Posted on 05/28/2011 1:49:58 AM PDT by petitfour
I can’t find the link now, but, I read somewhere that Jose Guerena had actally tried to get a job with the Border Patrol. 26 year old guy - probably had a notion that with his Marine experience it’d be a good next job, and maybe even had some sort of feeling or identification with it. “I’d look good in that uniform / hat...”
Sure, that’s total speculation, but up to this point, it’s total speculation to assume there’s some negative reason he had that hat.
I can’t find the link now, but, I read somewhere that Jose Guerena had actally tried to get a job with the Border Patrol. 26 year old guy - probably had a notion that with his Marine experience it’d be a good next job, and maybe even had some sort of feeling or identification with it. “I’d look good in that uniform / hat...”
Sure, that’s total speculation, but up to this point, it’s total speculation to assume there’s some negative reason he had that hat.
Sorry again - I don’t know why the double posts. Maybe my mouse is malfunctioning, but it only seems to be happening here!
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/nm_mag/free_border.cfm?promo_code=29F5-1
Borer Patrol Cap is real hard to get...
Did anyone believe the initally claimed 85% hit rate from the paramilitaires?
Does this translate to "home of friend of his sister-in-law"?
Sorry, we are not in court, so I’m not bound to use technically precise terms. Also, my statement was about “enough evidence for a judge to ok a warrant...”
This is the problem. I don't know if this guy was guilty or innocent. I don't know if the discrepancies in the police report were honest mistakes or an institutional reflex to cover up bad news.
Even though the search warrant was legit, that doesn't mean he's a criminal, just that there were sufficient suspicions to merit checking out his house. You are very cavalier in pronouncing this guy guilty, even in the lack of evidence he was anything more than peripherally involved in criminal activity. Why would I or any other FReeper entrust someone with that kind of mentality as a protector of American society?
While drug gangs are a threat to society, unrestrained police are an order of magnitude more dangerous. This might be an either / or proposition to you, but to most Americans, aggressive SWAT operations for increasingly minor causes are wearing thin. The attitude that 'if people don't like what the police are doing, they can pound sand' is helping speed that process along.
“Was that before or after he opened fire on the police?”
It is not uncommon for people to interpret incorrectly when massive gunshots are heard in the fog of a dangerous situation. Do you honestly think that the police officers are out there to do harm and lie?
Out to harm and lie? No, they probably didn't know the target from Adam. Willing to cover up mistakes that could get their teammates in trouble? Sure.
When you operate on a small team, you're loyalty runs smallest to biggest. Team. Unit. Department. Force. State. Country. You entrust your life to your teammates, and human nature will lead you to treat any threat to your teammates as evil and wrong.
As far as the fog of battle, I know gunfights can be confusing, but this wasn't confusion, it was panic. One guy started shooting, then everyone started shooting. And kept shooting.
Between that event, and the fact that they incorrectly reported that he fired first, there is a distinct possibility that the initial shot was panic at seeing an armed man, and the 'he was pointing a weapon' part was added in later as a justification. I don't know that happened, but its worth investigating, given how sloppy the rest of their work was.
“I mean, rather than clear the building and apply medical attention to the target, they let the guy bleed out while waiting an hour for the robot to poke his dead body to make sure he’s dead”
Different set of of risk averseness in police versus military. Also, the officers state his body fell through a doorway and he was mostly obscured from their vision.
This is completely unconvincing. I'm not as familiar with law enforcement standards, but how to you clear a building if you stop and hide when you hit opposition? This is tactically unsound on several levels. If you're dynamically raiding the house to stop them from flushing the evidence, then you halt because you think there might be another threat inside, what's to stop *him* from flushing the evidence? It just makes no sense.
If SWAT teams are that risk averse, then they shouldn't be doing high risk operations. But their record isn't one of risk aversion. This same PD had paramedics on the scene in under 15 minutes when Giffords and a dozen other people were shot, in a far more uncontrolled event.
This is either rank incompetence, or intentionally running out the clock on a witness who was bleeding to death.
“My commander (prior to screaming at me to do my damn job) would have laughed himself to tears if I had asked for that in Tikrit.”
Seriously. Thanks for your service. I wonder how many of our strikes in Iraq and Afghan that are labeled as “civillians” are truly civies or just Talis and AQ in garb, hiding by some civies, knowing the PR effect.?
Do Muslim insurgents lie their asses off? Non stop, 24/7. It's all they know. Islamic culture actively encourages it. That said, it's not like the Army is married to the painful truth, either. Insurgents use lies as weapons, the Army lies as a shield.
Anyway, we weren't there to protect and serve the Iraqi or Afghan people. I don't really care what the locals though of our work, so long as they were compliant. We were there to further the interests of the United States, as directed by the lawful chain of command, not to make friends. (If any officers want to chime in now with 'Every Soldier an Ambassador'), I'll be happy to dismember your argument.)
We were always very careful not to hit civilians, out of basic human decency, but I'd be lying if I said our work was in any way comparable to what our police are supposed to be. All we cared about is doing the job and coming home alive. Caring about the good of the locals doesn't factor when you're on the other side of the world, in a country where no one wants you there, and you can't trust anyone from age 5 and up.
“Paying lip service to freedom and God given rights while cheering on the SWAT for acting like the Internal Security Bureau of some third world banana republic is intellectually dishonest.”
An objective look at our civil rights versus “third worlders” and even Euros, will show our civil rights are still intact and the strongest in the world. Comparing the US to the Soviets is just not knowing the Soviets.
Right now? You're correct. We're not the Soviets yet.
The problem is the trend. In 10 years, the police and the American people will have the same relationship that the Army and the Iraqis had five years ago. What's it going to look like in 20 years? Especially after the U.S. dollar collapses, and times get hard? Or when harder leftist leaders need to exert more control?
America in general ain't the country you grew up in, and in a short time, it'll look a lot more like the USSR. Moving to make the police more powerful, insular and militarized isn't good for the future of a free and democratic society.
It's time for a harder look at paramilitary LE teams in America. I understand that LEOs have a hard and thankless job, but their safety is less important than American freedom. You may feel that the cops are getting a bad rap here, but it's blowback. Conservatives trust cops more than anyone, but when cops prove themselves unworthy of that trust, the backlash is that much harder.
The SWAT team were told he was "involved in home invasions of drug dealers"
As a matter of interest, before the Ruby Ridge incident, the FBI Hostage Elimination Team were told Randy Weaver was involved in bank robberies. It wasn't true, but it primed the troops.
So yeah, I give her the benefit of the doubt over the proven falisfiers.
You’re bending over backwards to defend the indefensible murder of a man in his home.>>>>>>>>
I agree. Every person has a right under the Constitution to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure. A man standing with a weapon in defense of his own home, is exactly what his right was. He did not fire his weapon. It certainly appears as if a federal crime has been committed, a violation of his civil rights and his rights under the 4th amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
I’d say this was a prima facie unreasonable search. They executed the guy, for holding a weapon in his own home when unidentified people were bashing his door down.All they likely had to do is ring the door bell and ask if they could come in, showing him their warrant, and serving him with a copy.
I agree with Tiger.
There is a lot here that does not seem to make sense, unless there was an over reaching of granted search authorization. This is like Ruby Ridge and WACO.I don’t give a damn if the PIMA County sheriff is a good old boy and a conservative. The Bill of Rights still applies.
Around Tucson, having marijuana is not all that uncommon. My children see it every day at school. I have been told that the assistant principal at one of the schools in which we have/had children was moved to that school after being caught with weed or smelling of the stuff at another school. I haven’t asked him about it. I think it is mostly ignored in the schools unless the users are being obnoxious about it. Yes, that’s a sad thing to say.
It’s also of note that the majority of voters in this state voted to legalize medical marijuana. Maybe the majority is scum.
For instance you say: Every person has a right under the Constitution to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure.
However the article states: Jose Guerena, 26, his older brother, Alejandro Guerena, and Jose Celaya - a relative by marriage - were listed as suspects in an investigation of drug trafficking and home invasions, records show.
and
During a briefing before the warrants were served, records show, detectives told SWAT team members the two Guerena brothers and Celaya were associated with a double homicide related to a home invasion.
The way the law works, search warrents were issued by a Judge based on this kind of information and maybe more we still don't know of - so how can this possibly be "unreasonable search and seizure"?
But no doubt some are scum.
I’m in the sportswear biz. There is a constant market for law enforcement or military embellished clothing. It does not mean the wearer is impersonating anything. These things are often in response to a popular movie or even a Halloween get up.
just so's you know, my Uncle was a Dallas city motorcycle patrolman, his sister/my mother was a Deputy Sheriff, my father was part time Deputy and my Cousin was a Policeman. i am NO cop hater, but, i am a Thug Cop/Roid Cop/Gun Happy/Dirty Cop hater...
i will allow them no excuses or cut them any slack.
and with all the conflicting stories, this looks like a prime case
Sorry, when hat was mentioned, I was thinking of the offical Border Patrol campaign hat, not the field cap.
Good point. Some of the SWAT team members are former Marines. And at least one of them served in Iraq.
Hey BF. You didn't respond to my #240. Like the shooting victim, I have no drugs in my home. Also like the shooting victim, I have family member's who were involved with drugs.
If someone were to break into my home and threaten my family, I would respond with force.
So BF, should I die because I'm related to idiots?
Did he point a weapon at the front door?
This is not a defense of the informality of the SWAT leader/commander/whatever who answered uh huh and yeah all the time, but I have noticed that things are a bit more informal in Tucson than they are elsewhere. Or maybe my mother drilled it into my head so much that “yeah” has an “s” at the end and should usually be followed by a “ma’am” or a “sir.” Imprecision is ok in the schools here. It drives one of our OCD children crazy because she works very hard to do things a certain way in order to receive the best grade possible. And then other people turn in inferior work and receive the same grade. When she turns in work of similar quality to her peers, she is marked down. My point is that a good portion of the population here functions at a lower standard. Why wouldn’t the police? In most cases, it is ok to be that way. But in life and death matters and with guns involved, shouldn’t we expect the best?
This tragedy and travesty has allowed us to drive home with some of our children that precision is important and half-assed is unacceptable. There can be terrible consequences to half-assed.
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.