Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tucson SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times
abcnews.go.com ^ | 20 May, 2011 | ELLEN TUMPOSKY

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: az; banglist; corruption; cwii; donutwatch; govtabuse; guerena; killswat; liberalfascism; murder; murderbyswat; rapeofliberty; swat; swatassholes; thinblueline; tucsonswatteam; tyranny; veteran
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-215 next last
To: dcwusmc
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.

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.

181 posted on 05/23/2011 2:53:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

>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.


182 posted on 05/23/2011 2:59:57 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

If he was black, Al Sharpton would have been there in a New York minute.


183 posted on 05/23/2011 3:00:18 PM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

“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.


184 posted on 05/23/2011 3:02:57 PM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

>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.


185 posted on 05/23/2011 3:11:15 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

>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.


186 posted on 05/23/2011 3:29:11 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

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.


187 posted on 05/23/2011 3:41:50 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead
I’m not a fan of no-knock raids but they were developed to prevent drug dealers from flushing the evidence down the toilet before the cops gained entry. If there were ways of collecting flushed items before they hit the main line, these raids could be eliminated.

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.

188 posted on 05/23/2011 3:54:50 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Nip

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...


189 posted on 05/23/2011 4:01:06 PM PDT by HiJinx (Old Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

“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.


190 posted on 05/23/2011 4:01:50 PM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
You can either permit the search after vocalizing your objection or resist it with force, even deadly force.

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.

191 posted on 05/23/2011 4:02:36 PM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

Bullshit! If anything,they will receive promotions and commendations.


192 posted on 05/23/2011 4:10:02 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Borax Queen

YW


193 posted on 05/23/2011 4:11:19 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: All
Two questions:

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"?

194 posted on 05/23/2011 5:03:40 PM PDT by PalmettoMason (Blacks are not inferior, but it is racist to hold them to the same standards as everyone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

“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.


195 posted on 05/23/2011 5:40:01 PM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: PalmettoMason
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.

Actually, that's what "custody" means, care.

196 posted on 05/23/2011 5:41:07 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: PalmettoMason

>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.


197 posted on 05/23/2011 5:46:30 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“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.


198 posted on 05/23/2011 5:46:52 PM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

Oh, please. It WAS a deliberate murder, since they left him lying there with no medical care for over an hour.


199 posted on 05/23/2011 5:48:48 PM PDT by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

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?


200 posted on 05/23/2011 5:49:35 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson