Posted on 05/26/2011 10:23:23 PM PDT by nparker99
The Pima County Sheriff's Department released a video Thursday that shows a SWAT team shooting into a suspect's house. He died after being shot 60 times.
Jose Guerena, 26, was shot and killed May 5 when Pima County authorities served a search warrant on his home.
The Sheriff's department says five SWAT team members fired more than 70 rounds in less than 10 seconds after the former Marine pointed an assault rifle at officers. His wife contends the family thought the officers were robbers. He was shot 60 times
(Excerpt) Read more at kold.com ...
The video is at the bottom of the following article. This was cold-blooded murder:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391567/Iraq-war-vet-Jose-Guerena-did-open-SWAT-team-killed-him.html
Not meaning to give you a short answer, but, nope. This day and age, only a fool would believe anything a Government official says. From the Courthouse to the White House.
Are you perchance Ferguson Foont?
Who is that?
Yeah investigations. Like the investigations into Ruby Ridge and Waco.
Please tell me you are not that stupid, B_F.
“I’m interested to know why you think he was involved in crime.”
There had to be evidence of something for a warrant to be issued. And someone can leave the Marines and be evil - Lee Harvey Oswald, anyone?
Maybe he was innocent, and maybe not - I don’t care. That is no way to serve a warrant. If they pulled the same stunt at my house, I would almost certainly be shot too - for having a 44 magnum in one hand!
But that isn’t a crime, and the crime he was accused of doesn’t carry the death penalty either. So why set him up to die?
And BTW - if he had been a real bad ass, he’d have opened fire on those bozos from the side window at point blank range - from the side!
If you watch the video, you can hear one of the cops say “Bang bang bang” at :17,
way before the bullets start flying.
Evidently he couldn’t wait for the slaughter to begin. Murdering maggots.
I understand. I also live in a place where a break-in or a SWAT raid are unlikely. I don’t have an AR-15 but I do own an SKS. I think you might be surprised at how many folks in rural areas own so-called “assault rifles.” For one thing the opportunities to take them out and shoot them are greater.
“.. do the SWAT members have a history of violence and why don’t you ask that also? “
They do now.
Please document this for us and also report it to the Mods, documenting that to us too.
>>Their behavior tells me they had been inadequately trained, inadequately planned, inadequate intel, lack of rules of engagement, grossly irresponsible with criminal intent.
<<
Exactly! I know nothing about SWAT training, but COMMON SENSE says you don’t just casually and sloppily saunter to the door like these goons did.
They looked sloppy, casual, and clueless. Like they didn’t know or care where they were. They could as easily have been walking up t place an order at McDonald’s.
They OBVIOUSLY were poorly trained.
You can see that as they were driving up, smiling, all casual, like they were headed to the movies.
Yet these idiots were entrusted to take a man’s life and endanger his family.
And fools on this forum defend it.
“Actually all I have done is posted encouraging people not to point their guns at the police and wait for the investigations because even a cop is innocent until proved guilty.”
You declared the victim GUILTY of pointing his gun at the cops. Yet you don’t know that is what happened.
Then you say his death is justified. Are you so stupid you don’t see your own hypocrisy?
Your point?
You are arguing with an idiot.
“Bang, bang” may be code for use of a stun grenade. And there is a “boom” just before the door gets knocked in. I’m not sure if that’s caused by an initial blow to the door that doesn’t quite open it, or a stun grenade. However, that said:
If a stun grenade was used, only one was used, and obviously not in an effective location - this makes no sense, as later on the SWAT team seems to fear that there may be a whole army of “bad guys” in the house (per the police report), so why use ONE? OR;
Maybe the stun grenade was effective and Guerena lurched out into the SWAT team’s view, gun still in hand, whereupon they proceeded to open fire, OR;
That police report (Swat Team leader’s statement) is very interesting in several ways - there is lots of detail in there, but, among other things, curiously, there is no mention of the use of a stun grenade. Unless the serving of all search warrants in the county is accompanied by one or more stun grenades chucked into the house in question, this seems like a significant (and unlikely?) omission.
Really though, the whole question of whether the deceased (Guerena) acted in some way taken to be “agressive” or not, is secondary. The whole situation started going horribly wrong the minute someone decided to send a SWAT team to Guerena’s home.
Incidentally, I ran across the 911 call from the wife to the local dispatch. This is another item that will leave you with a bad feeling in your gut for some time. But, nonetheless, it SHOULD be listened to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LsxnRUNKuE
>>If a stun grenade was used, only one was used, and obviously not in an effective location - this makes no sense, as later on the SWAT team seems to fear that there may be a whole army of “bad guys” in the house (per the police report), so why use ONE? OR;<<
And the explanation of “we expected the house to be full of bad guys” crapola is just that...a load of crap.
If so, then why “blow the siren” as they claimed, then approach the door so casually? Like they were going to Grandma’s house for Sunday lunch?
And look at their demeanor in the car. All smiles, listening to music, casual and happy-go-lucky. No big whoop.
Do they look like a bunch of cops preparing to go to war with a houseful of drug gangsters? No.
They are lying to us. It’s an outright lie.
You threw down the Victim Card and we're all waiting for your documentation of these threats. Otherwise it looks like you're just trying to smear FR by association with a false accusation.
Actually I think he’s arguing with an anti-FR disruptor type troll.
That means you're just going to throw around a lot of implicit accusations, and keep dancing around actually stepping up and naming names. You came to me talking trash about other Freepers, but when it's time to get down to it, you fold up and start trying to change the subject.
Seems to be some kind of tag-team arrangement. One troll slips up and steps in it, and when called out runs off to different thread to start back up there, while aonther troll shows up to run inteference.
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.