Are you totally stupid? Didn't you see the videos of the so called legal serving of the warrant? The knocked and waited 8 seconds or so before breaking in. His wife had seen armed men outside the house and told her husband, he armed himself as would any law abiding citizen who owned firearms(there is serious doubt he owned the rifle, his wife claimed at the time that the swat team threw it down next to him). He was sleeping, woken up out of a sound slumber, his wife tells him armed people are outside. I suppose you would simply let people break into your house without defending it.
This man did NOT fire and it is only their word that he aimed it at them. I have serious doubts about their story and the legitimacy of the weapon he supposedly had, he was an ex-marine he would not have simply stood there had he been armed.
Despite your stupidity this was a massacre of an innocent citizen. BTW, he was not involved in a stolen crime ring, that was BS made up to justify the shooting. He had relatives that were killed about 2 years ago by members of a stolen crime ring after they broke into his relatives house.
The news media printed lies that made it seem like he was some how involved with the people who killed his sister.
Get your facts straight and also realize that all cops are not good people and that swat teams in particular think they have powers they simply do not possess, not legally.
The warrant, btw, was not legal, it did not state the name of the person and place to be searched or what they were searching for. They have refused to release this warrant, the reason? So they could lie about it without fear of being called on it.
One more thing, if this was such a legal shoot, why did they let him bleed out? Perhaps to keep him from talking?
Some of the SWAT bullets struck the weapon. The forensic report from the county attorneys office indicates the weapon was pointed at the SWAT officers.
I have your back.
Let's look at just a few of these lies one at a time, shall we?
Are you totally stupid? Didn't you see the videos of the so called legal serving of the warrant? The knocked and waited 8 seconds or so before breaking in. His wife had seen armed men outside the house and told her husband, he armed himself as would any law abiding citizen who owned firearms(there is serious doubt he owned the rifle, his wife claimed at the time that the swat team threw it down next to him). He was sleeping, woken up out of a sound slumber, his wife tells him armed people are outside. I suppose you would simply let people break into your house without defending it.
His wife told investigators and 911 that she knew the SWAT were outside, that they identified themselves as SWAT, and that she heard the siren.
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/c/8f/524/c8f5246a-8825-11e0-9f33-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4ddf3c9948269.pdf.pdf
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/0/95/5c1/0955c118-8826-11e0-a691-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4ddf3d458b682.pdf.pdf
This man did NOT fire and it is only their word that he aimed it at them. I have serious doubts about their story and the legitimacy of the weapon he supposedly had, he was an ex-marine he would not have simply stood there had he been armed.
1: The police do not have to wait until they are fired upon. Arizona law is clear. They are allowed to respond to what reasonably appears to be the imminent use of deadly force, with deadly force. 2: We don't just have "their word" we have the bullet strikes on his gun, which indicate that it had to have been pointed at them when they fired. (Oh wait, let me guess.... ITZ A CONSPIWACY!!!!!, AKA the last refuge of the stupid.)
Despite your stupidity this was a massacre of an innocent citizen. BTW, he was not involved in a stolen crime ring, that was BS made up to justify the shooting. He had relatives that were killed about 2 years ago by members of a stolen crime ring after they broke into his relatives house.
Wrong.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57183432/PCSO-Search-Warrant-Affidavit-Jose-Guerena-Shooting
The news media printed lies that made it seem like he was some how involved with the people who killed his sister.
Uh huh... it all goes back to that... "The CONSPIWACY!!!!"
Get your facts straight and also realize that all cops are not good people and that swat teams in particular think they have powers they simply do not possess, not legally.
Uh huh... cop-hating 101. AKA "When my lies are exposed on the internet, I just start rambling about 'bad cops' to try to save face..."
The warrant, btw, was not legal, it did not state the name of the person and place to be searched or what they were searching for. They have refused to release this warrant, the reason? So they could lie about it without fear of being called on it.
Wrong.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57183432/PCSO-Search-Warrant-Affidavit-Jose-Guerena-Shooting
One more thing, if this was such a legal shoot, why did they let him bleed out? Perhaps to keep him from talking?
Yeah... back to the "ITZ A CONSPIWACY!!!!"
What you are doing is called moving the goal posts. Prior to the SWAT video coming out, the spittle laden bloggers all said, 1. There was no knock, 2. They didn't announce themselves at all, 3. That there was no siren at all. 4. That there was no wait before making entry. 5. That he wasn't a criminal. Each one of these statements are a demonstrated lie. So what does the internet "master-debater" do? Yep, he tries to move the goalposts. Now, it is 1. Well they did knock, but it was too quiet. 2. They did announce, but a person sleeping couldn't hear it. 3. There was a siren but it sounded like a car alarm. 4. They did wait, but not long enough. 5. There is no proof he was a criminal.
Epic Failure.
>> The knocked and waited 8 seconds or so before breaking in. <<
Yes, I did. And I saw the way the way that they waited some 35 seconds... plenty of time for him to wake up, grab his gun, and lie in wait... which he did.
>> His wife had seen armed men outside the house and told her husband, <<
The wife’s story is an hilariously bad lie. They had sirens blazing in the driveway.
>> there is serious doubt he owned the rifle, his wife claimed at the time that the swat team threw it down next to him <<
Until she realized that the footage gathered by the robot precluded this possibility, then she shut up about it.
>> BTW, he was not involved in a stolen crime ring, that was BS made up to justify the shooting. <<
And you know this how? He was not convicted; he’s dead because he met a SWAT team by crouching in the dark with a rifle. But a judge found probably cause. And the fact that he met a SWAT team by crouching in the dark with a rifle, that he owned a stolen gun, and certain legal items which nonetheless fit the crimes hw had been accused of seem to confirm this.
And why would a man who could own several legal guns own a stolen gun? Because it couldn’t be traced to him if he murdered someone with it.
Could the stolen gun have been a plant? Could this all be some great cover-up? Yes. From what we know now, it’s possible. But if it’s a lie, that robot’s footage will expose it all, because as we all know, the robot went in an hour before anyone else did. And every lawyer west of the Mississippi will know that.
But, wait... the wife already quit pressing the “they planted the gun lie” already. I guess the lawyers already told her that.