Posted on 05/12/2011 4:38:06 AM PDT by WaterBoard
TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - 9 On Your Side has uncovered startling new information in the case of a man SWAT team members killed Thursday.
Medical attention was standing by to try to save Jose Guereña.
Paramedics waited more than an hour.
Then deputies sent them away
By then Guereña was dead.
(Excerpt) Read more at kgun9.com ...
Excuse that he was involved in criminal activity. You did read that he was part of a drug conspiracy investigation, yes?
Oh, it’s always a punk move with the ad hominem attacks on the internet.
Some people have forgotten that we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, those people are the police that feel it is fine to kill citizens on suspicions.
How do you know that?
It's always a punk move to justify killing a man without any shred of proof. But then, it's cool to dress up like a ninja and then play executioner...why waste time with a judge and a jury.
And 71 rounds to zero. Sounds more like police cowardice than a thoughtful tactical operation.
Many of them already serve in the Nat'l Guard and Reserves as weekend warriors. Evan Wright's Generation Kill mentioned these LEOs on the battlefield as reckless and unprofessional and that the Marines Wright was embedded with viewed them with contempt.
The man pointed a firearm at those officers, what was the appropriate response, give him puppy dogs and candy canes?
Presumption of innocence does not preclude investigations or probable cause to effect arrests of citizens suspected of criminal activity or seize evidence of such crimes.
He forced those officers to act. They did not plan, want or conspire to murder this man. They in fact did not murder this man, much as the media would love to enflame your passions to believe so. These officers, who of half are probably vets themselves, did not say “Hey lets kill this Marine for giggles.” I guarantee that there was some soulsearching and questions as to why this guy was suspected in what he was doing. At least some of those officers prayed to God they did not have to engage this man or anyone in the house. But they were not going to let him hurt or kill them or their colleagues if it came to that.
In fact, that is the hallmark of a highly successful SWAT operation, when no one dies or gets hurt. It was only partially successful this time. But the deceased decided on the outcome.
It’s called PROBABLE CAUSE. Specifically required by the Fourth Amendment for warrant issue. Not a hunch, not wild ass guess, not even reasonable suspicion. PROBABLE CAUSE. They had proof. What is driving most people nuts here is the police are not saying what it is. It’s an ongoing investigation and they have to protect some information.
A investigation was done, he was named as a suspect, his house was indicated as a place or thing to be searched for the evidence of the crime. This was sworn to by officers before a judge and the warrant was issued and carried out. Happens every day, and 99 percent of the time no one gets hurt.
Ninjas were paid assassins. They killed everyone in a household, including children. Those officers only defended themselves when faced with an immediate and credible threat.
So now were on the cowardice issue. Cowardice is when the officers say, “Oh my God, he could be armed. We better not do our jobs.”
In civilian life, only police officers and firefighters can be fired for cowardice. Every new guy or gal I train, I tell them that if they fail to wade into danger with me, I will personally move heaven and earth to see that they are fired for dereliction of duty-cowardice. No one has failed me yet.
And onto the 71 rounds issue. People who have never been in a real life shooting or at least investigated one, should not comment much on the dynamics of close quarters combat. It ain’t TV and it ain’t the range.
I’m not sure if you have looked at the map of where this guy’s home is, but there is only one way into the neighborhood via a long road that is constantly staked out by sheriff’s deputies. There’s a lot of dirt and desert surrounding the community. I cannot imagine that the guy could not have been stopped coming into or out of his neighborhood. Cannot imagine. I see deputies all up and down the main road that leads to this neighborhood. All the time.
The best thing I can say about this raid is that they waited to do it until after all the school buses had cleared the neighborhood.
As for the guy working in the mines, do you know what kind of men work in the mines? I don’t see them letting someone take them hostage because some cops show up to arrest a coworker. But I’m only thinking about the men I know who work there. They’re also ex-military and experienced in war zones.
I have no idea if this former Marine went bad or what. I do know that I would want lots of answers from the PCS about why 70 shots were necessary in a neighborhood with houses side by side by side.
The dead guy was defending himself against an immediate and, it turns out, deadly threat. Oops, since he wasn't a cop his life seems to count for little. The cops KNEW he was guilty. Not certain of what, but that seems to be a minor detail. No need to waste the public funds on a trial and even incarceration - the cops had probable cause!!! By God, that's better than proof!!!!
Cowardice is clearly what happened hear.
71 rounds to take out a guy is laughablby pathetic. And not a single shot fired at cops. Not one. Yes, everyone should comment on it. The police, in theory, work for the public. Except, apparently, in your world.
Finally, the heroic, though clealry incompetant shooters, forced on site medical attention away and let the guy bleed out. That, my dear, is cowardice. And hoimicide. Whether it is criminal is to be determined.
SEMPER FI!
They were given permission by a judge to use reasonable means to enter the house if not granted IMMEDIATE entry. That means breaking the door down if another less intrusive method would not suffice or such a method would endanger officers or allow for the destruction of evidence.
If they were granted a no-knock entry, which I doubt, since they have been going out of favor, they could have gone right in but those have led to these kind of situations and just not that common anymore. They are if the suspect has a history of resisting law enforcement and is highly EXPECTED to engage officers on sight. That does not mean the SWAT team stands there waiting for the occupant to destroy evidence or formulate a plan to ambush or escape. Search warrants call for a reasonable amount of time granted to the homeowner to open the door when summoned and ordered to do so. Reasonable can be a little subjective but about 20 seconds is what I am used to seeing. Our teams flashbang before entry and turn the overhead lights upon the knock and announce. Gangs don’t have that capability so little chance of argument of mistake. Not to mention that people who are home invaded by gangs portraying themselves as police are other criminals who are running stash houses of dope or money. They are not Joe and Jane Average Citizen.
All those officers went in shouting “Police, we have a search warrant, put down any weapons and show your hands, etc.”
A responsible gun owner DOES NOT point a rifle at the police officers, all of which are saying the above. They also don’t hold on to it when told to drop it. You want to believe they murdered this guy, I want to give my fellow officers the benefit of the doubt that they did what they are trained to do, gave the decedent some type of chance to surrender and he did not.
So tell me, what’s a reasonable amount of time to allow someone to point a rifle at you before you shoot? 1 second, two, five? All of which is more than enough to shoot your and your colleagues. Anyone with a bit of firearms knowledge knows how destructive rifles are. You can’t muck around.
Since you want to question their competency, tell everyone how you would have done it better.
You don't they did that, his wife says not.
A responsible gun owner DOES NOT point a rifle at the police officers, all of which are saying the above. They also don’t hold on to it when told to drop it.
And you do not know they ever told him that either before they released a hail of lead (missing 90%).
Not to mention that all of your excusing and defending is based on the false premise that these tactics are reasonable for civilian police agencies in the first place. You do know that cops are civilians, don't you? Maybe not since far too many of them don't bur believe they are somehow "more equal" than the other pigs.
You should take a lesson that most posters disagree and find LEOs who share your attitude to be a threat to their liberty and safety. Is that your idea of “Serve and Protect” to make the citizens you WORK FOR contemptuous and fearful of you?
You REALLY should check your premise.
And you among others say there was not a shred or no proof. Probable cause does not require proof positive, nor does even a conviction. Don’t mince words with me on this subject. Almost half of my adult life has been the daily practition of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. That’s how I make my bread and I’m good at it. The public expects me to and so far I have not let them down.
As far as the threshhold of competency comment, today’s police are far better trained, equipped and educated than any of their forebears. In most large communities the minimum training required to even be licensed to be a police officer is in excess of a thousand hours. That does not include field training, which is usually six months more, and first year inservice training.
The “dead man” decided to engage the police officers, they were there legally and lawfully. He had the duty to submit to their authority, granted to them by the judge, and to answer to accusations of a crime committed. Those men and women would prefer the case had gone to court. To call them collective murderers is reprehensible. I just wish you would direct those comments to that particular agency and not me, I don’t work for them but I will defend their right to be given the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, many of todays law enforcement leadership refuse to come out and say in no uncertain terms, “I trust my people, I stand by them and if they are wrong we will deal with that. If you impugn them, I will defend their honor steadfastly.” Hard to find that these days, because it requires taking much flak.
Please define what the cowardice was? Were they cowards because they refused to go into the house, a high risk endeavor? Nope, they went. Were the cowards because they didn’t allow the guy to fire first, maybe kill or injure some of them, all in the name of of some kind of misguided fair play? Maybe it’s because they had the advantage of numbers, equipment, weapons and tactics? Well, Sheriff Andy never had to bury Barney because he got his head shot off talking through a door at some mope who wasn’t buying his folksy BS. If he had, he would had a change of heart and got his head in the game. Afraid to go to court? Come now. Most cops hate court as much as anyone, but they don’t fear it. They were afraid to let onsite medical attention to show up because there MIGHT be some malfeasance? Again, the Medic on the Tactical Team is just as qualified as those medics without, and if there was an opportunity to save him, they would have made the attempt. You don’t know the procedure, I do. The medics ain’t acoming until that house is swept twice and declared clear by the team leader. You want a conspiracy, fine. By the time the results come out, no one absent the police involved and the aggrieved party will care.
And again, your combat or shooting investigation knowledge and experience is? I wager none, as I already said, anyone that has been there will tell you that it is fluid, dynamic, people don’t die when you expect them to, rounds are not always in the X ring, etc.
Since you want to harp on them letting him bleed out, they aren’t going to make a concerted effort to treat anyone until the house has been swept twice of every place where a person can hide. Too bad that offends your sensibilities but all officers are absolutely clear on this. Treat your buddies first, innocents next, suspects last. You ask them to do dangerous things in your stead, then afford them to the benefit of the doubt.
They specifically do not go through sloppily because that invites ambush or missing of evidence.
That house is no more than 1500sqft. How long does it take to go through that size house? It took the paramedics two minutes to arrive. Since the fire station is just around the corner. In a residential neighborhood of similar 1500sqft houses and a few two story houses and apparently a deaf child because they don’t put deaf child signs up in neighborhoods unless there is a deaf child who lives there and someone has requested the sign. The sign is right next to the side of the house that has bullet holes through the front and back sides. A 1500sqft house with a toddler inside and holes through the front and back sides. I wonder how many other young children live around there.
You seem to be arguing that probable cause is sufficient for conviction. That is wrong. The standard for criminal conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Let me be very clear: I do not trust you nor do I find your defense of these thugs even remotely reasonable.
The dead man chose to defend his home. What we know is that he did not fire a shot and the clowns fired at least 71 at him...and still he lived until they let him die. Outside. On the ground. After watching him for more than half an hour. That is cowardice. And gross incompetence. Collectively they allowed him to die without lifting a finger to come to his aid. I hope each them them carries that with them for the rest of their lives. His family certainly will.
You defend the thin blue line. After rereading your posts I am sad for the minds in law enforcement today. And I fear for the safety of America.
So please, go tell your buddies how you straightened out all the cop haters on FreeRepublic. They will be proud of you, pat you on the back and buy you a beer.
Here’s the original story from KOLD 13. The details sure changed after a few days. Also, the sheriff’s office said they would release the warrant the day after the shooting. Obviously, they realized they had made quite a mistake and reneged on that.
http://www.kold.com/category/179377/video-center?clipid=5822988&redirected=true
There is the problem with your premise. You ASSERT that when it seems clear that the people you work for, citizens, want you to cease and desist from these tactics unless there is no other way to detain the suspect and execute the warrant. That was certainly not the case in this incident. Col. Jessup would certainly be proud of you though.
I notice in the original story that the PCS spokesperson said that the wife and child were taken out BEFORE gunfire erupted, and we know now that was not the case. Also, the dude said that there were folks who were not PCS department personnel. What other entities were involved? Feds? Why is this information being withheld?
It always looks bad when the spokesperson gets the story wrong as he is being filmed on location. He’s the AUTHORITY, and he got the story wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.