal activity.

So far, it appears that the warrant was issued based on erroneous information by an unnamed informant without any preliminary investigation or verification. I only wish that the judges who sign these warrants could be held liable for their conduct and be financially responsible to reimburse the taxpayers for the lawsuit that will result.
Maybe you should re-read the fourth ammendment. Warrants cannot be issued on "tips." They need to be issued based on probable cause, and they must be signed by a judge.

This ex-marine was not "murdered." The police obviously announced themselves, and he still stood there with a gun pointed at them.

Sam1911
May 28, 2011, 10:59 AM
Oh, as for him shooting at the LEOs, some of the news reports are saying that his weapon was not only unfired, but the safety was still on. I don't know why anyone continues to post this. It is utterly irrelevant. We do not, ourselves, claim that we may only shoot in self-defense if we've verified that the attacker's safety is off -- or indeed until AFTER he's fired -- and neither do we expect that the police must wait to be actually shot at, or to know for certain that he's deactivated the safety on his gun before firing on a suspect pointing a firearm at them.

Sam1911
May 28, 2011, 11:23 AM
This ex-marine was not "murdered." The police obviously announced themselves, and he still stood there with a gun pointed at them.

There has been a LOT of speculation going on in this thread (and elsewhere, that has gotten dragged into this thread). A great deal of it has been found to be wrong. But the truth is we don't know exactly what details may have informed the decisions made by all parties on both sides of this event.

One of the major themes of speculation here is that the deceased was a man of exemplary moral character, obvious through his clean criminal record, who was utterly surprised to be awoken by a police raid and who could never have expected to find police officers wanting to search his premises. Therefore he surely prepared to fire on them in the mistaken belief that they were criminal home invaders.

[Unfounded Speculation Alert:]

But ... if I lived as part of a physically, and one assumes socially, close circle of extended family and friends, who came and went at my house regularly, and (as searches of the other properties that morning give us strong reason to believe) who are involved in narcotics trafficking/distribution, I think it is reasonable to assume that I'd know or at least suspect that they were so involved.

If I know or suspect that these people (my brother, close associates, etc.) are dealing drugs, and they are regularly visiting my home, and I theirs, it would be probably wise for me to think of unfortunate events like police officers detaining and arresting my family members (and maybe me too), and searching their homes (maybe mine too) as likely to happen. These things come with the territory of drug involvement.

(As do violent encounters with OTHER folks involved in the drug business ... which adds an interesting possible wrinkle to what happened.)

If I'm wise and aware, I believe I should be thinking ahead of time about how to deal with very animated meetings with law-enforcement officers -- because they are very likely to occur, given my family's activities.

IF all of those things are true, when men in black outfits with "POLICE" written all across them arrive in very noisy vehicles and bang on my door -- what should I do? If I decide to grab my rifle and say something macho like, "I've got something for you!" ... what could that say about me?

[/Unfounded Speculation Alert]

I only write this because it's been nagging me all morning. We've assumed at every turn that this man was not only uninvolved with the "family business" but unaware of it and squeaky clean. And, that his actions were the result of a sleep-befuddled misunderstanding of what was happening as he could have had no possible reason to suspect that the police would ever come knocking on his door.

That may be true. It is one possible reality that could be supported by the facts of what happened. It isn't the only one. We've flocked to the deceased's posthumous defense assuming our best-case beliefs about his position are true -- putting our own lily-white innocent, upstanding selves in his place. We may be wrong.

Jose Geruena was one of three men (along with his brother and an associate) listed on the warrant. It is absolutely possible that this may have been a completely legitimate search, that he was implicitly involved in criminal enterprise, and that he resisted what he believed was a totally legitimate arrest proceeding. The facts that he had no prior record and that no drugs were found in his home don't elilminate that possibility, at all.

We don't really know why he grabbed his gun or what he thought was happening, or whether he would indeed have killed men he knew to be police officers. Speculation is a hugely two-edged sword.

Heretic
May 28, 2011, 12:02 PM
Just go to you tube and search "police abuse". This isn't an isolated incident, this is a pattern of behavior nationwide.

cassandrasdaddy
May 28, 2011, 12:18 PM
grigg is backing away from this one as the truth comes out and his opportunity to make money fades. all the fun is in the beginning when you vcvan posture in the factuakl vacum. heck even balko is hedging his bet

cassandrasdaddy
May 28, 2011, 12:20 PM
http://www.kgun9.com/story/14742824/swat-raid-deadly-force-justified-when-serving-search-warrant

legal opinion general one not specific to this case

http://www.kgun9.com/story/14743460/closer-look-at-three-other-homes-involved-in-swat-raids


some sparse info on other houses raided


http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Pima-County-Sheriff-releases--122746649.html


and it would appear these folks are seeing tapes balko hasn't posted .... yet

It shows a very intense scene including the gunfire that killed Jose Guerena.

Loud sirens could be heard on the audio tape produced by PCSD As members of the SWAT team approach the Guerena home at around 9:30 the morning of May 5.

Police open the door, police open the door.

Once the door wasn't opened, the team breached the door three minutes later.

A few seconds after that, shots were fired.

Back up get him out, get back, get back give me a gun up here. I'm out.

Moments later, the SWAT team describes what happened when they started firing shots.

Who shot back?
All of us did. Hector went down and I didn't know if he was hit our not. I kept shooting to get him out.

At one point, Vanessa Guerena Jose's wife is seen walking close by the door, but then she leaves. The SWAT team tries to get her to come out.

We've got medical attention and paramedics out here to help you guys. We need everybody out of the house.

Vanessa eventually comes out and you can hear the fear in her voice as she is yelling in the background.

Come on, come here. We will get your baby, come here.
No, no you going to shoot me.
Come here.

The SWAT team got the little boy out and by 10:30, the team confirmed that Jose was dead.

Sam1911
May 28, 2011, 03:35 PM
Just go to you tube and search "police abuse". This isn't an isolated incident, this is a pattern of behavior nationwide.
"This?" "This" is part of a pattern of behavior? Exactly what is? Announced, daytime, apparently lawful execution of a search warrant at the (correctly identified and located) home of a suspected member of a narcotics gang? Not sure I see that as a problem, exactly.

Or a pattern of lawfully entering officers and shooting to death a suspect in their investigation who -- we have no clear reason to believe was not -- was resisting arrest/search by attacking them with a rifle? Again, this may have been a tragic mistake. Or this may have been an instance of someone who believed their misdeeds had caught up with them and chose to shoot it out rather than be taken into custody. We just don't know. We should NOT be passing judgment.

To say " go to you tube and search 'police abuse'" as though the random ravings of random anti-authority types (and maybe normal, sane people too, who knows?) have anything worthwhile to say about this incident is absurd.

Sam1911
May 28, 2011, 03:40 PM
anti drug war This isn't a question of the legitimacy of the war against drugs -- it doesn't really matter what crime the officers were investigating, they had their warrant and appear to have been investigating a suspected violation of standing US law -- and THR is absolutely NOT the place where the debate over that issue will be held.

ETA: Seems the message wasn't clear. DO NOT DEBATE THE "WAR ON DRUGS." That isn't a THR topic. Take that debate to APS or elsewhere.

avs11054
May 28, 2011, 05:07 PM
Just go to you tube and search "police abuse". This isn't an isolated incident, this is a pattern of behavior nationwide.
Yes...there are probably 100 videos on youtube of police abuse (all of which only capture what the camera sees and not the whole story), yet there are 1,000,000 LEO's in the US. So that means 9,999 out of every 10,000 cops does things the right way.

Could there be more that are bad? Yes, but as stated, the videos on youtube only capture what the camera sees, and not the whole story, so not every one of those is a cop abusing his power.

lloveless
May 28, 2011, 05:13 PM
as a former LEO, and now nurse I find the SWAT teams actions reprehensible! Communication is a two way street. Mr Guerena was NOT informed of the police. Yes it was announced while he was asleep. I would have reacted the same(obviously he was a night shift worker)if I had worked all night, and awakened to screaming and glass breaking. It was MURDER, because they didn't adequately clear the residence, and let the paramedics do their work adding insult to injury so to speak. If an LEO was down they'd have had the medics in there. People are supposed to be innocent til proven guilty. Mr Jose Guerena was judged and sentanced without due process.
ll

martialartsblackbelt
May 28, 2011, 05:17 PM
there is not a million LEOS in the US FYI

avs11054
May 28, 2011, 05:22 PM
there is not a million LEOS in the US FYI
Actually, there are over 700,000...close enough

avs11054
May 28, 2011, 05:26 PM
as a former LEO, and now nurse I find the SWAT teams actions reprehensible! Communication is a two way street. Mr Guerena was NOT informed of the police. Yes it was announced while he was asleep. I would have reacted the same(obviously he was a night shift worker)if I had worked all night, and awakened to screaming and glass breaking. It was MURDER, because they didn't adequately clear the residence, and let the paramedics do their work adding insult to injury so to speak. If an LEO was down they'd have had the medics in there. People are supposed to be innocent til proven guilty. Mr Jose Guerena was judged and sentanced without due process.
ll
You must not have read the other posts on this thread. If you are a former LEO, you should know that paramedics would not come into this scene, even if it was a cop that was down. It is not the LEO's responsibility to give him adequate time to wake up because he works night shift. They went to the door during the day, and they knocked and announced.

Innocent until proven guilty is in court. This was a search warrant, which was signed by a judge, and according to reports, he was pointing a gun at swat officers when they entered.

Maybe we should start a thread asking how many people on THR would check the safety of the gun someone is pointing at them and the criminal record of that person before shooting at the person. It would make hypocrites out of a lot of the critics on this thread.

martialartsblackbelt
May 28, 2011, 05:38 PM
so AVS11054, whos at fault here? its not a no harm no foul situation. a Marine, Father, Man is dead.

avs11054
May 28, 2011, 05:52 PM
martial arts -

I would say the guy who pointed a gun at the cops is the one that is at fault.

During a briefing before the warrants were served, records show, detectives told SWAT team members the two Guerena brothers and Celaya were associated with a double homicide related to a home invasion.

9:33 a.m., Jose Guerena's house, 7100 block of South Redwater Drive. SWAT team members announce themselves, then knocked open the front door. Shots are fired and Jose is killed. His wife, Vanessa, and their 4-year-old son were not shot.

Jose Guerena, 26, his older brother, Alejandro Guerena, and Jose Celaya - a relative by marriage - were listed as suspects in an investigation of drug trafficking and home invasions, records show. Warrants were served at homes owned by Jose Guerena; Bertha Guerena, Jose's mother; and two homes owned by Jose and Graciela Celaya.

Here is the link to all of the above quotes http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_087950ff-b798-5fc2-baba-37c7c7d9fd6b.html


The police did everything right it seems. A warrant signed by a judge, went to the house at 9:30 am (well past the 6:30 am requirement for a daytime search warrant), they were fully decked out in SWAT gear that identified them as police officers, and they knocked and announced (they even sounded their sirens, which is not even a requirement when serving a warrant).

What more would you have liked them to do? Who do you think is at fault, since it is not a "no harm no foul"? You are right that a Marine and father is dead, but according to reports, maybe also a violent criminal.

azmjs
May 28, 2011, 06:16 PM
You've got to decide whether or not you plan to shoot policemen.

If your house gets raided by the police, you have no way of knowing whether or not it is the police or impostors, so your plan will apply the same to both.

Make no mistake about it, and no effort to call it something besides what it is, if you plan to throw away your life 'defending' your home against the authorities.

Obviously, you can analyze facts to realize that the odds are, if you get raided, it's the real police, but since when do people really pay any attention to that sort of thing? Did you buy a bullet-proof vest before you bought a gun to carry around?

martialartsblackbelt
May 28, 2011, 06:18 PM
The law, the judge, the officer that asked for the warrant, just to start off.
any one of us would have done the same thing the the marines shoes.
if it turns out hes a violent criminal does that give the police the right to execute him?
hmmm seems to me thats the courts and corrections job.
since the police were acting with in the law and their intentions were good. it dosent matter right?

and and right after the warrant was sealed so we dont know what it says other then the act it self shows the cops covering something up.

avs11054
May 28, 2011, 06:34 PM
any one of us would have done the same thing the the marines shoes.
Any one of us would grab our AR when the police come knocking at our door with a search warrant?

if it turns out hes a violent criminal does that give the police the right to execute him?

Execute him? So then you don't believe people have the right to defend themselves when they have guns pointed at them?

right after the warrant was sealed so we dont know what it says other then the act it self shows the cops covering something up.

Sealed or not, it still has to have a judge's approval that probable cause exists. Do you believe the judge is in cahoots with PCSO?

mdThanatos
May 28, 2011, 06:45 PM
I don't see why the term "execute" or "execution" or "murder" is constantly being brought up. Is it sad that the young man died, yes. Put yourself in the officer's position. You enter a house, you face a threat with an armed person, at that point it is your life or theirs, or the life of your teammates versus the armed resistance. The police acted based upon how they were trained to act.

The resident acted upon how he felt he should have acted, based on previous experience. Hindsight is 20/20 applies here, and it appears that so does armchair quarterback. If you were the police involved would you have done differently? Can anyone honestly answer that question who hasn't been trained for a situation like this or had the experience of a situation like this?

Sam1911
May 28, 2011, 10:14 PM
You are right that a Marine and father is dead, but according to reports, maybe also a violent criminal.
Further, maybe a man who mistakenly thought he was under attack from criminal attackers, but maybe a man who had reason to fear arrest and decided willfully to resist with a deadly weapon.

We just don't know the whole story, but we're being wrapped around the little fingers of those who make money off of, get web hits off of, or just enjoy making the most of our anti-authoritarian outrage.

I'd really like to see some of these anger-mongers and sowers of vitriol come back to their blogs (or threads like this one) and say, "Wow, I apologize. I was WAAAY off. Let me set the record straight."

Won't happen, but that would be cool to see.

LibShooter
May 28, 2011, 11:06 PM
Here's my unfounded speculation:

Jose Guerena was a criminal. When the SWAT team knocked on his door that morning he knew they were police officers. But, like many criminals, he thought he was smarter than he really was. He probably had some kind of half-baked notion of making the cops retreat long enough to allow him to escape. Or maybe he was just aching for a shootout.

Either way, he didn't have the right to point a gun at officers serving a legal warrant.

Kliegl
May 29, 2011, 01:15 AM
BTW: if something is legally defensible, it is by definition moral...as morals are the rules set by the society; the laws that spell out legality. It is a common confusion of morals and ethics

Nope. Legal and illegal, and moral and immoral are NOT the same thing. There are plenty of immoral things that are legal, and plenty of moral things that are illegal.

For instance, it is morally correct to kill a murderer or rapist. It is rarely legal.
It is legal to abort a fetus, yet it is immoral.

On another part of the discussion, whatever happened to parking in the street, pointing guns at the house across the car, and bullhorning "come out with your hands up"?

Bonesinium
May 29, 2011, 04:10 AM
Further, maybe a man who mistakenly thought he was under attack from criminal attackers, but maybe a man who had reason to fear arrest and decided willfully to resist with a deadly weapon.

We just don't know the whole story, but we're being wrapped around the little fingers of those who make money off of, get web hits off of, or just enjoy making the most of our anti-authoritarian outrage.

I'd really like to see some of these anger-mongers and sowers of vitriol come back to their blogs (or threads like this one) and say, "Wow, I apologize. I was WAAAY off. Let me set the record straight."

Won't happen, but that would be cool to see.

When that happens let me know and I'll be glad to do so. Until then, I see a man, shot 22 times by police in his own home after they broke down his front door, then left there to bleed out (or maybe he was dead already) for over an hour because the supposedly highly trained swat team took that much time to clear the house, because obviously, the wife and child should have been willing to immediately come out after just witnessing the suspected police fire 70 times at/into there loved one and not have any thoughts on maybe the same thing happening to them. Correct me if I was wrong with everything. No speculation, just an run-on sentence account of what happened.

If it turns out he was not a criminal, I would love to see all these people who have been almost blindly defending every action of the police and say, "Wow, I apologize. I was WAAAY off. Let me set the record straight."

Won't happen, but that would be cool to see.

matty-vb
May 29, 2011, 06:07 AM
the link in the OP is ridiculous.

"murderous charade" "stormtroopers" and my favorite "rifle-fondling poseurs"

what a load of crap. I also find it hard to believe that an entire police tactical unit made an entry without a single one of them yelling "police!" or "search warrant!" ect....

yes, a tragic story, but what a bunch of crap.

cassandrasdaddy
May 29, 2011, 09:23 AM
way too many folks letting grigg and balko filter and spoon feed em bad info. and even these two guys who make a living with this as their cause celebre are backing off no new misinformation or ill informed rants from either

cassandrasdaddy
May 29, 2011, 09:26 AM
i'm really looking forward to seeing waht the timeline is vis a vis wifes call to warn one of the other folks being raided. then there is the troubling fact that this "innocent" lady knew who to call and warn. in my world in order to know who to warn she had to have knowledge of their criminal enterprise.

cassandrasdaddy
May 29, 2011, 09:27 AM
http://www.kgun9.com/story/14742824/swat-raid-deadly-force-justified-when-serving-search-warrant

legal opinion general one not specific to this case

http://www.kgun9.com/story/14743460/closer-look-at-three-other-homes-involved-in-swat-raids


some sparse info on other houses raided


http://www.fox11az.com/news/local/Pima-County-Sheriff-releases--122746649.html


and it would appear these folks are seeing tapes balko hasn't posted .... yet

It shows a very intense scene including the gunfire that killed Jose Guerena.

Loud sirens could be heard on the audio tape produced by PCSD As members of the SWAT team approach the Guerena home at around 9:30 the morning of May 5.

Police open the door, police open the door.

Once the door wasn't opened, the team breached the door three minutes later.

A few seconds after that, shots were fired.

Back up get him out, get back, get back give me a gun up here. I'm out.

Moments later, the SWAT team describes what happened when they started firing shots.

Who shot back?
All of us did. Hector went down and I didn't know if he was hit our not. I kept shooting to get him out.

At one point, Vanessa Guerena Jose's wife is seen walking close by the door, but then she leaves. The SWAT team tries to get her to come out.

We've got medical attention and paramedics out here to help you guys. We need everybody out of the house.

Vanessa eventually comes out and you can hear the fear in her voice as she is yelling in the background.

Come on, come here. We will get your baby, come here.
No, no you going to shoot me.
Come here.

The SWAT team got the little boy out and by 10:30, the team confirmed that Jose was dead.

Heretic
May 29, 2011, 09:40 AM
Klieg, you stole my thunder. I couldn't agree more.

cassandrasdaddy
May 29, 2011, 09:46 AM
there is also the unsolved murder about a year ago of 2 relatives to ponder

cassandrasdaddy
May 29, 2011, 09:50 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23591285@N07/3947085484/in/set-72157621723829828

so in grigg/balkoland you could see this and not know what it was?
how?

avs11054
May 29, 2011, 10:17 AM
On another part of the discussion, whatever happened to parking in the street, pointing guns at the house across the car, and bullhorning "come out with your hands up"?

You've seen too many movies. That's patrol's job until SWAT gets there. When SWAT gets there, it's time to go in. With search warrants, SWAT goes and knocks on the door, and if there is no answer, they go in.

If it turns out he was not a criminal

He pointed a gun at the cops. That's aggravated assault in AZ

Bonesinium
May 29, 2011, 01:06 PM
He pointed a gun at the cops. That's aggravated assault in AZ

Of course if it was as simple as that, like him walking into a police station and pointing a gun at them, or pointing a gun at an officer on a traffic stop. But of course the fact he was woken from a sleep to loud noises and pointed his rifle at his front door from inside his house has no nothing to do with it...:rolleyes:

If I am woken up at 9am to loud noises at my front door and yelling, I'm pointing my gun at the door too. Every time. Why? Because I'm not a criminal, haven't done anything wrong, and have no idea why someone is trying to break in. Assuming it is the police is the last thing I'm thinking about in my half asleep state. He was doomed.

But of course let us just keep forgetting that this highly trained force was unable to clear the relatively small house of a single women and child for over an hour, preventing any sort of medical attention. I wonder if the same tune would be sung if one of the 70 rounds they fired had hit the child, and while they were "securing the house" the kid died....but the kid was probably a criminal too because he has relatives tied to suspected criminal activity...bla bla bla...speculation speculation...irrelevancies irrelevancies...invalid justification invalid justification...

Oh yeah, the same highly trained swat force that randomly fires off rounds, excuse me, has a "misfire". But no big deal really. It only lead to them shooting someone else 22 times, and they were okay. Because it doesn't really matter if you are okay. I mean, the police didn't get shot. People posting in this thread didn't get shot. It wasn't our family member who got shot. So why care right? Let's just say the police were doing their job and leave it at that. Because that is a lot easier then caring about someone who 'might' be a criminal.

Some of these posts really make me sick.

Bonesinium
May 29, 2011, 01:27 PM
Siren sounds for 8 seconds.
4 seconds later there is a bang on the door.
There is some muffled yelling, can't hear what it is.
12 seconds after the bang, "Police search warrant open the door"
2 seconds later they break down the door.
6 seconds later they fire 70 rounds into the house.
3-4 seconds after the shooting stops, an extra shot is fired, for good measure.

TCB in TN
May 29, 2011, 01:39 PM
4 seconds later there is a bang on the door.
There is some muffled yelling, can't hear what it is.
12 seconds after the bang, "Police search warrant open the door"
2 seconds later they break down the door.
6 seconds later they fire 70 rounds into the house.
3-4 seconds after the shooting stops, an extra shot is fired, for good measure.

Anyone who can't get to the door from their bedroom from a deep sleep (or on the toilet, or anything else for that matter), id those beating on the door as police, and give themselves up peacefully in that amount of time deserve to be shot!

:barf:

IMHO we need more Andy Griffith and less Rambo in our LE agencies. Shock and Awe belong in war, not on our streets.

avs11054
May 29, 2011, 01:46 PM
Bonesinium -

What exactly is your point? As stated numerous times, the police had a search warrant, went to the house fully decked out in SWAT gear, knocked on the door, kicked it in when they didn't get an answer, and they shot someone who was pointing a gun at them.

A warrant requires probable cause to be issued, and it must be signed by a judge. The police obviously showed probable cause (as they were able to obtain the warrant) that this residence needed to be searched, and a judge agreed with it.

If I am woken up at 9am to loud noises at my front door and yelling, I'm pointing my gun at the door too. Every time. Why? Because I'm not a criminal, haven't done anything wrong, and have no idea why someone is trying to break in.

Yes, you can argue this...you can also argue that he knew the police might be looking for him and he wasn't going down without a fight.

And how do we know he was sleeping? Because his wife said so? She also said the police didn't sound their sirens and didn't knock on the door. If people are going to argue that the police are lying, it can also be argued that his wife is lying.

Bonesinium
May 29, 2011, 02:40 PM
Bonesinium -

What exactly is your point?

And how do we know he was sleeping? Because his wife said so? She also said the police didn't sound their sirens and didn't knock on the door. If people are going to argue that the police are lying, it can also be argued that his wife is lying.

I'm not arguing the police were lying. I am saying they need to be held accountable for shooting 71 times at him after breaking down the door when it wasn't answered immediately (18 seconds after the first knock, and only 2 seconds after I could hear them identify themselves as police.)

And as I said before, let us forget about how the shooting went down. The way it was handled AFTER the shooting stopped, was deplorable. If it took a highly trained SWAT team to secure a house of a women and child over an hour, then what business did they have entering the house in the first place? Think about that for a second please...

avs11054
May 29, 2011, 03:07 PM
Arizona Revised Statute 13-3916B states:

B. An officer may break into a building, premises or vehicle or any part of a building, premises or vehicle, to execute the warrant when:

1. After notice of the officer's authority and purpose, the officer receives no response within a reasonable time.

2. After notice of the officer's authority and purpose, the officer is refused admittance.


On the video, we are unable to hear if there is movement inside the house. If there was movement, and it sounded like they were not coming towards the door, that would be considered a refusal to admit the police.

When serving a search warrant, police do no sit around and wait the people to come to the door. Calling people out from the street would not be reasonable during the service of a search warrant. This would give time for people inside to hide/destroy evidence.

An M4's rate of fire is about 15 rounds per second. So that means that on average, the five officers who shot held there triggers down for less than one second each if the guns were on FA.

cassandrasdaddy
May 29, 2011, 04:59 PM
I'd really like to see some of these anger-mongers and sowers of vitriol come back to their blogs (or threads like this one) and say, "Wow, I apologize. I was WAAAY off. Let me set the record straight."

Won't happen, but that would be cool to see

i think at best grigg and balko will slink off to regroup and wait for the next incident they can shade the truth on and get another cashflow hit before the facts run them off again. its a living if you got the stomach for it. they have gotten a lot quieter already and the balko started hedging his bets a couple days ago

avs11054
May 29, 2011, 05:13 PM
i think at best grigg and balko will slink off to regroup and wait for the next incident they can shade the truth on and get another cashflow hit before the facts run them off again. its a living if you got the stomach for it. they have gotten a lot quieter already and the balko started hedging his bets a couple days ago

I think the funny thing is all these people talking about a police cover up...yet the more info that comes out, the more it validates the SWAT teams actions

cassandrasdaddy
May 29, 2011, 05:29 PM
its an ongoing iq test the smarter/sneakier folks fold their tent and slink off to profiteer another day. the less gifted stay and fight a rear guard action as the facts roll up and then over em

rogerjames
May 29, 2011, 05:36 PM
LEO's... Is there any other job with so much power and so little requirements??

Unless your fingerprints come back dirty, and there's an opening, YOUR HIRED!! :eek:

Bonesinium
May 29, 2011, 08:02 PM
Arizona Revised Statute 13-3916B states:




On the video, we are unable to hear if there is movement inside the house. If there was movement, and it sounded like they were not coming towards the door, that would be considered a refusal to admit the police.

When serving a search warrant, police do no sit around and wait the people to come to the door. Calling people out from the street would not be reasonable during the service of a search warrant. This would give time for people inside to hide/destroy evidence.

An M4's rate of fire is about 15 rounds per second. So that means that on average, the five officers who shot held there triggers down for less than one second each if the guns were on FA.

Well, it appears you watched the video, so maybe you should watch it again, because they were shooting for over 7 seconds...so that math doesn't add up...

rogerjames
May 29, 2011, 08:39 PM
I'm not arguing the police were lying. I am saying they need to be held accountable for shooting 71 times at him after breaking down the door when it wasn't answered immediately (18 seconds after the first knock, and only 2 seconds after I could hear them identify themselves as police.)

And as I said before, let us forget about how the shooting went down. The way it was handled AFTER the shooting stopped, was deplorable. If it took a highly trained SWAT team to secure a house of a women and child over an hour, then what business did they have entering the house in the first place? Think about that for a second please...
The problem here is that you are asking an intelligent question.

Although college degrees are not an end all means for judging intelligence, there is a reason why most professional occupations require them. Most police departments don't require them... not hard to connect the dots.

hickorynut
May 29, 2011, 08:55 PM
Anyone who can't get to the door from their bedroom from a deep sleep (or on the toilet, or anything else for that matter), id those beating on the door as police, and give themselves up peacefully in that amount of time deserve to be shot!

:barf:

IMHO we need more Andy Griffith and less Rambo in our LE agencies. Shock and Awe belong in war, not on our streets.
BINGO My thoughts exactly. The last I heard the constitution was still in effect!!!!

mickeygrimreaperblueeyes
May 29, 2011, 09:02 PM
Seeing these responses, I have some ideas that the enlightened person that is awake and aware of the situations around them can feel, see and know that these issues are bad for the general population.

I'm sad to see that the idea of people protecting themselves and family has a become a fool hearty Idea.

People need to pull their heads out of the sand and look around at what is going on with the rest of the world.

withdrawn34
May 29, 2011, 09:12 PM
When you "need" to trample on civil liberties in order to enforce your laws, perhaps the laws themselves need to be examined. What exactly are we trying to do that requires such violent raids by paramilitary forces?

*That* is the primary question here, and we can no longer afford to sit apathetically. Thousands of people are being killed every year, and our prisons are overflowing. The US isn't the only place affected by this, either.

Ask the hard questions. Have the difficult conversations.

rogerjames
May 29, 2011, 10:06 PM
When you have county/state/federally funded programs such as SWAT, you have to justify the need and funding. How do you do this? Use them more often. Next time government budget comes into consideration... Do we need to to keep funding SWAT? Yessir... SWAT was deployed 75 times last year. You get the picture...

martialartsblackbelt
May 29, 2011, 10:51 PM
When you have county/state/federally funded programs such as SWAT, you have to justify the need and funding. How do you do this? Use them more often. Next time government budget comes into consideration... Do we need to to keep funding SWAT? Yessir... SWAT was deployed 75 times last year. You get the picture...
i was banned from another forum for making this same point.

avs11054
May 30, 2011, 03:35 AM
When you "need" to trample on civil liberties

Well they had a search warrant, which is what the 4th ammendment says is needed for a search, so what civil liberties were "trampled on?"

When you have county/state/federally funded programs such as SWAT, you have to justify the need and funding. How do you do this? Use them more often. Next time government budget comes into consideration... Do we need to to keep funding SWAT? Yessir... SWAT was deployed 75 times last year. You get the picture...

hmmmm...a patrol officer with a glock .40 cal up against a guy with an AR or a SWAT team up against a guy with an AR? I'll take the SWAT team. Police Departments aren't paid to lose.

Bonesinium
May 30, 2011, 04:22 AM
Well they had a search warrant, which is what the 4th ammendment says is needed for a search, so what civil liberties were "trampled on?"



hmmmm...a patrol officer with a glock .40 cal up against a guy with an AR or a SWAT team up against a guy with an AR? I'll take the SWAT team. Police Departments aren't paid to lose.
First, here is the actual text "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,"

It says unreasonable AND a warrant WITH probable cause. I'm not going to argue it wasn't, but it could be argued that not all these things were present.

But if you want to talk about civil liberties, the right to life comes to mind. But how about we stick with the Constitution.

How about the 5th Amendment?

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

8th Amendment?

"nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Even the 9th maybe? Not that I'd argue this one.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Secondly.

While not directed toward my post, I would wager he isn't saying there shouldn't be any SWAT period, but rather was looking at it politically, and financially. Because that is how the world is run, through politics and finance, and not always on people's best interest.

matty-vb
May 30, 2011, 07:54 AM
IMHO we need more Andy Griffith and less Rambo in our LE agencies. Shock and Awe belong in war, not on our streets.

......and yet one more opportunity for some THR members to rant and rave about law enforcement. The Andy Griffith approach worked great in Newhall, eh?

Neverwinter
May 30, 2011, 09:53 AM
IMHO we need more Andy Griffith and less Rambo in our LE agencies. Shock and Awe belong in war, not on our streets.

......and yet one more opportunity for some THR members to rant and rave about law enforcement. The Andy Griffith approach worked great in Newhall, eh?
Just in case you didn't get it the first time, I'll rephrase it so you can understand.

As far as police responses go, the trend has been toward overly aggressive tactics such as no-knock warrants. The overly aggressive actions that are characteristic of the Rambo end of the scale have resulted in casualties that hopefully society does not find desirable or acceptable. This is not to say that police should not be equipped or trained to sufficiently deal with crisis situations, but that their response should be proportional and guarded. The Shock and Awe approach is a bankrupt mindset for our law enforcement agencies to widely employ.

rbernie
May 30, 2011, 09:57 AM
This topic is only tangentially topical for THR to begin with, with the tangent being the legal aspects of HD. Since the thread has managed to amass 132 posts, most of which ignore that aspect of the situation in favor of debating police tactics, I have little choice but to delcare this thread as having run its course and needin' to be closed.

And so it is.

If you enjoyed reading about "Right to defend your home?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!