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 ...
That, my friend, is a breath of fresh air. I can see that you understand authority, and realize that the one who is sent cannot be greater than who sent him.
>There was a warrant, but the cops went to the wrong address.
Except the warrant (if it exists) has been sealed; making this a case of “yes, we had a warrant but you can’t see it.”
Unlike 52% of the electorate, I’m not going to take “the government will do it’s job and verify the contents of these forms” for granted.
If he was black, Al Sharpton would have been there in a New York minute.
“Except the warrant (if it exists) has been sealed; making this a case of “yes, we had a warrant but you can’t see it.”
Unlike 52% of the electorate, I’m not going to take “the government will do it’s job and verify the contents of these forms” for granted.”
If there was no warrant ALOT of people are going to prison for murder.
>What do ya call the intentional government supported illegal invasion of our country by tens of millions of Mexicans, while Americans are forced by government to subsidize this country killing illegal invasion, which has resulted in tens of thousands of American victims?
I call it treason.
>If there was no warrant ALOT of people are going to prison for murder.
I should hope so; but I seriously do not think things are as cut-and-dried as that... the government can always insist that no DA is going to take the case, and they could have a judge throw it out because of some technicality. I sincerely hope that our justice system is not THAT corrupt, but I do *NOT* trust its integrity at all.
Also to consider is that the warrant, if it exists, could be written in such an overbroad way that it would NOT stand up in any court that did NOT have a corrupt judge.
Oh, this is so fun!!!
Consent of the governed... The Preamble to the Constitution starts out, “we, the People of the United States...” and goes on to start a government. We, the People are the MASTERS of government. THAT is what the Founders decided long ago. Consent of the governed. That’s what it takes for government to even EXIST on this continent. Which, as I noted, cannot be given for things the one GIVING consent cannot properly do, for NO SERVANT IS GREATER THAN HIS MASTER. How hard is that to understand? Even George Washington made mention of it, in his oft-quoted “dangerous servant/fearful master” speech. We, the PEOPLE, are masters of our government. We have authorized it to do certain things. We CANNOT AUTHORIZE IT TO DO WHAT WE CANNOT OURSELVES DO. It’s impossible. Because then we do NOT have a Constitutional Republic. We have what the Founders feared most, a DEMOCRACY, wherein 50% plus one can decide ANYTHING.
Go back and read what the Founders intended, then tell me if what we have is IT.
None of what they claimed they found at his house that was on the search warrant was "flushable". The sheriff is reporting they were searching for weapons and police uniforms. You can't flush those down the toilet.
Your questions have been answered in previous posts - it was a 5-man team and the shooting lasted less than 30 seconds.
I don’t know that they’ve said how long the SWAT team was in the house...
“Shooting 71 times...hitting..with 60..makes no sense..”
Monkey see, monkey do. As soon as the 1st shot was fired, it was a signal to all of them to empty their entire clips into the guy. Would`nt have mattered if he had been killed with the 1st shot, they would have emptied their clips into him anyway to prove they were “tougher” than any wimp Marine. They were probably downing beers and high fiving each other afterward.
I suspect if a SWAT team, prepared for a dynamic entry raid pounded on your door and you answered the door holding a firearm you wouldn't get a chance to "vocalize your objections", or even ask the people pounding on your door claiming to be the police to produce some identification.
Bullshit! If anything,they will receive promotions and commendations.
YW
1) Aren't the detaining authorities responsible for the well being of a subject who is in "custody" Isn't that why we feed, clothe, provide medical and dental care, psychological counseling, and legal council to those who are in the custody of the government authorities? Seems to me that once they surrounded the home and denied access, the victim was in "custody". They denied medical attention to a subject that was in their custody.
2) The SWAT officers claim that they did not know the situation inside the house after the shooting, so for safety reasons they did not allow medical personnel inside to attend to the wounded victim. IF ONE OF THEIR OWN TEAM MEMBERS HAD BEEN WOUNDED AND WAS DOWN INSIDE THE HOUSE, WOULD THEY HAVE DENIED ENTRY TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL FOR AND HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES IN THE INTEREST OF "SAFETY"?
“Consent of the governed... The Preamble to the Constitution starts out, “we, the People of the United States...” and goes on to start a government. We, the People are the MASTERS of government. THAT is what the Founders decided long ago. Consent of the governed. That’s what it takes for government to even EXIST on this continent. Which, as I noted, cannot be given for things the one GIVING consent cannot properly do, for NO SERVANT IS GREATER THAN HIS MASTER. How hard is that to understand? Even George Washington made mention of it, in his oft-quoted “dangerous servant/fearful master” speech. We, the PEOPLE, are masters of our government. We have authorized it to do certain things. We CANNOT AUTHORIZE IT TO DO WHAT WE CANNOT OURSELVES DO. It’s impossible. Because then we do NOT have a Constitutional Republic. We have what the Founders feared most, a DEMOCRACY, wherein 50% plus one can decide ANYTHING.”
I have already demonstrated that you don’t know what you are talking about. Repeating the same nonsense won’t make it true. You haven’t refuted any of my arguments. You just state pointless unsubstantiated blather.
Actually, that's what "custody" means, care.
>1) Aren’t the detaining authorities responsible for the well being of a subject who is in “custody” Isn’t that why we feed, clothe, provide medical and dental care, psychological counseling, and legal council to those who are in the custody of the government authorities? Seems to me that once they surrounded the home and denied access, the victim was in “custody”. They denied medical attention to a subject that was in their custody.
The court will rule that the bleeding victim — and there is no doubt that he was a victim if injustice & incompetence (if not flat malice) — was not actually in their custody based on the claim that the area was not secured.
>2) The SWAT officers claim that they did not know the situation inside the house after the shooting, so for safety reasons they did not allow medical personnel inside to attend to the wounded victim. IF ONE OF THEIR OWN TEAM MEMBERS HAD BEEN WOUNDED AND WAS DOWN INSIDE THE HOUSE, WOULD THEY HAVE DENIED ENTRY TO MEDICAL PERSONNEL FOR AND HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINUTES IN THE INTEREST OF “SAFETY”?
And therein you make the fatal mistake of assuming that the SWAT care about anyone not wearing their “special super-duper secret club” uniform. To their mindset non-officials are increasingly becoming like the dogs and cats slain in SWAT raids: perfectly acceptable losses.
“None of what they claimed they found at his house that was on the search warrant was “flushable”. The sheriff is reporting they were searching for weapons and police uniforms. You can’t flush those down the toilet.”
If that is the case there is no need for a no-knock raid, a simple search warrant should have sufficed. But then the SWAT team doesnt get to put on a big show to justify their existance. The other rationale is if they expect violent resistance and plan to use overwhelming force to prevent it. It’s like an Arizona version of Waco.
Oh, please. It WAS a deliberate murder, since they left him lying there with no medical care for over an hour.
So the worst thing he likely would have done was kill himself and they eliminated the threat by....killing him. I take it they had to kill him to save him?
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.