Posted on 05/27/2011 9:15:42 PM PDT by marktwain
The thing I read in one of the articles is that this Marine was suspected of raiding DRUG HOUSES. My guess is he was doing the job the police wouldn't do.
Taking on the crime in his neighborhood that the SWAT teams were afraid to deal with. Because THOSE criminals wouldn't have had their 'assault rifles' on SAFETY.
And for that, he was rewarded with 71 bullets. Can't have citizens taking the law into their own hands, you know. Might make Sheriff Dupnick look bad.
In the local Metro area where I live, the SWAT team had set up their own CRIB, complete with drugs and prostitutes, in the middle of the Chicano neighborhood.
Maybe this Marine hit one of Dupnick's SWAT teams drug cribs ???? Or a drug crib they were 'protecting' for a monthly 'payment'.
Hard to believe? Not for me. Not when the local SWAT team was caught red-handed, just a few miles from me.
In this case, I think it was because one guy fell, discharging his weapon, and the other guys just fired away, presuming the worst. That is why they have bulletproof vests and automatic (or at least semi-auto) weapons drawn, and safeties OFF. Massive firepower to be released with minimum danger to the team.
That being said, I would bet that in cases where the LE does place a THROWDOWN (officer's spare and unregistered weapon) to cover for a questionable killing, that the safeties were all ON. I don't ever remember a case where a THROWDOWN was a consideration that anyone even questioned if the safety was on.
Wow. I accidentally left my main point out.
Due to the confusion over the situation, I don’t think they blamed themselves and felt no need to try to do any cover up with the rifle.
I don’t think they planned to kill him. I think they wanted to discourage him taking the law into his own hands, by raiding drug houses and rousting out dealers. Cleaning up his neighborhood.
As I said in another post, maybe the SWAT team was getting revenge for him robbing one of ‘their’ drug houses.
One excellent suggestion by one commenter “supercat” at
The Agitator about March 10, 2011 was that the
reasonableness of the search should be a jury issue.
For the record, IANAL.
Many people have picked up on that “bang bang bang”
It sounds like they were letting him bleed out so he couldn’t tell the tale, and so they could make up a story. Bunch of p-——s. I hope they like the legacy they created, because they are making it far more difficult for honest cops to serve a warrant and for honest people to make the decision to defend their homes.
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.