Posted on 05/27/2011 11:44:07 AM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
VIDEO AT LINK
A U.S. Marine who was killed when he was gunned down in his home near Tucson, Arizona, never fired on the SWAT team that stormed his house firing 70 times in a hail of bullets, a report has revealed.
The revelation came as dramatic footage of the shooting was released, showing the armed team pounding down the door of Jose Guerena's home and opening fire.
The father-of-two, who had served twice in Iraq, died on May 5 after the SWAT team descended on his home believing it was one of four houses associated with a drug smuggling operation.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I also just noticed the Ballistic Shield bearer is either a midget or a women, no wonder she was flopping all over the ground.
You’re citing the second interview. Read the first one.
Well, the cops lied about him firing on them. Did he point a weapon at them? Did he even own that weapon or have it in his possession when they fired on him? The wife had never seen it before. She was very consistent about this through hysteria and shock. And it sure didn’t sound like he had time to retrieve said hidden/unknown weapon. The cops interrogated her without reading her her rights before they reinterrogated her after reading her her rights.
And I would pay no attention to the siren blurp that was audible inside the SWAT vehicle. It was so short that it would have barely registered in my head if at all. If the siren had been blaring and continued blaring when they were knocking on the door, then maybe I would have realized there were cops at the door. I didn’t hear them say anything after the busted the door open. And the wife said Jose, in his underwear, was on the way to open the door. No gun in hand at that point. And he was awakened from a dead sleep.
Over and over she said “Where did that gun come from? That BIG gun?” blah blah blah
>> You keep defending this based on the warrant. I have heard several versions as to why the warrant has not been released; one version is that it was a “blanket” warrant that covered several locations and was based on really old intel and unreliable CI’s (the Marine just moved into this home a few months ago). It may even turn out to have been an illegal warrant. Time will tell. <<
IF the warrant turns out to have been illegal, I’ll certainly hop on this bandwagon. But then my criticism will be on the judge (and the district attorney’s office?), not the SWAT team.
If it turns out that the warrant was a blanket warrant, since they weren’t looking for marijuana or something else so easily destroyed, I’ll be very critical of how quickly the SWAT team entered the home. If you raid a house early enough, and charge in fast enough, there’s no difference between a knock warrant and a no-knock warrant. However, that’s DOES NOT APPEAR to be critical here, since he was crouching in wait, with his gun, rather than coming to the door.
Well, they have said over and over again that it was not a no knock warrant. I also read the transcripts of the wife and do not believe they ever served her with the search warrant. They did not read her her rights though they would not let her go. They interrogated her for a long time before they read her her rights and then they reinterrogated her. It is rather disturbing since she was hysterical and they transcribed both interrogations.
They were after the brother or brothers. They were proud of unloading their weapons and interested in “finishing what they started.” I should clarify that. I only read of one of the officers wanting to finish what they started. But I have not read the transcripts of the officers yet.
>> And when I see him on the floor I say “Jose, what’s going on? What is that gun doing on next to you?” <<
That sounds credible to you? A siren, a door crash, seventy gun shots, her husband is on the floor, and her FIRST question is “What’s going on? What’s that gun doing next to you?”
Really? The Pima Country Sheriff just recently stated this was an on-going drug investigation and only seemed weeks later, suddenly it was a drug conspiracy AND home invasion investigation.
Tell me, if the homeowner who was shot 60 times, was part of a home invasion team, where are the victims of these home invasions? How many *weeks* or months does it take to show the home invasion victims the dead guys picture and confirm he was part of an alleged "Home invasion team"?
And if this is all legitimate, and it turns out the homeowner is some violent dangerous person, why did the SWAT team lawyer up?
I read the interview. In the beginning she says:
A: In our house and I don't know where, from where, form where I don't know
Q: From where
A: From where he got this big ol' I don't know what.
Q: You mean the gun?
A: The same one as they have, the SWAT team.
She is responding to the question of where the gun came from, the gun she noticed later. She's not saying he had the gun. She's just amazed that it turned up.
OK, I could see hiring someone who is expert at crime scenes. But one who’s biggest clients have been in organized crime, like defending a sitting mayor against dozens of charges?
Now Dragnet, don't be asking any serious questions. We have a lawyer on the thread, he's already told us everything we need to know.....
“I just went, Jose, what’s going on? And he wake up, and he get, he got an AK47 that he had.”
Page 3 first interview.
It sounds exactly right to me. I have been in extremely stressful situations, and the first thing I have seen women do is turn to a person they trust and say: "What is going on?" or "What are you doing?"
By AZ law they are only required to give a receipt. The warrant has to be signed and returned to the judge that issued it.
They did not read her her rights though they would not let her go. They interrogated her for a long time before they read her her rights and then they reinterrogated her.
That's only an issue if what she said is going to be used in a criminal proceeding against her. She could always have asked to be let go, or to not say anything.
They were proud of unloading their weapons and interested in “finishing what they started.”
That's your editorial opinion. Finishing what you started is a common thing to say.
He's down at that point.
“What’s going on?” Absolutely makes sense. Or, “What happened?”
“What’s that gun doing next to you?’
That sounds pretty laughable.
If he hadn’t died, I’m sure she would also be asking, “And what’s that body armor doing in our home” and “Why do you have parts of a police uniform” and “Why do you have this Jesus Malverde painting stashed under our bed.”
What in God's name are you talking about? A receipt before they serve a warrant, after they serve a warrant? A warrant is a warrant.....did she get a damn warrant or not?
She did ask to be let go so she could check on her child or to speak to her mother in law who came to pick up the child. I don’t think it will be an issue.
Really? The Pima Country Sheriff just recently stated this was an on-going drug investigation and only seemed weeks later, suddenly it was a drug conspiracy AND home invasion investigation.
Tell me, if the homeowner who was shot 60 times, was part of a home invasion team, where are the victims of these home invasions? How many *weeks* or months does it take to show the home invasion victims the dead guys picture and confirm he was part of an alleged "Home invasion team"?
And if this is all legitimate, and it turns out the homeowner is some violent dangerous person, why did the SWAT team lawyer up?
Seeing her husband bleeding to death, isolated by police and told he’s dead, worried about her kid, and she’s shewdly calculating this story.
You’ve made her out to be a pretty cool customer.
Which is interesting because it wasn’t an AK47 and it doesn’t make sense. She was hysterical. And I was like, and he was like, and he was this and that. She said he got an AK47 that he had and then he was throwing up. Huh?
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.