Tucson, We Have a Problem

[Benny]

And we can also discuss the logic of stating it's a righteous kill automatically if most of your shot connect

Uh yeah, I'm having trouble with that one as well.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

gestapo? Relocate, form new opinion. There is NO way they hit him 60 times without sight alignment. I have no more information on this than anyone else. Unless this was the best swat team in the nation there is no way this shoot could not have been justified. I guarantee they fired when he aimed. Or refused to drop the weapon.

Gespato was a little harsh. Webster defines that word as a secret police organization that uses underhanded and terrorist methods suspected of disloyalty.

They weren't secret police, but what they were doing was sealed and made secret after the fact because they knew it didn't look so good. Some people view the method that they served their warrant (and the fact that they fired 71 shots in 7 seconds) at a man who was previously never convicted of anything more than a traffic offense as underhanded. They also went back and forth on their story.

They recovered things from this man's house that would be typically found in many veterans' homes. Guns. Gear you bought to use while you served in Iraq. Oh, and a picture of the boogyman apparently (which can be bought many many places).

What would these things prove in court, unless they can show I guess that the guns were used in a crime via ballistic matches. I guess we will have to wait and see.

As for them dumping 60 out of 71 rounds into the guy, it was in a hallway. I can hit a large target even hip firing at less than 20 feet and I don't have sniper frog installed.

 

[mrjarrell]

And we can also discuss the logic of stating it's a righteous kill automatically if most of your shot connect

But, he wasn't "killed". Don't you see? He was "neutralized". Not left to bleed out. "Neutralized". There's a world of difference.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And we can also discuss the logic of stating it's a righteous kill automatically if most of your shot connect

Or the lack thereof.

 

[hooky]

This story has some more bits of data. Attorney: SWAT raid found guns, body armor

Apparently, someone (only cops are supposed to be able to do this) ran the plate of the unmarked cop car and that's what has given rise to the counter-surveillance claim.

 

[dross]

It doesn't take me very long at all to align the little red dot on my Eotech XPS. In fact, "align" doesn't really describe the process at all, or that is to say, it overdescribes it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

This story has some more bits of data. Attorney: SWAT raid found guns, body armor

Apparently, someone (only cops are supposed to be able to do this) ran the plate of the unmarked cop car and that's what has given rise to the counter-surveillance claim.

Thanks for posting that article. It confirms everything I mentioned. As usual. Thus far it looks like the shooting was justified. Also looks like they are not releasing any details because the investigation is on going not because there is a cover up.


So from what I read swat officers found everything they were looking for; guns, body armor, police uniform

Notice how they did not mention drugs yet people are still think this is a drug issue. Looks like this dead guy was part of a home invasion "crew" that used police to force entry and take peoples S#$% . This story is a perfect example of why I have a hard time reading some of what you guys post. Absolutely no thought into it. I'll admit I tend to side toward the side of law enforcement my mind is still somewhat open.

 

[Keyser Soze]

And we can also discuss the logic of stating it's a righteous kill automatically if most of your shot connect

Absolutely. I only stated it was probable. Typically when I kill is unjustified accuracy is poor. When a kill is justified accuracy is greater.

 

[hornadylnl]

Absolutely. I only stated it was probable. Typically when I kill is unjustified accuracy is poor. When a kill is justified accuracy is greater.

"Typically", huh? Sounds like settled science to me then.

 

[dross]

Does the accuracy thing work in reverse?

 

[hooky]

Thanks for posting that article. It confirms everything I mentioned. As usual. Thus far it looks like the shooting was justified. Also looks like they are not releasing any details because the investigation is on going not because there is a cover up.


So from what I read swat officers found everything they were looking for; guns, body armor, police uniform

Notice how they did not mention drugs yet people are still think this is a drug issue. Looks like this dead guy was part of a home invasion "crew" that used police to force entry and take peoples S#$% . This story is a perfect example of why I have a hard time reading some of what you guys post. Absolutely no thought into it. I'll admit I tend to side toward the side of law enforcement my mind is still somewhat open.

I don't follow you here at all.

They could knock my door down right now and find hand guns, rifles, ammo and clothing that could be construed as "a portion of law enforcement clothing". I'm not part of a home invasion crew.

They used drugs as part of the reason they knocked the door down, but the only "damning evidence of drugs" is a picture.

They said they had sirens and lights going, but the attorney for the SWAT officers said they shut them off prior to knocking on the door.

Storie said that once the SWAT team parked outside the home, the lights and sirens were turned off. An officer banged on the door for about 45 seconds while identifying the team as police, he said.

I already mentioned that the article states their counter surveillance charge stems from someone running the plate.

According to Storie, several days before the shooting undercover officers in an unmarked car drove by Guerena's home to do surveillance, and 10 minutes after they drove by, they were alerted that their license plate had been run through the Motor Vehicle Division by someone they say followed the unmarked vehicle from Guerena's home. That was considered countersurveillance on law enforcement, Storie said.
Under the Federal Privacy Act, the MVD in Arizona cannot release information on a license plate to anyone other than to law enforcement.

Dirty Cop?

After 45 seconds of door knocking with no lights or sirens going, the busted down the door and shot a guy who was monologuing with his safety on, no less? Then the attorney admits the following

If SWAT members had been let into the home, those inside "probably ... wouldn't have been arrested," Storie said

I will respectfully say that you and I have 2 entirely different levels of reading comprehension, because we're not getting the same thing out of that article.

 

[88GT]

Thanks for posting that article. It confirms everything I mentioned. As usual.

When did you mention that he liked guns and she played dress-up for the bedroom?

So from what I read swat officers found everything they were looking for; guns, body armor, police uniform

Let's assume for the moment that Guerena really is guilty. Aside from that, on what do you claim that shooting at a man 71 times and then letting him bleed out while LE claims ***** status is justified?

Notice how they did not mention drugs yet people are still think this is a drug issue. Looks like this dead guy was part of a home invasion "crew" that used police to force entry and take peoples S#$% . This story is a perfect example of why I have a hard time reading some of what you guys post. Absolutely no thought into it. I'll admit I tend to side toward the side of law enforcement my mind is still somewhat open.

Drugs were mentioned previously in connection with this case. But aside from that, these kinds of entries and consequences almost always occur for drug-related LE actions. It's not hard to realize that people are making a point regarding the relative incidence of these actions and the War on Drugs.

Somewhat? Like maybe a sheet of paper could slide through?

 

[Keyser Soze]

I don't follow you here at all.

They could knock my door down right now and find hand guns, rifles, ammo and clothing that could be construed as "a portion of law enforcement clothing". I'm not part of a home invasion crew.

They used drugs as part of the reason they knocked the door down, but the only "damning evidence of drugs" is a picture.

They said they had sirens and lights going, but the attorney for the SWAT officers said they shut them off prior to knocking on the door.

I already mentioned that the article states their counter surveillance charge stems from someone running the plate. Dirty Cop?

After 45 seconds of door knocking with no lights or sirens going, the busted down the door and shot a guy who was monologuing with his safety on, no less? Then the attorney admits the following

I will respectfully say that you and I have 2 entirely different levels of reading comprehension, because we're not getting the same thing out of that article.

You seem to be forgetting they had a warrant. This was not some house chosen at random. So let me break this down. You have information the suspect has guns, body armor. You enter the home with a warrant. Your going to wait for someone holding a gun from safety to fire?

 

[Keyser Soze]

When did you mention that he liked guns and she played dress-up for the bedroom?





Let's assume for the moment that Guerena really is guilty. Aside from that, on what do you claim that shooting at a man 71 times and then letting him bleed out while LE claims ***** status is justified?

Let him bleed out? You think he died a slow painful death after being shot 60 times? I guess the could have called the entire cast of greys anatomy, house, dr. Quinn. One thing is for certain. A few things are for certain. They had a valid warrant. The seized the items described in the warrant. Police knock....no answer....locate guy inside with AR-15....Maybe he pointed it, maybe he didn't.

 

[hooky]

You seem to be forgetting they had a warrant. This was not some house chosen at random. So let me break this down. You have information the suspect has guns, body armor. You enter the home with a warrant. Your going to wait for someone holding a gun from safety to fire?

Please. A warrant isn't a predetermined guilty verdict. As a matter of fact, the attorney for the SWAT officers stated no arrests have been made stemming from any of the warrants that were served.

This whole things smells. The truth will come out, but so far the police have had a couple of versions of the truth.

SWAT team fired 71 shots in raid

"Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn't want to look like that," said Lt. Michael O'Connor of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. "We went lights and sirens and we absolutely did not do a 'no-knock' warrant."

That sums it up right there. Home invasions happen a lot. They later admitted to shutting off the lights and sirens when they stopped and knocking for 45 seconds. Please explain to me how, during a dynamic entry of sorts, you see a guy with a rifle and amid all the action here him say from across the way (while you're still outside of the home) ""I've got something for you; I've got something for you guys". That is the quote according the SWAT officer's attorney.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The K9 tells you what he said.

Officer Chompy has superior hearing and is a cool talker under stress.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Please. A warrant isn't a predetermined guilty verdict. As a matter of fact, the attorney for the SWAT officers stated no arrests have been made stemming from any of the warrants that were served.

This whole things smells. The truth will come out, but so far the police have had a couple of versions of the truth.

SWAT team fired 71 shots in raid



That sums it up right there. Home invasions happen a lot. They later admitted to shutting off the lights and sirens when they stopped and knocking for 45 seconds. Please explain to me how, during a dynamic entry of sorts, you see a guy with a rifle and amid all the action here him say from across the way (while you're still outside of the home) ""I've got something for you; I've got something for you guys". That is the quote according the SWAT officer's attorney.

"pointed a gun at officers serving a search warrant at his home."


"The department says SWAT members were clear when identifying themselves while entering the home"
"Tucson is notorious for home invasions and we didn't want to look like that," said Lt. Michael O'Connor of the Pima County Sheriff's Department. "We went lights and sirens and we absolutely did not do a 'no-knock' warrant."

From what I read they made entry and the suspect was crouched down.

"When five SWAT members broke through the front door Guerena was crouched down pointing the gun at them, said O'Connor"

Unless those are false circumstances the shooting is 100% justified.

 

[dross]

The K9 tells you what he said.

Officer Chompy has superior hearing and is a cool talker under stress.

I have it on good authority that they also found coffee in the house.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Objection!

Coffee only justifies yelling, spitting and waving a pistol around like a chimp, not deadly force.

 

[88GT]

Let him bleed out? You think he died a slow painful death after being shot 60 times?

By what logic do you make a connection between "bleeding out" and "slow, painful death?" The latter statement are your words not mine. But there is no denying they withheld medical treatment for an inordinate amount of time leading to his death through exsanguination. No television show doctors required for that.

One thing is for certain. A few things are for certain. They had a valid warrant.

They had a warrant. It's validity is in question inasmuch as I have not seen the specifics of the items listed and "firearms, body armor, and part of a police uniform" don't quite make the grade for me. [ETA: it didn't even mention Guerena's name, which makes it doubly hokey in my mind.] Either put them in context or point to something more specific or tangible relating to the crimes that have occurred. Even if one assumes the warrant was obtained through the proper channels, it smells like yesterday's diaper, based on the limited information yet supplied.

The seized the items described in the warrant.

So they say. Except they haven't released the warrant/affidavit so we're just supposed to take their word for it. In situations like this, "Because we said so" isn't good enough. Surely, you understand that.

Police knock....no answer....locate guy inside with AR-15....Maybe he pointed it, maybe he didn't.

Why is it that you take the words of LE, DA, and anybody else on their side of the equation at face value and say that's all the evidence necessary to prove the entrance was valid, the shoot was justified, the guy was guilty. You don't have any evidence that would convict him in court, just a bunch of people saying it's so. But for some reason, the same level of evidence from the victim's side is discounted as nothing more than lies.

I understand your loyalties fall almost universally on one particular side of the line, but you are most definitely NOT exhibiting an open mind, contrary to your statement.