Tucson, We Have a Problem

[Keyser Soze]

I was a big fan of the fat asses when I was in high school and excise showed up to a party.

I'm not incriminating myself anymore than that statement, but I've got some good campfire stories about making the fatties look stupid.

Every now and then you come a crossed one in good shape. You could end up being the one looking stupid.

 

[Benny]

I'm an adult now, so I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[Stschil]

Why won't anyone come up with a decent response to this post? I am not the only one that has asked it.

The ones defending the cops on this whole screwed up thing need to answer this. Even with an opinion.

This simple answer to that, I believe, is they didn't know who lived there. At least not definitely. They also didn't have their facts straight when briefing the teams before the raids, if we are to believe the early "official" statements. The resident was believed to be connected to home invasions and the homicide of three people. Turns out Jose was connected, he was related to the victims.

And KS, I dont care how many man hours it takes to so something right the first time, it is the duty of every PO to ensure that it is, in fact DONE RIGHT. That unequivocal fact of this case is things were not done right leading up to the shooting. Had they been, a Marine would be alive to confront his accusers as was his Constitutional Right to begin with. Guilty or innocent, he could have exercised that right.
The uproar and outrage in this case is not just about the apparent unjustified death of a Marine, it is also stemming from a systemic failure of Law Encorcement in general to perform in a manner bringing credit to the positions they hold. Law enforcement is not a capitalist career, it can't be shortcutted. People, no matter how vile or base, are presumed innocent until proven (get this, novel idea, I know) by the State. Burden of proof is on the Government all the way up until the foreman of the twelve stands up and says "Guilty"
You wonder why we dumb normal citizens want to hear the true fact of this case? Well, Sir, had the Pima County PD done their job right in the first place, it would have been up to the public (jury of his peers) to decide.

 

[Keyser Soze]

This simple answer to that, I believe, is they didn't know who lived there. At least not definitely. They also didn't have their facts straight when briefing the teams before the raids, if we are to believe the early "official" statements. The resident was believed to be connected to home invasions and the homicide of three people. Turns out Jose was connected, he was related to the victims.

And KS, I dont care how many man hours it takes to so something right the first time, it is the duty of every PO to ensure that it is, in fact DONE RIGHT. That unequivocal fact of this case is things were not done right leading up to the shooting. Had they been, a Marine would be alive to confront his accusers as was his Constitutional Right to begin with. Guilty or innocent, he could have exercised that right.
The uproar and outrage in this case is not just about the apparent unjustified death of a Marine, it is also stemming from a systemic failure of Law Encorcement in general to perform in a manner bringing credit to the positions they hold. Law enforcement is not a capitalist career, it can't be shortcutted. People, no matter how vile or base, are presumed innocent until proven (get this, novel idea, I know) by the State. Burden of proof is on the Government all the way up until the foreman of the twelve stands up and says "Guilty"
You wonder why we dumb normal citizens want to hear the true fact of this case? Well, Sir, had the Pima County PD done their job right in the first place, it would have been up to the public (jury of his peers) to decide.

I don't care how many hours it takes either? Shortcuts are something done on a assembly line, not law enforcement. Ive personally never been on a high risk arrest/search warrant where I was not completely familiar with the persons, and or all of the circumstances in reference to the case. I chose to work for a smaller department for this reason. Other officers do not have the luxury that I do. The man power simply is not there. Maybe they should refuse to take part in such until they know 100% of the details, case history. I'm not in their particular position so I cannot judge them. Regardless of the outcome of all of this. The officers executing the warrant had a good faith belief the warrant itself was valid and the reason for the warrant was just.

What would you have done if you were one of the officers faced with a man pointing a firearm at you?

 

[Benny]

This simple answer to that, I believe, is they didn't know who lived there. At least not definitely. They also didn't have their facts straight when briefing the teams before the raids, if we are to believe the early "official" statements. The resident was believed to be connected to home invasions and the homicide of three people. Turns out Jose was connected, he was related to the victims.

And KS, I dont care how many man hours it takes to so something right the first time, it is the duty of every PO to ensure that it is, in fact DONE RIGHT. That unequivocal fact of this case is things were not done right leading up to the shooting. Had they been, a Marine would be alive to confront his accusers as was his Constitutional Right to begin with. Guilty or innocent, he could have exercised that right.
The uproar and outrage in this case is not just about the apparent unjustified death of a Marine, it is also stemming from a systemic failure of Law Encorcement in general to perform in a manner bringing credit to the positions they hold. Law enforcement is not a capitalist career, it can't be shortcutted. People, no matter how vile or base, are presumed innocent until proven (get this, novel idea, I know) by the State. Burden of proof is on the Government all the way up until the foreman of the twelve stands up and says "Guilty"
You wonder why we dumb normal citizens want to hear the true fact of this case? Well, Sir, had the Pima County PD done their job right in the first place, it would have been up to the public (jury of his peers) to decide.

Great post.

Reps when I recharge.

 

[Bummer]

So what part of any of my posts would lead you to believe that I am not an oath keeper myself? How does my belief that this shooting was legally justified have anything to do with the beliefs of the oath keepers? I'm really interested in what kind of answer you can come up with.
Keep in mind as far as we know;
A. Warrant was valid
B. Suspect pointed an firearm at officers.

I could go on but those are the only two components needed for this situation to be legally justified.

Id like to take the time to thank Bummer and others for jumping to conclusions. For assuming I am a minion of the government. For assuming I would blinding follow orders. For assuming I would disarm lawfully armed citizens.

"legally justified" "lawfully armed"

I certainly appreciate your willingness to go out of your way to make my point for me.

Based upon your rationalizations, what am I to believe you will do when the people before you have been declared terrorists, they are armed, and they do not cooperate? Will you really hesitate to tell the news team that the shootings were "legally justified"? Your rhetoric here says no. After all, those declared terrorists will hardly be "lawfully armed".

In the end, an oath is only as good as the individual's perception of that oath.

 

[Stschil]

I don't care how many hours it takes either? Shortcuts are something done on a assembly line, not law enforcement. Ive personally never been on a high risk arrest/search warrant where I was not completely familiar with the persons, and or all of the circumstances in reference to the case. I chose to work for a smaller department for this reason. Other officers do not have the luxury that I do. The man power simply is not there. Maybe they should refuse to take part in such until they know 100% of the details, case history. I'm not in their particular position so I cannot judge them. Regardless of the outcome of all of this. The officers executing the warrant had a good faith belief the warrant itself was valid and the reason for the warrant was just.

What would you have done if you were one of the officers faced with a man pointing a firearm at you?

To answer your question simply, I would have fired IF I had been fired upon, or IF I saw that someone elses life was in danger. However, by the actiOns of the officers in the short piece of video that has been released, I do not believe this was the case. After the door was breached, one officer clearly says, in a fairly regular tone "hit him". This can be heard without enhancing the audio in any way. What CAN'T be heard is anything that even resembles the loud "police" announcement in English and Spanish that is described be the PD's
Atty. What can't be heard or seen is the result of the flash bang grenade that, by statements given by the PD not the media, was used (one of the excuses for officers believing they saw a muzzle flash) Other things that can't be seen or heard that have been stated by the PD and/or the Atty: 45 seconds of knocking, Loud pronouncements of their identity. A long dark hallway (looking a the panoramic pictures of the residence, it's not a very big house to begin with). Now, this is an assumption on my part, but knowing the basic floor plans of the major builders in the country, this appears to be a tract home, built similar to thousands and thousands of other homes, I would hazard that this place is less than 30 or 40 feet deep. Not exactly long by any stretch of the imagnination. The fact that stray handgun rounds went through the walls with enough energy to damage and even penetrate the neighboring house, tells me without a doubt that there was not the great expanse of distance as was described.

The greater question, I believe, is would I have questioned the reasons why the raid was taking place to begin with? Absolutely, yes I would and have done so in the past. I have held investigations up, I have sent officers looking for further information and justifications. I have argued with Supervisors and Prosecutors against taking premature action in cases that I believed has not been fully investigated. I maintain that this the duty of each and every officer that wears the shield. It is part of what they have sworn to do.

My point is, and always has been, this was a sloppy operation, the officers who took part in it were not ready for the actions they took, the information that has been given to the public has not, in my opinion, coincided with actions that are displayed by the officers on site, the information gathered (according to police statements) prior to the service of the warrant does NOT amount to justification for them being there to begin with. To me this is a LT Calley/My Li situation and the "I was following orders" excuse does not fly.

William Calley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr Soze, I will admit to you that your blind, robotic support of the end result without questioning the events that led up to that result infuriates me. It makes me wonder. It scares me to think that attitudes such at the one you have displayed on the forum in post after post might actually be representative of the general mentality of the men and women who comprise the law enforcement ranks of todays world. If it does We, as a Nation, should be truely sad.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I agree. I do think it will be released when the investigation is complete. As it should be.

Iguana You've taken the life of a citizen. You've said that "had he let the officers in, he would likely not have been charged with something." The LEAST his family and the rest of the citizens of this country are owed is to see the warrant. NOW.

Let's say that the warrant shows that he WAS part of some larger organization/ criminal conspiracy. FINE - then most of us would say that this was a raid that was poorly executed and ended badly. AT LEAST IN THAT CASE WE WOULD KNOW THAT THE WARRANT WOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON SOLID FOOTING.

As it is now - we know nothing. And the Sheriff (his FOP Lawyer) have produced NOTHING in the way of evidence to show us that they are not guilty of murder. That warrant could be written on toilet paper for all we know. Or it might not exist. When you take a life - you need to damn well DELIVER a reason. This is true of a citizen, right? It's equally true of Law Enforcement. Tragic mistakes can (and do) happen. When they do, steps need to be taken to ensure that they don't happen again. And those who make the mistake need to own up to them. PERIOD. Badge or No Badge - no difference.

So this raid was one of the following:
a) a proper raid against a person (that turned out to be not guilty of anything) that turned bad when he pointed a gun
b) a proper raid against a person that DID turn out to be a criminal - still turned bad when he pointed a gun
c) a sloppy warrant that was incorrect and overreaching - and an innocent man died trying to defend himself
d) an outright vendetta or something where a gang of thugs executed someone that they had some beef against.

I , for one, would like for all LEO shoots to a case of b). I would like for them all to be justified use of force. I think that this is the case 90++% of the time and I'm the first to salute and say that the dumb crook got his just desserts.
BUT...
Since a person was attacked, it IS the burden on the LEO's to produce and deliver the reason that they were there. So far all that the LEO's have produced is lawyerball, intellectual masturbation, and iguana droppings.

Step back for a minute, KS. Take the badges off of the parties involved and divorce yourself from this whole crazy discussion that we've had here. Let's say that a gunfight had happened at some guy's house, and a group of guys had gunned down the owner. They said that they had the right to be where they were - even though it was his property. And he's dead, so he can't tell his side of the story. Wouldn't you ask for proof of their right to be there? And if they said that they HAD proof, but you couldn't see it??? Wouldn't that make you suspect them a little?

So in the lack of the evidence to support a) or b) above, the most likely evidence to date points to C) with a side order of cover up.

Ours is a system of checks and balances. In the end - even law enforcement (rather, ESPECIALLY law enforcement) has to answer to the People that they serve. This case still could be any of the four options I laid out above. The burden of proof, though, is on those who broke into a man's house and took his life.

To forcibly enter someones home when you know darn well they are there is a drastic measure. Drastic measures are so named for a reason. They should not be undertaken in the absence of urgent need. Thus far, no proof of that need has been furnished.

Let the chips fall where they may.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's a piece on the Oath Keepers protest in Tucson. The article also brings up a point that keeps getting missed by at least one person. Mr. Guerna DID NOT point his firearm at the home invaders. He was just carrying it, probably at the ready, but not pointed at the people who broke into his home and murdered him.

Group protests SWAT death of Tucson Marine | azfamily.com Phoenix

 

[88GT]

I'm not certain I would go that far. Just because they did not find anything does not make the warrant bogus.

I sure want to see that warrant though. The fact that I cannot is deeply disturbing.

Kirk, the following statements in these quotes are from the SWAT members' lawyer.

Storie has revived the detail that Guerena shouted “I’ve got something for you, I’ve got something for you guys” before he was shot (which Guerena's widow denies). He says that Guerena’s name was not in any of the search documents,

from Sheriffs: Slain Jose Guerena Linked to "Home-Invasion Crew" - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Storie insisted that if the Guerena family had permitted the armed intruders into their home, those inside “probably … wouldn’t have been arrested." This is because the "warrant was not directed at any particular person, and Guerena’s home was not mentioned, but it was targeting whoever might be inside the residence...."

from Pro Libertate: Death Squad Damage Control in Tucson (UPDATED with video, May 26)

And finally:
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.

Guerena's home was targeted because, they say, it was identified as the home from which the home invasions were originating. (See article in first link.) How do you associate a home with a crime, but not the people in it? And if the home is associated with the crimes, but not necessarily the occupants at the time of the raid, why in the name of all that's holy is that home's address not listed specifically and particularly on the warrant? How can they "target whoever might be inside the residence" without listing them specifically and particularly on the warrant?

I will stand by my statement that the warrant was bogus unless and until it is produced, unaltered, with sufficient evidence to show its creation PRIOR to the raid. If it satisfactorily answers those questions, I will concede that this was just another example of shoddy police work executed (pardon the pun) without regard for any decency or respect for the rule of law or a man's life.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How do you associate a home with a crime, but not the people in it?

Ask the cops here, many persons who law enforcement may take an interest in "stay" at houses in which they do not live.

I'm not saying everything is kosher because the government says it is; I'm just speaking hypothetically. The warrrant and affidavit for the warrant are the keys to this case.

 

[flightsimmer]

This whole incident is just so wrong on the side of the police.
I read a lot of but not all of the replys posted so maybe this was brought up and I didn't see it, but, someone pointed out that the police had their sirens on, that is incorrect, it was the victims car alarm that went off when the police passed or touched his vehicle. That could have caused the victim to go for his weapon in the first place.
But whatever happened, this kind of crap has got to stop right now before we end up in a civil war against the police.
If any attempt to cover this up is found, it should be met with sever penalties and our justice system in the name of "Homeland Security" should be reined in.
There is just so much going wrong with our country that I fear for it's future.

10mm, when you care enough to send the very best.

 

[lashicoN]

Here's a piece on the Oath Keepers protest in Tucson. The article also brings up a point that keeps getting missed by at least one person. Mr. Guerna DID NOT point his firearm at the home invaders. He was just carrying it, probably at the ready, but not pointed at the people who broke into his home and murdered him.

Group protests SWAT death of Tucson Marine | azfamily.com Phoenix

This has been my thought for a while now. The first shooter got jumpy when he saw the rifle and fired, then his buddies jumped in too. They didn't look prepared and I think his rifle caught them off guard so they just started firing. But, since they have buried the helmet cam video evidence, there really isn't a way to know for sure if he had it pointed at them or not. But, based on the fact that the shooters are the ones withholding evidence, I'm reassured that he wasn't pointing it at them.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

This has been my thought for a while now. The first shooter got jumpy when he saw the rifle and fired, then his buddies jumped in too. They didn't look prepared and I think his rifle caught them off guard so they just started firing. But, since they have buried the helmet cam video evidence, there really isn't a way to know for sure if he had it pointed at them or not. But, based on the fact that the shooters are the ones withholding evidence, I'm reassured that he wasn't pointing it at them.

I don't think that conjecture is helpful. That's the biggest problem I have with KS in this whole thread. I believe the public is entitled to see and judge the facts for themselves. That means the warrant, the PC affidavit, any videos taken, etc. It should all be relased in the raw to inform the public. I don't want information filtered by anyone to shed favorable light on any actor in this drama. That's called propaganda.

I hold out the possibility that the shooting was justified based upon the facts on the ground. Whether the police properly prepared and contributed to the shooting is questionable. Justifying his death is far less certain. Only release of all information will let us get the full story.

 

[88GT]

Ask the cops here, many persons who law enforcement may take an interest in "stay" at houses in which they do not live.

I'm not saying everything is kosher because the government says it is; I'm just speaking hypothetically. The warrrant and affidavit for the warrant are the keys to this case.

I'm not suggesting that there are no circumstances in which non-owners/non-residents can't be associated with the home. I understand that suspects often use the home of another for their nightly lodgings or to store their stuff or simply to receive mail.

What I'm suggesting is that if the home is not implicated through the legal owner/resident, then someone needs to make a connection between the alleged crimes and why the home was targeted. WHO, exactly, bridges that gap?

I'd be willing to pass that off as **** poor police work except that in this case, it comes complete with a Constitutional violation regarding the warrant. The home's address was NOT identified in the warrant. It doesn't get any more unlawful than that. Does it? Short of outright criminal intent?

You're right: this all hinges on the warrant and the affidavit(s)--assuming they exist. But I've been told on good authority that we should take the LE and their representatives at their word. So that's what I'm doing.

 

[Mr. Habib]

Valid warrant or not: I'm leaning heavily toward or not: there is no legal, moral, or ethical justification for allowing him to lie there and bleed to death over a one hour period. That alone is grounds for filing criminal charges against every cop that was there.

 

[Bummer]

... The officers executing the warrant had a good faith belief the warrant itself was valid and the reason for the warrant was just.

Human nature at work. People can rationalize anything. History is full of examples. In fact, this thread has no shortage of examples.

What would you have done if you were one of the officers faced with a man pointing a firearm at you?

He was faced with a group of men, all with firearms pointed at him.

 

[Wwwildthing]

Valid warrant or not: I'm leaning heavily toward or not: there is no legal, moral, or ethical justification for allowing him to lie there and bleed to death over a one hour period. That alone is grounds for filing criminal charges against every cop that was there.

+1

 

[bobzilla]

Let me guess this has been swept under the rug and the 30-second attention span of the american public has moved on to Snookie's driving without a liscense?

 

[orange]

Let me guess this has been swept under the rug and the 30-second attention span of the american public has moved on to Snookie's driving without a liscense?

In other words, as far as Dupnik is concerned, everything's proceeding according to plan.