Posted on 05/23/2011 4:37:47 AM PDT by marktwain
A Tucson, Ariz., SWAT team defends shooting an Iraq War veteran 60 times during a drug raid, although it declines to say whether it found any drugs in the house and has had to retract its claim that the veteran shot first.
And the Pima County sheriff scolded the media for "questioning the legality" of the shooting.
Jose Guerena, 26, died the morning of May 5. He was asleep in his Tucson home after working a night shift at the Asarco copper mine when his wife, Vanessa, saw the armed SWAT team outside her youngest son's bedroom window.
"She saw a man pointing at her with a gun," said Reyna Ortiz, 29, a relative who is caring for Vanessa and her children. Ortiz said Vanessa Guerena yelled, "Don't shoot! I have a baby!"
Vanessa Guerena thought the gunman might be part of a home invasion -- especially because two members of her sister-in-law's family, Cynthia and Manny Orozco, were killed last year in their Tucson home, her lawyer, Chris Scileppi, said. She shouted for her husband in the next room, and he woke up and told his wife to hide in the closet with the child, Joel, 4.
SWAT officers fired at least 71 shots at suspect Jose Guerena, a former U.S. Marine, and a family struggles to put the pieces together.
Guerena grabbed his assault rifle and was pointing it at the SWAT team, which was trying to serve a narcotics search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown, when the team broke down the door. At first the Pima County Sheriff's Office said that Guerena fired first, but on Wednesday officials backtracked and said he had not. "The safety was on and he could not fire," according to the sheriff's statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Have any of the other house been raided?
Other than Plant City cops, I stay as far away from the police as I can.
“Since, most places, the threat comes from cops, that’d be the smart move.”
You don’t honestly believe that do you? Seriously, when I have to be the voice of reason, things are really screwed up.
If his widow hunted down and returned the favor to each and every SWAT member and police chief involved I would want to be on her jury.
Asking again:
Do you think it is constitutional for fedgov to impose national drug prohibition via the Commerce Clause? Or, do you think that authority should be left to the states under the Tenth Amendment?
Drill Instructor.
Drill Sergeant is Army, and the two should never be confused.
“band together for protection”
This is a defensive, not an offensive statement.
You call yourself a voice of reason and espouse this blatant attack on the American people by our own GOVERNMENT? Then when folks decide enough’s enough, you’re surprised? Boy, howdy, you’re a peach, bless your little heart!
“Do you think it is constitutional for fedgov to impose national drug prohibition via the Commerce Clause? Or, do you think that authority should be left to the states under the Tenth Amendment?”
I am a fan of states rights and the 10th ammendment and would like to see it enforced more vigorously. Regarding the Commerce clause, I have long complained about its abuse by the feds to justify govt meddling in all aspects of life. In case of drug laws, the commerce clause might be considered relevant since drugs are illegally transported for sale across state lines. Can’t say that I’ve thought about it enough to give a firm answer.
“band together for protection”
“This is a defensive, not an offensive statement.”
How do you envision this “banding together for protection” against the badge wearing thugs will work? For example, the cops get a warrant against your neighbor who you think is a good guy but who has been selling drugs for years. They roll up in the middle of the night and kick his door in. He calls his band for help and grabs his rifle. What do you do? Assume the cops are an assasination squad, grab your guns and rush to help? See any potential problems here?
OK, since you three are the duty WOsD cheerleaders, let’s have a history lesson.
The Declaration of Independence is the legal authority which founded this nation. It has a great deal of import on all which has followed. If you read it through, you see that the Founders had had much the same sort of thing as we suffer under the war on some drugs. Their oppressor was also their government, the government of George III and his Parliament. So I KNOW they would find this modern tyranny as offensive as they did his.
They put in an item about government with and by the “consent of the governed.” What did they mean? It seems pretty simple: You gave your INFORMED CONSENT to the acts of government, for they were done in your name and on your behalf. HOWEVER, you cannot give consent to government to do ANYTHING that YOU may not justly do. In the current instance, YOU cannot justly beat down your neighbor’s door and kill him for resisting, just because you think he might be using a substance of which you disapprove. Therefore, you cannot PROPERLY have anyone else doing so FOR YOU. It’s just that simple.
Can you possibly justify these raids (or anything even close to them) in light of the DoI? If so, please explain WHY. If not, then HOW do you justify this travesty?
“You call yourself a voice of reason and espouse this blatant attack on the American people by our own GOVERNMENT?”
I’m the voice of reason because I can tell the difference between a screw up by the police and a blatant attack on the American people. I can also tell the difference between a group of overzealous local donut eaters with machine guns and a police state.
Ditto what Hacklehead said.
No problem there at all. ANYONE who tries kicking in doors in the middle of the night deserves every bad thing that might happen to them! There is NO EXCUSE for such behavior, EVER. That you approve of such things speaks volumes about you, NONE of it good.
Oh I see potential problems; 1. Know your neighbors. I do.
2. You “roll up inthe middle of the night in my neighborhood and start kicking in doors, you better be screaming “police, we have a warrant” at the top of your lungs or else something really tragic might happen.
Except when it comes to your pet issue.
Regarding the Commerce clause, I have long complained about its abuse by the feds to justify govt meddling in all aspects of life.
Except when it comes to your pet issue.
In case of drug laws, the commerce clause might be considered relevant since drugs are illegally transported for sale across state lines.
The reach of the Wickard Commerce Clause goes beyond that. Fedgov imposes prohibition on all levels of government, and on the people in their private lives. As Justice Thomas said in Raich:
If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Can't say that I've thought about it enough to give a firm answer.
Yet you are willing to advocate for a fedgov policy that you're not sure is constitutional. That's known as having contempt for the Constitution.
Now you wanna try your hand at responding to post 151? Not that I accept your premise in this response, as there is NO WAY to justify it, but y’all just keep on trying to defend the indefensible, like good statist lackeys.
ANYONE who tries kicking in doors in the middle of the night deserves every bad thing that might happen to them!
OMG we might actually agree. Masked men kicking in doors in the middle of the night is asking for a shotgun blast to the face, especially if it belongs to an innocent man who has no reason to expect the cops. Likewise the cops are expecting to encounter an armed criminal, not an innocent homeowner. That’s when someone gets killed.
“There is NO EXCUSE for such behavior, EVER. That you approve of such things speaks volumes about you, NONE of it good.”
Its obvious I neither approve or excuse such behavior, and the fact that you are willing to smear someone with such lies speaks volumes about you, as does the paranoid delusions and violent rhetoric.
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.