The Murder of Jose Guerena

[NYFelon]

I would say a zero tolerance policy towards violation of citizens rights by anyone - criminal or government - is very popular on INGO.

 

[Benny]

I would say a zero tolerance policy towards violation of citizens rights by anyone - criminal or government - is very popular on INGO.

LMAO, ya think?

I can't believe that even had to be said.

 

[dross]

So, like, a zero tolerance policy? I didn't think those were popular on INGO.

Semantic games.

Zero tolerance policies aren't inherently bad. Context is everything. For instance, our country has a zero tolerance policy concerning murder, rape, child molestation, and several other offenses. We just don't call it that.

I just want the cops as invested in the safety of the innocent as much as they are in their own safety.

Like many cops explained about the guy with the golf club (who wasn't wanted in the warrant) when he got killed, "Hey, just a tragedy, the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the cops were just doing their job."

Fine, then. If the effect of a mistake is "zero tolerance" to a citizen who defends himself not realizing these are cops and the sentence is death, I say it's reasonable for screwups with stakes this high to receive a sentence of termination.

But you go ahead and do everything you can except acknowledge this is a horrible screwup that should have severe consequences. I know you're down with your homeys.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The disturbing thing to me is that we have a SWAT team invading an American's home in a similar style to how Navy SEAL Team 6 invaded Osama Bin Laden's home. Unfortunately (in this case) with the same result.

Except the guys that ghosted Bin Laden did so with a double tap. The other guys waited for overtime to kick in.

Don't get me wrong here. I lost a brother. That saddens me. However, I understand mistakes are made. I understand tragic events unfold around us all the time. I understand the people make decisions that end with very bad results. I understand that it is easy to review in hindsight the chain of events that led to tragic results, and see critical points where the outcome would have been different had a single decision changed. And I understand the police will win almost every confrontation, regardless of the opponent, their motives, and their innocence or guilt.

What I fail to understand is how after a confrontation is over the matra shifts from protect and serve to wait for death. I watched the same thing happen with the North Hollywood bank robbers. The police stood feet away from the shooter until after he was dead, and only then were medics allowed to approach to recover the body. I don't understand the motivation that permits someone to wait to render assistance until that assistance is no longer necessary. I just don't get it.

 

[dross]

I don't understand the motivation that permits someone to wait to render assistance until that assistance is no longer necessary. I just don't get it.

Oh, I think you understand the motivation just fine.

It goes like this:

This guy is a scumbag. He deserves to die. If I pull my sidearm and put one in his brain, I'll go to jail. But if I use some of the awesome discretion I'm afforded as a police officer, I can claim "safety" and achieve the same goal by letting him die. No one will be able to prove my intent if I can find anything I can use to justify my use of discretion in this way.

It's disgusting and cowardly and they should go to jail.

 

[jsharmon7]

Semantic games.

Zero tolerance policies aren't inherently bad. Context is everything. For instance, our country has a zero tolerance policy concerning murder, rape, child molestation, and several other offenses. We just don't call it that.

I just want the cops as invested in the safety of the innocent as much as they are in their own safety.

Like many cops explained about the guy with the golf club (who wasn't wanted in the warrant) when he got killed, "Hey, just a tragedy, the guy was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the cops were just doing their job."

Fine, then. If the effect of a mistake is "zero tolerance" to a citizen who defends himself not realizing these are cops and the sentence is death, I say it's reasonable for screwups with stakes this high to receive a sentence of termination.

But you go ahead and do everything you can except acknowledge this is a horrible screwup that should have severe consequences. I know you're down with your homeys.

Sure, fire the team leaders or planners. I don't understand why you'd fire every single person involved though. That's the essence of why zero tolerance policies are absurd. They take nothing else into account outside of the set framework. Why should the guy driving the team to the location be responsible for bad planning by his superiors?

As far as being "down with my homeys" and not acknowledging this as a screw up, my only post prior to that one was:

Wow...

Hopefully more information will come out about this case. I cannot fathom letting this man bleed to death with medics right out front. Very few people are that callous.

I don't expect you to worry about facts though, dross. Whatever makes an argument.

 

[dross]

Sure, fire the team leaders or planners. I don't understand why you'd fire every single person involved though. That's the essence of why zero tolerance policies are absurd. They take nothing else into account outside of the set framework. Why should the guy driving the team to the location be responsible for bad planning by his superiors?

Here's why I would fire everybody - just as anyone on a range can call a safety, everyone on the team should be empowered and responsible to protect the citizen. An innocent citizen's safety is MORE important than the officers' safety.

As far as being "down with my homeys" and not acknowledging this as a screw up, my only post prior to that one was

I don't expect you to worry about facts though, dross. Whatever makes an argument.

That's me, I don't care about the facts. You can tell by reading any of my posts.

Reading YOUR posts indicates to me that you are a circle the blue wagons guy. I missed your referenced post on this particular thread, however, and for that, I apologize.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Just thought I'd say this again.

Can we apply that logic to the military as well? Make a dynamic entry and kill an innocent family of 4, and youre out of the service... makes no difference who planned it....

 

[dross]

Can we apply that logic to the military as well? Make a dynamic entry and kill an innocent family of 4, and youre out of the service... makes no difference who planned it....

Nope. Two entirely different things, even if the outcome is the same.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nope. Two entirely different things, even if the outcome is the same.

How so, murder s murder isnt it?

 

[jsharmon7]

Here's why I would fire everybody - just as anyone on a range can call a safety, everyone on the team should be empowered and responsible to protect the citizen. An innocent citizen's safety is MORE important than the officers' safety.



That's me, I don't care about the facts. You can tell by reading any of my posts.

Reading YOUR posts indicates to me that you are a circle the blue wagons guy. I missed your referenced post on this particular thread, however, and for that, I apologize.

As far as circling the blue wagons, why would I care about a cop across the country? If somebody screwed up, fire them/jail them/sue them. I'm guessing you're referring to the posts I make that don't automatically assume the worse about someone because of their profession. I don't recall doing that in any of my posts about any profession or group. So if that's what you mean, then I guess that fits.

And I still completely disagree with firing everyone. If a doctor's negligent behavior causes a patient to die should the nurses, LPNs, surgery techs, etc. all be fired as well? Don't all medical personnel take the Hippocratic oath? Shouldn't they all be concerned with the patient's safety? Here's the difference between us. I'm saying fire the doctor, the one who made the bad decision. You're saying fire the whole team because they were connected. That doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

Edit: I should apologize for my comment about your "facts." I guess I was assuming because you completely missed them in regards to my post that you must do it elsewhere. I don't have proof of that, and I apologize.

 

[hornadylnl]

As far as circling the blue wagons, why would I care about a cop across the country? If somebody screwed up, fire them/jail them/sue them. I'm guessing you're referring to the posts I make that don't automatically assume the worse about someone because of their profession. I don't recall doing that in any of my posts about any profession or group. So if that's what you mean, then I guess that fits.

And I still completely disagree with firing everyone. If a doctor's negligent behavior causes a patient to die should the nurses, LPNs, surgery techs, etc. all be fired as well? Don't all medical personnel take the Hippocratic oath? Shouldn't they all be concerned with the patient's safety? Here's the difference between us. I'm saying fire the doctor, the one who made the bad decision. You're saying fire the whole team because they were connected. That doesn't make a bit of sense to me.

If those nurses, LPNs, surgery techs, etc. witnessed the doctor screw up and said nothing, did nothing, didn't report it or circled the doctor's wagon, don't you think they should be fired?

 

[jsharmon7]

If those nurses, LPNs, surgery techs, etc. witnessed the doctor screw up and said nothing, did nothing, didn't report it or circled the doctor's wagon, don't you think they should be fired?

Yes, as should the officers in this situation if the information we have here is correct. Dross is saying that in ANY failed raid. As I said, zero tolerance is absurd. That's what we are discussing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If those nurses, LPNs, surgery techs, etc. witnessed the doctor screw up and said nothing, did nothing, didn't report it or circled the doctor's wagon, don't you think they should be fired?

Yes, they all should be fired...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Yes, they all [STRIKE]should be fired[/STRIKE] go to jail...

FTFY

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes, as should the officers in this situation if the information we have here is correct. Dross is saying that in ANY failed raid. As I said, zero tolerance is absurd. That's what we are discussing.

Doesn't sound like a single officer involved in this raid is coming forward. Another wall of silence. So if on the off chance that there is an actual investigation of this raid and in the off chance that they give it more than a token once over and it is deemed they were in the wrong, how much are you willing to wager on a single charge being filed or LEO being fired?

 

[NYFelon]

Unless public outcry makes it necessary, there will be minimal penalty. Possibly Some administrative punishment, and the department may be forced to make some civil remuneration.

 

[jsharmon7]

Doesn't sound like a single officer involved in this raid is coming forward. Another wall of silence. So if on the off chance that there is an actual investigation of this raid and in the off chance that they give it more than a token once over and it is deemed they were in the wrong, how much are you willing to wager on a single charge being filed or LEO being fired?

Well, that's not at all what I was discussing but I'll answer. It depends. It's not like police officers are never arrested and convicted for wrongdoing. It's also not like police officers have never gotten off the hook for doing something wrong that a non-LEO would have been sent to jail for. It depends on the circumstances of the situation and the jury's reaction to the information. As I said before, I can't fathom a reason why they'd wait so long to let EMS in. COULD there be one that hasn't come out? I have no idea. Based on this limited information I would hope these officers are held accountable. If more information comes out and their local jury finds justification for how this went down I certainly won't automatically scream "COVER UP!" like I think several other members of this site will. Ask any officer how many suspects have beat their case even when they felt like it was impossible for them to get off. It happens. The difference is that when a police officer is involved in that situation everyone is quick to claim injustice and corruption. The bottom line for me is that it doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what the jury thinks. If they say these officers were wrong and they hold them liable then that's the way it goes.

 

[hornadylnl]

Well, that's not at all what I was discussing but I'll answer. It depends. It's not like police officers are never arrested and convicted for wrongdoing. It's also not like police officers have never gotten off the hook for doing something wrong that a non-LEO would have been sent to jail for. It depends on the circumstances of the situation and the jury's reaction to the information. As I said before, I can't fathom a reason why they'd wait so long to let EMS in. COULD there be one that hasn't come out? I have no idea. Based on this limited information I would hope these officers are held accountable. If more information comes out and their local jury finds justification for how this went down I certainly won't automatically scream "COVER UP!" like I think several other members of this site will. Ask any officer how many suspects have beat their case even when they felt like it was impossible for them to get off. It happens. The difference is that when a police officer is involved in that situation everyone is quick to claim injustice and corruption. The bottom line for me is that it doesn't matter what you or I think, it matters what the jury thinks. If they say these officers were wrong and they hold them liable then that's the way it goes.

In the case of the officer arresting the 17 year old kid, the officer immediately detained the kid for no cause and put cuffs on him. He was forced to sit in the police station for an hour or so. There was no trial at the scene to determine the kids innocence but he was detained against his will. We have video evidence of a clear abuse of power and there is a supposed investigation into the matter. Was that LEO frog marched into the police station in cuffs the moment the video was viewed or is he treated like a free man for the days, weeks or months it takes to conclude the investigation?

 

[jsharmon7]

In the case of the officer arresting the 17 year old kid, the officer immediately detained the kid for no cause and put cuffs on him. He was forced to sit in the police station for an hour or so. There was no trial at the scene to determine the kids innocence but he was detained against his will. We have video evidence of a clear abuse of power and there is a supposed investigation into the matter. Was that LEO frog marched into the police station in cuffs the moment the video was viewed or is he treated like a free man for the days, weeks or months it takes to conclude the investigation?

I think this is why a lot of INGO officers don't step forward and add their opinions. It seems like, regardless of what I say, people will keep attacking. No matter what I say, people will take it as a cover up or an avoidance of the issue. If that extremely short video clip that the teenager created is all I'm going off of, then yes it looks like something should happen to the officer for that. Can you tell me what happened before that though? How about after? Were there other witnesses? Have you talked to any of the parties involved? Unlike some people here, I'm not going to call for the officer's arrest/termination/civil liability based on that video until an investigation has been made. I can't watch a short video on the internet and read a news article and determine guilt or innocence. I can say it looks bad, but that's about it. We don't allow officers to make arrests based on short video clips found on the internet without further investigation; everyone agrees that's a good idea. I'm sorry that I try not to get into that habit in my free time either.

Edit: To answer your last remark: lots of people aren't immediately arrested. Lots of people do things and until a case is made against them, they walk the streets. Some people do get arrested on scene, a lot don't.