Let it fly.....SWAT cleared.

[JetGirl]

... and assume they are lying because of the uniform they wear.

I thought we were assuming these specific individuals were lying because they changed their stories a couple times when physical evidence wouldn't support the first things they said...

 

[USMC_0311]

They shot wayyy too many shots, period. If he pointed a gun at them I can see why they were cleared of any wrongdoing, but that was pure uneccessary use of force. Not to mention, did you see the breach and entry? It looked like a crowd of children. And what about the officer that pushes his way in to get a one handed pistol into the fray, is that standard procedure? Come on... But really, they hit their siren and they were yelling about who they were, so the last thing he should have done was go for his firearm.

Whoever claimed they didn't announce who they were must have MUCH better ears than I do. Because I
can hear the unit at the door screaming AND knocking, I just can't hear what they are saying. One would assume they are identifying themselves.

assume
A lot of that going on in this thread. I agree with most of your post. The part I don't is the knock. I am going to need more than 15 sec to get off the toilet and answer the door. More than 15 sec to wake up and answer the door.

 

[PatriotPride]

I thought we were assuming these specific individuals were lying because they changed their stories a couple times when physical evidence wouldn't support the first things they said...

But of course, you're not calling them liars because of the fact that they lied several times. No...you're calling them liars because you're a cop-bashing ne're-do-well who is only calling them liars because of the uniform they wear.

 

[jsharmon7]

I thought we were assuming these specific individuals were lying because they changed their stories a couple times when physical evidence wouldn't support the first things they said...

That the police planted the gun?

 

[E5RANGER375]

By "pot meet kettle," do you mean me pointing out the parallels between what E5 accuses "us" of doing and what you and several others routinely do? If that's what you got out of it then you understood me perfectly. It's the same thing no matter which angle you look at it. You can accuse me of defending these guys simply because of their uniform and I can accuse you guys of assuming the worst simply because of their uniform. E5 can say they planted a gun and I can say they didn't. Do you see where I'm going with this?

why do you keep saying "US" ???

you have nothing to do with cops in arizona nor they you. its a job. you all are NOT some big army that must blindly back each other up cross country. untill YOU quit blindly supporting each other because you all have red and blue lights on your cars, then it will never end. the department in discusion here HAS lied and HAS covered things up, and I have seen with MY own eyes that they are a bunch of idiots (at least the ones who entered that house.)
its pretty sad that when we see a cop in uniform we cant automatically trust them, but you know what? as long as my cop buddies and relatives keep telling me about inner department coverups for drunk driving and drug use ect, then Im not blindly trusting any cop I dont know PERIOD!!!
so you can get as butt hurt as you want young guy, but you need some more real world travels outside of Podunk town before you start casting stones at me.

and by the way, I dont REALLY think they planted the gun, but I do think they lied and said he pointed it at them. I think he had it at the ready but not pointed. and the way this department has been from the get go, I wont believe anything they say unless I see video proof! can you really blame me?

 

[FCSD 23-18]

assume
A lot of that going on in this thread. I agree with most of your post. The part I don't is the knock. I am going to need more than 15 sec to get off the toilet and answer the door. More than 15 sec to wake up and answer the door.

The Supreme Court has given some guidance as to how long officers must wait after knocking and announcing their presence before entry may be made. In U.S. v. Banks,[11] the Supreme Court found 15 to 20 seconds to be a reasonable wait time where officers received no response after knocking and where officers feared the home occupant may be destroying the drug evidence targeted by the search warrant. As with most other things in the Fourth Amendment arena, the Court left reasonableness of the time period to be determined based on the totality of the circumstances;[12] and thus inferior Federal courts have found even shorter time periods to be reasonable.[13] Some different factors have been propounded by lower courts to guide the analysis of a reasonable wait period.[14] A few examples are:

• the size, design, and layout of the premises
• the time of day the search is being executed
• the nature of the suspected offense (in particular, does it involve evidence easily destroyed? Is the suspect dangerous?)
• the evidence demonstrating guilt.

 

[jsharmon7]

this in my opinion is the main problem, almost all you cops will rally blindly behind cops you have never met and assume they are telling the truth just because your in the same line of work. thats the biggest bunch of BS ive ever seen. I dont think he was pointing a gun at them, i do think they planted it. I do wish the total outcome would have been different with him walking out.

why do you keep saying "US" ???

I keep saying "us" because you keep saying "you guys." See how that works? Don't try to make it something more than it is and just try to follow along with the conversation, okay?

you have nothing to do with cops in arizona nor they you. its a job. you all are NOT some big army that must blindly back each other up cross country. untill YOU quit blindly supporting each other because you all have red and blue lights on your cars, then it will never end. the department in discusion here HAS lied and HAS covered things up, and I have seen with MY own eyes that they are a bunch of idiots (at least the ones who entered that house.)
its pretty sad that when we see a cop in uniform we cant automatically trust them, but you know what? as long as my cop buddies and relatives keep telling me about inner department coverups for drunk driving and drug use ect, then Im not blindly trusting any cop I dont know PERIOD!!!
so you can get as butt hurt as you want young guy, but you need some more real world travels outside of Podunk town before you start casting stones at me.

and by the way, I dont REALLY think they planted the gun, but I do think they lied and said he pointed it at them. I think he had it at the ready but not pointed. and the way this department has been from the get go, I wont believe anything they say unless I see video proof! can you really blame me?

It doesn't take much "real world experience outside of Podunk town" to understand that there's no more proof that they planted a gun on this guy than that they didn't plant one. Is saying I'm younger than you all you have to counter what I've said? By the way, all I've said in this thread is that there is no end to this debate. I don't see any evidence that they planted a gun on this guy and some folks don't see any evidence that they didn't plant a gun. So where does that leave us? Also, if you could show me where I blindly stood up for anyone in this case, post it here please. Go ahead and post anywhere that I've "cast stones at you" as well. You can have whatever opinion you want of me, but at least read and understand what I say before you denigrate me. That's fair, right?

 

[j706]

The usual select few of the INGO tin foil hat group working overtime on this. Sheeezzzz!! These select few are quite amusing to me with all their silliness.

 

[Plinker]

Anyone else see any similarities with this and the Boston Massacre? Seriously...

 

[PointFiveO]

assume
A lot of that going on in this thread. I agree with most of your post. The part I don't is the knock. I am going to need more than 15 sec to get off the toilet and answer the door. More than 15 sec to wake up and answer the door.

Well my assumption comes from my valued sense of being able to notice the obvious. I mean, I suppose a SWAT team on camera could have been yelling, "WE'RE GONNA GET YOU BUDDY, WE GOT GUNS AND WE'RE GONNA GETCHA." But I highly doubt it. Besides, they knocked. I was going to bring up the fact that a SWAT team is reliant on surprise, but Mr. FCSD 23-18 has addressed this quite efficiently.

You're right, I did assume. However unlike many of the assumptions brought forth in this thread, my assumption was based on educated reasoning, and was presented as an assumption in order to avoid any misunderstanding of what I said.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I keep saying "us" because you keep saying "you guys." See how that works? Don't try to make it something more than it is and just try to follow along with the conversation, okay?




It doesn't take much "real world experience outside of Podunk town" to understand that there's no more proof that they planted a gun on this guy than that they didn't plant one. Is saying I'm younger than you all you have to counter what I've said? By the way, all I've said in this thread is that there is no end to this debate. I don't see any evidence that they planted a gun on this guy and some folks don't see any evidence that they didn't plant a gun. So where does that leave us? Also, if you could show me where I blindly stood up for anyone in this case, post it here please. Go ahead and post anywhere that I've "cast stones at you" as well. You can have whatever opinion you want of me, but at least read and understand what I say before you denigrate me. That's fair, right?

you guys" as you say, is reffering to U.S> citizens, not serving as public servants. im not denigrating you, im just saying you have a lot to learn. i think you have been indoctrinated because of the environment your in daily. i was once with blinders on too, then i got out into the real world outside of the military and I saw a lot of things I had been led to believe were right, that I then saw were wrong. and my education continues till the day i die.

but i do believe .... no strike that. I KNOW that these academies are teaching new recruites its them against the world. until the bad training and indoctrination stops it will get worse before it gets better. and there are a lot more citizens than cops, so who do you think its gonna get worse for? exactly. fix it internally before the people have to.

 

[E5RANGER375]

The usual select few of the INGO tin foil hat group working overtime on this. Sheeezzzz!! These select few are quite amusing to me with all their silliness.

thats fine. everytime i see you post the hamster dance comes to mind. one day you will retire and the citizens in your jurisdiction will be better off for it im sure. based of coarse on only your post.

 

[PointFiveO]

why do you keep saying "US" ???

you have nothing to do with cops in arizona nor they you. its a job. you all are NOT some big army that must blindly back each other up cross country. untill YOU quit blindly supporting each other because you all have red and blue lights on your cars, then it will never end. the department in discusion here HAS lied and HAS covered things up, and I have seen with MY own eyes that they are a bunch of idiots (at least the ones who entered that house.)
its pretty sad that when we see a cop in uniform we cant automatically trust them, but you know what? as long as my cop buddies and relatives keep telling me about inner department coverups for drunk driving and drug use ect, then Im not blindly trusting any cop I dont know PERIOD!!!
so you can get as butt hurt as you want young guy, but you need some more real world travels outside of Podunk town before you start casting stones at me.

While I am in no means a defender for the good name of police officers (they're just as human as us, just with serious authority complexes), I am going to have to point out a bit of a flaw there. You say there is no reason for police to back each other up? So how about a Marine backing up another Marine because he's a Marine? The fact is that when your job is so violent and likely to create a backlash you HAVE to band together.

Don't get me wrong, I see corruption on my local police force weekly, which is sad because I don't even have face-to-face encounters with officers very often at all (unless it's to use them as a local Information center when I'm travelling ). And I'm not saying police should be so immune to the rules that apply to the rest of us. But for a police officer to have the automatic stance of trusting other police officers, well that's just plain what they have to do.

I think while you like to point out that they are making assumptions without much proof, you are doing the same exact thing. "You agree with them because they are a cop." Well one may retort, "You disagree with them because they are a cop."

 

[E5RANGER375]

Anyone else see any similarities with this and the Boston Massacre? Seriously...

I see lots of police interactions that remind me of that. one day the people will get tired of being shot at and trampled on illegaly, "legally"

 

[E5RANGER375]

While I am in no means a defender for the good name of police officers (they're just as human as us, just with serious authority complexes), I am going to have to point out a bit of a flaw there. You say there is no reason for police to back each other up? So how about a Marine backing up another Marine because he's a Marine? The fact is that when your job is so violent and likely to create a backlash you HAVE to band together.

Don't get me wrong, I see corruption on my local police force weekly, which is sad because I don't even have face-to-face encounters with officers very often at all (unless it's to use them as a local Information center when I'm travelling ). And I'm not saying police should be so immune to the rules that apply to the rest of us. But for a police officer to have the automatic stance of trusting other police officers, well that's just plain what they have to do.

I think while you like to point out that they are making assumptions without much proof, you are doing the same exact thing. "You agree with them because they are a cop." Well one may retort, "You disagree with them because they are a cop."

your very observant for such a low post count and just joining. (purple stands for sarcasm here)
if you read back, you will see that he IS NOT defending him or taking his side because he was a former Marine. former military KNOW there are bad apples in every branch. I do not give someone I dont know the full benefit of my trust just because they served. trust is EARNED by everyone. so before you see me supporting openly even a fellow Ranger, I will get the story first, and if its bad then, you wont see me sticking up for them.
the "proof" that I have to warrant me wanting to see these officers prosecuted are the video I saw, and what they themselves and other witnesses have admitted too. I have publicly supported good police action in the past. if you will look up a recent case in indy where a inner city youth accused the police of intentionaly beating him because of his race ect, I smelt BS from the beginning and did not jump on the fry the cop band wagon. and the officers were found not guilty.

I do not HATE the police. but I DO NOT immediately or blindly trust a cop in uniform from the get go unless I know them. They have their department and fellow officers to thank for that. when they have their uniform on they are no longer individuals. any action they do, either good or bad reflects on the whole department and the city. we THE PEOPLE do not give authority to individuals, we give it to organizations to act on our behalf. it is not the polices job to punish, to lecture, to seek revenge, or retaliation. it is only their job to enforce the law as it is written. then it gets passed to the next phase. i fully support rule of law that stays in the boundaries of the constitution and support good officers who honor their oath. but police organizations as a whole are crossing the line too much and we cannot stand for it. they MUST be held accountable and remember to whom they are accountable to. and that is the people through the constitution.

 

[JetGirl]

That the police planted the gun?

Of course not. I'm not talking about conjecture at all... I'm referring to the fact that they changed their story initially claiming Mr. Guerena shot first, to acknowledging (only after evidence proved otherwise) that he actually did not fire at all. There was also a statement about discovering a stolen police uniform, which turned out to be a BP baseball cap, and even though the home was searched on warrant for "known drugs" and evidence of home invasions, they actually found neither. Then they found it necessary to speedily seal the warrant, but to disclose items they found when searching. Who needs speculation about planting weapons when the factual events and evidence are so much more damning?

 

[PointFiveO]

You obviously are very observant for someone with such a high post count. I never claimed he was a Marine. I was making what we in the educated world call a comparison. So nice try with the insult, but you are in fact the one that needs to read back.

Now I have not read the information surrounding this incident, however the video in question does not give you any supporting evidence for a damn thing you say. All the video shows is that they are sloppy as hell and overzealous with how many shots fired. Now if your evidence is coming just from other information stop citing the video, because it doesn't back anything up. The fact is the person you are arguing with watched the video, and in that video it doesn't show the police breaking the law except perhaps by shooting the fellow a hundred damn times (and even that can be explained in some circumstances). You can say whatever you want, but the fact is you have an extreme disposition to dislike police officers if this is all the evidence you need to say they broke the law. (Mind you this paragraph is based on the video and the video alone) This points out that you are at the opposite extreme of Jsharmon, which makes you a hypocrite.

I'm not sure why my friendly post was met with sarcasm and passive aggressive childish crap, especially since I made a point to let you know that I agree with much of what you said. But you can just direct it at someone else now, because I don't give a damn about your opinion because quite frankly everything you've said in this thread does nothing but devalue said opinion.

 

[J_Wales]

Wow....

Next thing you know somebody will be using the shooting of a congresswoman to distract attention from the assasination of a federal judge in Tuscon.

 

[E5RANGER375]

You obviously are very observant for someone with such a high post count. I never claimed he was a Marine. I was making what we in the educated world call a comparison. So nice try with the insult, but you are in fact the one that needs to read back.

Now I have not read the information surrounding this incident, however the video in question does not give you any supporting evidence for a damn thing you say. All the video shows is that they are sloppy as hell and overzealous with how many shots fired. Now if your evidence is coming just from other information stop citing the video, because it doesn't back anything up. The fact is the person you are arguing with watched the video, and in that video it doesn't show the police breaking the law except perhaps by shooting the fellow a hundred damn times (and even that can be explained in some circumstances). You can say whatever you want, but the fact is you have an extreme disposition to dislike police officers if this is all the evidence you need to say they broke the law. (Mind you this paragraph is based on the video and the video alone) This points out that you are at the opposite extreme of Jsharmon, which makes you a hypocrite.

I'm not sure why my friendly post was met with sarcasm and passive aggressive childish crap, especially since I made a point to let you know that I agree with much of what you said. But you can just direct it at someone else now, because I don't give a damn about your opinion because quite frankly everything you've said in this thread does nothing but devalue said opinion.

so you take it up another level by name calling (which is against the rules here.) I dont value posters opinions like yours because frankly i lean to believe they are secondary accounts of members, or accounts of people who have been banned who wanna come back and stir up more crap.

the video shows ... yes the sloppiness, but also the lack of the police to properly identify themselves as police WITH a warrant. that with the other testimony that has been released, draws me to my conclusion.
I bet you dont last here long.

 

[PointFiveO]

Okay, so that video did NOT show any sort of lack of proper identification. You can't hear what they are saying, and they are hardly going to show a search warrant to a guy with a gun. Nice try though.

As for name calling, I did no such thing. Hypocrite? If you take that as name-calling you have a serious problem. Childish? That's an adjective, not a noun, and therefore not name-calling. I was describing the nature of your post. Again, please go back and re-read what I said.

And again, I don't care what you believe or value.

Oh gee, you couldn't take a dose of your own medicine and gave me bad rep? You'll never know how much that hurts me.