PDA

View Full Version : Pima Co DA clears PCSD Entry Team


1911su16b870
06-14-2011, 9:09 PM
http://www.kgun9.com/story/14901255/pima-county-attorney-sides-with-swat

[retired please move if deemed too hot a topic...I tried to post it in our LE sub forum...]

Will be interesting to read the other thread when this info hits it...:D

Jonathan Doe
06-14-2011, 10:58 PM
I received a email about this from the Police Magazine. I don't know th ewhole circumstances of this incident, but I saw a lot of hating toward the Pima County SWAT team for killing a Marine. Maybe one day, I will try to read the whole story about it.

Norcal Industries
06-14-2011, 11:26 PM
this is b.s.

1911su16b870
06-15-2011, 8:14 AM
this is b.s.

Oh really? Please elaborate...what part of the link do you call bs on?

The Pima Co. DA indicated that when someone points a rifle at police officers, they need to immediately respond to that threat.

1911su16b870
06-15-2011, 9:30 AM
well, this is a shocking development :rolleyes:

I shared it here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6498223&postcount=918

...LE is judged by the applicable law, training, experience and mindset of that LE in that unique situation...I have faith in our country and the judicial system. This too will work itself out.

We do not know everything the DA knows...it could be this marine was part of a Drug Cartel...and did indeed point a rifle at SWAT which reacted [appropriately according to the Pima Co. DA]...that is one possibility that no one in the other thread wants to entertain or acknowledge.

fullrearview
06-15-2011, 9:38 AM
I shared it here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=6498223&postcount=918



We do not know everything the DA knows...it could be this marine was part of a Drug Cartel...and did indeed point a rifle at SWAT which reacted [appropriately according to the Pima Co. DA]...that is one possibility that no one in the other thread wants to entertain or acknowledge.

It sucks, but I would put my money on 90% of the posters in the other thread made up their minds after reading the title, and before clicking on the thread.

Triad
06-15-2011, 10:08 AM
I'll put on my raincoat in preparation for the !@#$storm about to hit.

brb.

Spanky8601
06-15-2011, 11:05 AM
Regardless of any facts the mob with the tar and feathers are going to claim to be right.

Triad
06-15-2011, 11:11 AM
Yeah, becasue LE and the DA's office get along so well together...:rolleyes:

LIAR! :P

1911su16b870
06-15-2011, 1:51 PM
I'll put on my raincoat in preparation for the !@#$storm about to hit.

brb.

Yeah, becasue LE and the DA's office get along so well together...:rolleyes:

+1 guys :rofl2: :D

BigDogatPlay
06-15-2011, 2:16 PM
The key element of the story linked in the OP is in the final paragraph... the attorney representing the decedent's family has gone MIA and isn't returning anyone's calls. Gee, I wonder why?

Subsequent to the shooting, PCSD released helmet cam video, transcripts and hundreds of pages of supporting documents, see story here (http://www.kgun9.com/story/14737216/swat-team-audiovideo-reveal-how-deadly-raid-went-down). It begins to look more and more like a lawful use of lethal force. Even if the decedent was a good guy, there was a passage of minutes between knock / notice, entry, and shots fired, and he was arguably lying in wait, apparently, for the officers to enter. None of those seem to be the actions of someone roused out of a sound sleep by the door coming in and arming himself as he sprang out of bed not knowing who was there.

Combine that with evidence found at the scene which supported the reasons why they were there in the first place..... that the decedent was a person of interest in home invasions and it makes the official account all the more credible.

Let's remember also that Pima County is where Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Remember the massive knee jerk by Sheriff Clarence Dupnick at the time? Pima County is a bastion of politically correct thought and I have to believe that if the sheriff's SWAT guys had to do that, it wasn't because they were out head hunting.

But like others have said, I wasn't there. I can only make informed guesses based on what's out in the public view.

TRICKSTER
06-15-2011, 2:56 PM
Big surprise...one hand holds the other.
Really, my experience has been that if a DA has a chance to make a name for himself by taking down a cop, they go for it. This is based on working as an LEO and actually dealing with DA's in several counties for 30 years. What are you basing your comment on?

fullrearview
06-15-2011, 5:26 PM
What are you basing your comment on?

His/her emotions.

FLIGHT762
06-15-2011, 5:55 PM
Really, my experience has been that if a DA has a chance to make a name for himself by taking down a cop, they go for it. This is based on working as an LEO and actually dealing with DA's in several counties for 30 years. What are you basing your comment on?

This is my experience as well. The DA's Office is not L/E's Pal, Buddy or
Friend. They do a job just as L/E does, that's all.

As far as the opinion by the Pima Co. DA clearing the S.O., it is what it is.

sawchain
06-15-2011, 6:02 PM
It should not be the DA's prerogative to bring a case. The case should be brought automatically so a jury can decide. The DA has the power to effectively acquit someone by not even bringing a case.

I'm open to the idea that I am completely mistaken. In fact, if I am mistaken, I'd love for you guys to educate me.

Sniper3142
06-15-2011, 6:20 PM
Yeah, becasue LE and the DA's office get along so well together...:rolleyes:

Yeah...

Because the DAs office never decides to not file charges on a LEO for illegal AW possession (saying the LAW is to complicated or some such stuff).

And bribery, fraud, theft, and other crimes regular citizens are routinely charged with are never not pursued when a LEO is the subject.

:rolleyes:

BTW, I think this particular case was probably correctly decided.

sawchain
06-15-2011, 6:31 PM
Subsequent to the shooting, PCSD released helmet cam video, transcripts and hundreds of pages of supporting documents, see story here (http://www.kgun9.com/story/14737216/swat-team-audiovideo-reveal-how-deadly-raid-went-down). It begins to look more and more like a lawful use of lethal force. Even if the decedent was a good guy, there was a passage of minutes between knock / notice, entry, and shots fired, and he was arguably lying in wait, apparently, for the officers to enter. None of those seem to be the actions of someone roused out of a sound sleep by the door coming in and arming himself as he sprang out of bed not knowing who was there.

That several minutes passed between knock and shots fired is not correct. The video clearly shows that this is not the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3F81oOwqwg

Watch the video linked above. They arrive at the house at 20 seconds. The siren is activated at 24 seconds. The first officer gets to the door at 32 seconds. Shots are fired at 60 seconds.

TRICKSTER
06-15-2011, 6:42 PM
Yeah...

Because the DAs office never decides to not file charges on a LEO for illegal AW possession (saying the LAW is to complicated or some such stuff).

And bribery, fraud, theft, and other crimes regular citizens are routinely charged with are never not pursued when a LEO is the subject.

:rolleyes:

BTW, I think this particular case was probably correctly decided.

DA's charge cases that they think that they can win. As far as LEO's not being charged, many times some type of deal is made in lieu of charges being filed because the DA feels that they can't get a conviction. The same thing is done in many bribery, fraud and theft cases involving "regular citizens".

SVT-40
06-16-2011, 10:49 AM
It should not be the DA's prerogative to bring a case. The case should be brought automatically so a jury can decide. The DA has the power to effectively acquit someone by not even bringing a case.

I'm open to the idea that I am completely mistaken. In fact, if I am mistaken, I'd love for you guys to educate me.


In order to have a criminal trial charges must be brought by the appropriate agency, which in this case is the DA's office.

In order for the DA to file charges an investigation must prove a crime occurred.


In any investigation the elements of an alleged crime must be proven. Period, no emotion just facts.

So having that in mind, just what were the elements of any crime committed by the officers?





The officers were serving a lawfully obtained warrant.

The officers properly identified themselves and were wearing police uniforms.

The officers complied with the knock and notice requirements of the law.

Once entry had been made the officers were immediately confronted by a armed individual, who presented a deadly threat to them by pointing a rifle at them.

The officers lawfully defended themselves.


So, as I asked above Just what are the elements of any crime committed by the officers?

fullrearview
06-16-2011, 11:41 AM
In order to have a criminal trial charges must be brought by the appropriate agency, which in this case is the DA's office.

In order for the DA to file charges an investigation must prove a crime occurred.


In any investigation the elements of an alleged crime must be proven. Period, no emotion just facts.

So having that in mind, just what were the elements of any crime committed by the officers?





The officers were serving a lawfully obtained warrant.

The officers properly identified themselves and were wearing police uniforms.

The officers complied with the knock and notice requirements of the law.

Once entry had been made the officers were immediately confronted by a armed individual, who presented a deadly threat to them by pointing a rifle at them.

The officers lawfully defended themselves.


So, as I asked above Just what are the elements of any crime committed by the officers?

He was a former Marine... Some people just can't see past that. It's kinda funny to see... Somehow, we give our service members MUCH more benefit of the doubt, even when facts are presented, but a cop... Dirty no matter what his/her past or the facts show... There is always some excuse or conspiracy to "cover up" the truth. Fact is, there are bad people in all walks of life, and I will say from experience, I met a lot more douchers in the military that I have in LE. Obviously, the screening process is not perfect, but it sure is better than the military's.

Like you said... Look at the facts without emotion.

Now as for policy faults... Maybe, but that's a different discussion, and unfortunately, I don't think it can stay on topic.

john.t.singh
06-16-2011, 11:50 AM
I liked what Massad Ayoob said. It made a lot of sense. Originally I was pretty outraged but after reading his article, it made me reconsider...

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2011/06/05/reading-evidentiary-videos-point-1/

Ron-Solo
06-16-2011, 9:42 PM
:popcorn:

Falconis
06-16-2011, 9:44 PM
and I can show you some news articles that were far from accurate. Never did get a retraction or an apology. One time, a correction though.

lear60man
06-17-2011, 7:23 PM
When this story first hit I was all against the Swat team and their cover up of facts. I still think they handled the aftermath poorly. But on face value, it looked like the SWAT guys were baddies for shooting a former Marine in bed while dreaming about reading the bible.

BUT ......then I read the Search Warrant and the years of investigation leading up to the search. Guilt by association my a**. He was up to his ears guilty. Every member of their little family owned an average of $60,000 in vehicles each, no jobs, collecting welfare, drug trafficking convictions, bla bla bla.

The scary part of the warrant application was when the applicant talks about how their undercover cars was spotted by the Marine and followed for miles. A few days later a license plate trace was done.....by someone in the DMV!

Like others I was skeptical especially when only BS was found in the home. But after reading about how long this investigation has been going on, its obvious this clown wasn't completely stupid. Just elusive.

Search Warrant below. Its a good read.


http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf

fullrearview
06-17-2011, 7:40 PM
When this story first hit I was all against the Swat team and their cover up of facts. I still think they handled the aftermath poorly. But on face value, it looked like the SWAT guys were baddies for shooting a former Marine in bed while dreaming about reading the bible.

BUT ......then I read the Search Warrant and the years of investigation leading up to the search. Guilt by association my a**. He was up to his ears guilty. Every member of their little family owned an average of $60,000 in vehicles each, no jobs, collecting welfare, drug trafficking convictions, bla bla bla.

The scary part of the warrant application was when the applicant talks about how their undercover cars was spotted by the Marine and followed for miles. A few days later a license plate trace was done.....by someone in the DMV!

Like others I was skeptical especially when only BS was found in the home. But after reading about how long this investigation has been going on, its obvious this clown wasn't completely stupid. Just elusive.

Search Warrant below. Its a good read.


http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf


Good post, and thing you for actually reading further into things. As you can see, most here do not. They take music videos and media sensationalizations as gospel. I doubt we will hear the outcome of the other associated cases from the media either.

Anchors
06-17-2011, 9:11 PM
This isn't really a reflection on the officers, but more so politicians and judges.
Blaming the officers would be like blaming your average infantry guy if you're a war protester.

I don't agree with SWAT team bursting in even to serve a drug warrant.

I've seen footage of similar situations hundreds of times where they surrounded the building and had a "stand-off" type situation and communicated through megaphone for the subject to come out.

Stand-off > raid.

He probably did do something that warranted the use of deadly force. I'm not questioning that or even the officers use of it really. I'm questions the way the system is set up to serve warrants and giving someone 15 seconds to comply or get raided.
I don't care if he flushed all the drugs in the world down the drain (by the way, none were found in the home). I believe that "shock and awe" procedure violates the Fourth Amendment even with a valid warrant.
But that is personal opinion on the way the law has been written and interpreted and cops don't make the rules, they just enforce and follow them.

If I was on a jury, I probably would have found the officers NOT GUILTY as well.

I'm just curious as to why a guy would try to fight ten armored and armed SWAT team members unless they were doing suicide by cop. How can one guy hope to win in that situation (even a criminal)?

It should not be the DA's prerogative to bring a case. The case should be brought automatically so a jury can decide. The DA has the power to effectively acquit someone by not even bringing a case.

I'm open to the idea that I am completely mistaken. In fact, if I am mistaken, I'd love for you guys to educate me.

Outside of this case, this is a very important point.

I agree. DAs are extremely powerful. More than many people realize. Some could argue that they are just as powerful as judges in certain courts.
The points of trial and investigation are to determine guilt though. If a DA doesn't see enough evidence to warrant trial, that is actually a good thing (aka do you want to pay for a trial when you're innocent for an AW charge or would you rather have the DA drop it for you?)
However, when public officials are involved, they are held to a higher standard. So maybe in high profile cases like this, a trial should be automatic, even if just a formality where any judge/juror would easily agree with the public official's actions.


That several minutes passed between knock and shots fired is not correct. The video clearly shows that this is not the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3F81oOwqwg

Watch the video linked above. They arrive at the house at 20 seconds. The siren is activated at 24 seconds. The first officer gets to the door at 32 seconds. Shots are fired at 60 seconds.

The only action I take issue with (aside from the way the warrant was served, but that is the system's fault. Not the officers) are some of the officers wildly firing into the house over their coworkers. That seems patently unsafe, especially with a woman and child in the house.
It seems safer for the four or so officers already firing to continue to fire than have those few jumping over their shoulders to fire.
Seems dangerous for the officers too in my opinion, as one of them could easily be caught in the line of fire coming from the rear.
Most of the raids I've seen footage of (military and police) didn't look like this one.



Search Warrant below. Its a good read.

http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf

Nice! Thanks for the link man.

fullrearview
06-18-2011, 12:18 AM
This isn't really a reflection on the officers, but more so politicians and judges.
Blaming the officers would be like blaming your average infantry guy if you're a war protester.

I don't agree with SWAT team bursting in even to serve a drug warrant.


I agree to a point... Based off the search warrant and Jose's military training, I can see why the would want to enter.


I've seen footage of similar situations hundreds of times where they surrounded the building and had a "stand-off" type situation and communicated through megaphone for the subject to come out.

Stand-off > raid.

Most could work this way.

He probably did do something that warranted the use of deadly force. I'm not questioning that or even the officers use of it really. I'm questions the way the system is set up to serve warrants and giving someone 15 seconds to comply or get raided.
I don't care if he flushed all the drugs in the world down the drain (by the way, none were found in the home). I believe that "shock and awe" procedure violates the Fourth Amendment even with a valid warrant.
But that is personal opinion on the way the law has been written and interpreted and cops don't make the rules, they just enforce and follow them.

If I was on a jury, I probably would have found the officers NOT GUILTY as well.



I'm just curious as to why a guy would try to fight ten armored and armed SWAT team members unless they were doing suicide by cop. How can one guy hope to win in that situation (even a criminal)?

Based off of what I have seen, I have no clue what he was thinking... Maybe he knew he was going down for some serious time, and thought a suicide by cop would benefit his family being a former marine and all... Speculation, but who knows!

Outside of this case, this is a very important point.

I agree. DAs are extremely powerful. More than many people realize. Some could argue that they are just as powerful as judges in certain courts.
The points of trial and investigation are to determine guilt though. If a DA doesn't see enough evidence to warrant trial, that is actually a good thing (aka do you want to pay for a trial when you're innocent for an AW charge or would you rather have the DA drop it for you?)
However, when public officials are involved, they are held to a higher standard. So maybe in high profile cases like this, a trial should be automatic, even if just a formality where any judge/juror would easily agree with the public official's actions.


They do have a lot of power, but think about Corpus delicti... If The DA can't find a crime, he can't pursue charges. Just a thought.

The only action I take issue with (aside from the way the warrant was served, but that is the system's fault. Not the officers) are some of the officers wildly firing into the house over their coworkers. That seems patently unsafe, especially with a woman and child in the house.
It seems safer for the four or so officers already firing to continue to fire than have those few jumping over their shoulders to fire.
Seems dangerous for the officers too in my opinion, as one of them could easily be caught in the line of fire coming from the rear.
Most of the raids I've seen footage of (military and police) didn't look like this one.

While I think their tactics and stack were sloppy up until the lead started flying, that guy who ran up did have a good line of fire... From the video, it looks like he just pulling the trigger with a prayer, shooting around the door frame, but when you look at photographs, it makes a whole lot more sense. He was actually exposed quite a bit in the door way, and was square with the hallway Jose was in.



Nice! Thanks for the link man.

In bold.

Anchors
06-18-2011, 1:49 PM
Thanks for the responses! I agree with most of what you said.

As for the DAs, they have the power to effectively dismiss charges and grant immunity.
That is pretty powerful.

Off-topic (well, on-topic actually):

An interesting tidbit from the search warrant's list of inclusive items:
9. Firearms, and ammunition and/or paperwork to show the purchase of firearms and ammunition

Why would they search for legally owned firearms? I don't see any probable cause that shows they have reason to believe he is in arms trafficking or anything of that sort.

That confused me.

Noah3683
06-19-2011, 12:40 PM
Well the warrant shows quite a few previous arrests (coviction status unknown) and a known conviction for carrying a concealed weapon which would have me believe he was no longer able to possess firearms legally

SVT-40
06-19-2011, 9:36 PM
Why would they search for legally owned firearms? I don't see any probable cause that shows they have reason to believe he is in arms trafficking or anything of that sort.

That confused me.

Their reason probably was to check if he had been a "straw purchaser" of weapons. If they had found receipts for numerous firearms purchases, and then found the weapons in the possession of a prohibited friend or relative they would have the evidence needed to prosecute.

You don't need "probable cause" to list things you are looking for in a search warrant.

Jwood562
06-24-2011, 7:17 PM
weapons are a standard in any search warrant (at least for me and the warrants I have written)

Jonathan Doe
06-24-2011, 8:53 PM
DA's investigation found the officers not guilty. What more the government has to prove?

Killing a "marine" does not have to do with anything. Because someone was a marine, it does not make him a saint. I was a marine, and surely I am not treated with any more favors than other "civilians".

It looks like people are jumping all over on the officers killing a former marine. I feel sorry for the marine, but I was not there and cannot make a judgement with only a fraction of information that I saw.

Jwood562
06-24-2011, 10:33 PM
DA's investigation found the officers not guilty. What more the government has to prove?

Killing a "marine" does not have to do with anything. Because someone was a marine, it does not make him a saint. I was a marine, and surely I am not treated with any more favors than other "civilians".

It looks like people are jumping all over on the officers killing a former marine. I feel sorry for the marine, but I was not there and cannot make a judgement with only a fraction of information that I saw.

You said it sir. Every thread was people bashing the police who killed a marine/veteran. They never mentioned that he was a dirt bag and involved in all sorts of criminial activity. even the best crowds can have dirtbags

Jonathan Doe
06-25-2011, 5:27 AM
I "heard" that there are gangbangers joinging Marines. They learn tactics and use it against the police. It is even more dangerous. If the police have a shootout with them and kill them, are people going to cry about it, too?

Samuelx
06-25-2011, 8:59 AM
Way too many scumbags in the military, Marines too, I've dealt with a few handful of them out in the field. When I notified their bases, they didn't seem to want to do anything about it... :rolleyes:

IrishJoe3
06-25-2011, 9:17 AM
I "heard" that there are gangbangers joinging Marines. They learn tactics and use it against the police. It is even more dangerous.

Kinda like the Marine on leave who was a Norteno, who called in a "man with a gun", then murdered a responding police officer? (Ceres, CA 2005)


If the police have a shootout with them and kill them, are people going to cry about it, too?

Yes

Ron-Solo
06-25-2011, 12:31 PM
Two veterans of the USMC come to mind: Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman. No one needs reminding what Oswald did. Charles Whitman was the shooter in te Texas Tower incident, killed 16, wounded 32 before a cop took him out. He had a history of amphetamine abuse.

This sainted "Marine" worked in a mine. I had several friends who used to work mines in AZ and they left because the drug use/sales was so bad.

Don't defend this guy because he was a Marine. He disgraces the uniform.

mtsul
06-25-2011, 1:39 PM
He was a former Marine... Some people just can't see past that. It's kinda funny to see... Somehow, we give our service members MUCH more benefit of the doubt, even when facts are presented, but a cop... Dirty no matter what his/her past or the facts show... There is always some excuse or conspiracy to "cover up" the truth. Fact is, there are bad people in all walks of life, and I will say from experience, I met a lot more douchers in the military that I have in LE. Obviously, the screening process is not perfect, but it sure is better than the military's.

Like you said... Look at the facts without emotion.

Now as for policy faults... Maybe, but that's a different discussion, and unfortunately, I don't think it can stay on topic.

I think why some people trust Service men and woman is they dont get paid anywhere close to LEOs
And that they cant arrest them or cite them
And Its a they fight for everyone and our country

I am a strong supporter of ALL men and woman in any field of service that does a good job, I thank all who serve in the military and Leos for doing there job

1911su16b870
06-25-2011, 9:03 PM
There is also the 800-lb gorilla in the room...that maybe Guerena was a member of a drug cartel and actively working in that drug cartel...

...no one in the other threads seems to give that idea any credibility.

TRICKSTER
06-25-2011, 9:51 PM
There is also the 800-lb gorilla in the room...that maybe Guerena was a member of a drug cartel and actively working in that drug cartel...

...no one in the other threads seems to give that idea any credibility.

But acknowledging that possibility would shut down all their fun.
You would have thought that some would have learned something after the Costco incident.

sawchain
06-25-2011, 10:12 PM
But acknowledging that possibility would shut down all their fun.
You would have thought that some would have learned something after the Costco incident.

Even if he was, you don't have the right to kill him.

9mmepiphany
06-25-2011, 10:45 PM
Even if he was, you don't have the right to kill him.
I believe pointing a rifle at the officers serving the warrant justifies that reaction

Samuelx
06-25-2011, 10:46 PM
Even if he was, you don't have the right to kill him.

I guess we don't have the right to protect ourselves and others if a POS points a gun at us either, huh? :rolleyes:

::CLICK::

SVT-40
06-25-2011, 10:53 PM
Even if he was, you don't have the right to kill him.

LEO's do have the right to defend themselves while in the performance of their duties from anyone who assaults them with a firearm. So sometimes they do have the right to use deadly force.

The only reason he was shot was because he pointed a rifle at the officers while they were serving a legally issued search warrant.

sawchain
06-25-2011, 10:57 PM
I guess we don't have the right to protect ourselves and others if a POS points a gun at us either, huh? :rolleyes:

::CLICK::

1) I have a right to bear arms.
2) There is no evidence that Jose pointed a weapon at the officers.
2a) even if he did, what role did the decision to send in a SWAT team in this manner play?
3) that you call him a POS tells me a lot about you.

4) and this is most important...how are your comments making eiher me or you safer? Have you not considered the effect your behavior on these boards might have on future citizen / LEO encounters? It's probably not wise to claim the title LEO yet sit behind anonymity and insult private citizens.

fullrearview
06-26-2011, 12:48 AM
1) I have a right to bear arms.

Yes.. Yes you do.

2) There is no evidence that Jose pointed a weapon at the officers.

Is that fact or your opinion based off the information currently know to us?

2a) even if he did, what role did the decision to send in a SWAT team in this manner play?

Did you read the warrant? Explains quite a bit if you ask me.

3) that you call him a POS tells me a lot about you.

It's his opinion, just as it's yours to say we are all bad examples of LEO's.

4) and this is most important...how are your comments making eiher me or you safer? Have you not considered the effect your behavior on these boards might have on future citizen / LEO encounters? It's probably not wise to claim the title LEO yet sit behind anonymity and insult private citizens.

You know, I learned a funny thing when I was growing up... When you point your finger at someone, you have three pointing back at you. While many of the LEO's here play devils advocate, speculate until more information comes along, then make an opinion based on the facts known at that time, we HAVE changed their minds on certain topics and issues... Can you say the same?



In bold.

About a month ago, I was getting gas at an AMPM, and was waiting for about 15 minutes... The car I waited for moved, and some crazy lady pulled in real quick, called me an Adam Henry and refused to move. She stated I had just pulled in and she was waiting for several minutes. She wouldn't budge and was making a huge scene. I very politely told her the pump was hers, to have a nice day, backed up and waited...

The whole time she was starring at me mouthing Adam Henry in my direction... When she finishes, she pulls up next to me and continues to tell me just how wrong I was... when I hit her with the facts (such as I didn't pull into the gas station from the highway as she claimed and I was getting lunch at the adjacent dinner), she blew up again making a huge scene. I again told her to have a nice day, then pulled forward to pump my gas... She continued to yell and scream at me calling me every name in the book for about another minute.

For some reason, you remind of that lady. No matter what any LEO on here says or does, you will find a reason to tell us just how wrong we are.

Samuelx
06-26-2011, 10:53 AM
No matter what any LEO on here says or does, you will find a reason to tell us just how wrong we are.

That just about sums up him, a bunch of other people on here, and even more in society in general.

To not be part of the solution, reap the benefits of the efforts of those who are part of the solution, and then talk crap about or refuse to cooperate with those who are fighting and sacrificing to maintain a peaceful, civilized society - CHUTZPAH!

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Jonathan Doe
06-26-2011, 4:37 PM
LEO's do have the right to defend themselves while in the performance of their duties from anyone who assaults them with a firearm. So sometimes they do have the right to use deadly force.

The only reason he was shot was because he pointed a rifle at the officers while they were serving a legally issued search warrant.

No matter how well you try to explain, people who determined not to listen will not understand. You should be tired of it by now. I commend you for trying hard to explain time after time. Sometimes, it is not worth your time. Some people make up their mind already and put a blind on.

jamesob
06-26-2011, 5:56 PM
the marine only wanted to support his family the best he could. in the end he did his job because the wrongful death suit will bring millions.

1911su16b870
06-26-2011, 7:50 PM
Wrongful death? IMO it is not going to happen in this case.

Samuelx
06-26-2011, 9:04 PM
the marine only wanted to support his family the best he could.

So the end justifies the means, huh? After all, baby's daddy out on the corner stealing, robbing, dealing, whathaveyou, only wants to support his family the best he can too... :rolleyes:

jamesob
06-26-2011, 9:32 PM
lol you guys crack me up. they will get a judgement because it was a bad warrant, not a single illegal thing in the house. the guy was sleeping after working long hours in a mine if i remember right. im not bashing the police or saying what they did was wrong, after all i was a l.e.o for a few years and know the use of force laws very well. its no longer a criminal matter on the police officers but it will now be a civil matter against the dept.

Ron-Solo
06-26-2011, 10:14 PM
lol you guys crack me up. they will get a judgement because it was a bad warrant, not a single illegal thing in the house. the guy was sleeping after working long hours in a mine if i remember right. im not bashing the police or saying what they did was wrong, after all i was a l.e.o for a few years and know the use of force laws very well. its no longer a criminal matter on the police officers but it will now be a civil matter against the dept.

Just because they didnt find anything doesn't invalidate the warrant, which was part of a much bigger investigation.

Ron-Solo
06-26-2011, 10:17 PM
Even if he was, you don't have the right to kill him.

Point a gun at police serving a warrant will usually get you shot.

Point a gun at me, even retired, and you will get shot. If you die, that goes with the territory.

Do stupid things, win prizes.

We have the right and the duty to use deadly force to protect ourselves and others.

Lost.monkey
06-27-2011, 11:17 AM
It sounds like this former Marine may have received what was due to him.

The warrant is detailed, and there's a ton of material here to suggest he wasn't walking the line as the USMC taught him to.

The knee-jerk reaction by Oath Keepers in showing up for memorial day makes me nervous. As one poster mentioned, there are dirtbags that make it through the armed forces (we all called them that 10%).

At first, I was alarmed and outraged with everyone else. But in reading the warrant, watching the videos, I think the police were in the right. They were serving a high-risk narcotics warrant on a known offender (which I think merits SWAT involvement), and fired when threatened with deadly force.

Werewolf1021
06-28-2011, 9:28 PM
Two veterans of the USMC come to mind: Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Whitman. No one needs reminding what Oswald did. Charles Whitman was the shooter in te Texas Tower incident, killed 16, wounded 32 before a cop took him out. He had a history of amphetamine abuse.

This sainted "Marine" worked in a mine. I had several friends who used to work mines in AZ and they left because the drug use/sales was so bad.

Don't defend this guy because he was a Marine. He disgraces the uniform.

Don't forget Leonard Lake and Charles Ng.

Serial Killers who tortured and killed around 11+ people, including an infant.

Jwood562
06-28-2011, 9:59 PM
Even if he was, you don't have the right to kill him.

let me guess, you are one of those people that say, "You should have shot the gun out of his hand, or shoot him in the legs"

sawchain
06-28-2011, 10:07 PM
let me guess, you are one of those people that say, "You should have shot the gun out of his hand, or shoot him in the legs"

How about don't shoot him?

IrishJoe3
06-28-2011, 10:41 PM
How about don't shoot him?

Sorry, anyone that points a firearm at me with what appears to be the intent to use it against my person just forfeited their life, regardless of the circumstance leading up to the encounter. Have a nice day :)

jeep7081
06-28-2011, 10:53 PM
Sorry, anyone that points a firearm at me with what appears to be the intent to use it against my person just forfeited their life, regardless of the circumstance leading up to the encounter. Have a nice day :)

+1. :2guns:

Also people need to remember, he raised an AR15 at the Officers on scene in the hall way. He also had stolen guns found in the house and he was an ex' Marine. In my book, justified.

sawchain
06-28-2011, 11:01 PM
Sorry, anyone that points a firearm at me with what appears to be the intent to use it against my person just forfeited their life, regardless of the circumstance leading up to the encounter. Have a nice day :)

Sorry, I just don't think that's reasonable. When you bust down someone's door, you shouldn't be surprised to find them holding a firearm on the other side. I just don't think it's wise policy to play blind-pistol-dueling for either the LEO's sake OR for the citizen's sake. The risk of misunderstanding and the unfortunate outcome that may result is too costly.

IMO (and I know you probably don't agree) the Jose Guerena situation demonstrates poor judgment by the warranting judge, the department and the individual officers. Sending a SWAT team to execute a search warrant for a controlled substance offense is a gross misapplication of force.

sawchain
06-28-2011, 11:02 PM
+1. :2guns:

Also people need to remember, he raised an AR15 at the Officers on scene in the hall way. He also had stolen guns found in the house and he was an ex' Marine. In my book, justified.

I've seen this stated numerous times. Where is the evidence? Will you cite it please? If there's proof he did that, I'd love to see it.

jeep7081
06-28-2011, 11:07 PM
I've seen this stated numerous times. Where is the evidence? Will you cite it please? If there's proof he did that, I'd love to see it.

:xeno:

Read the whole artice like I did! Click on all the links. I did...It's in there ;)

Sorry, I just don't think that's reasonable. When you bust down someone's door, you shouldn't be surprised to find them holding a firearm on the other side. I just don't think it's wise policy to play blind-pistol-dueling for either the LEO's sake OR for the citizen's sake. The risk of misunderstanding and the unfortunate outcome that may result is too costly.

IMO (and I know you probably don't agree) the Jose Guerena situation demonstrates poor judgment by the warranting judge, the department and the individual officers. Sending a SWAT team to execute a search warrant for a controlled substance offense is a gross misapplication of force.

Do you normally walk around your house with a AR15? I don't.

He also had illegal firearms in the house. They also found body armor in the garage. Mix that with him being a former Marine. This isn't your average Joe, and not your average search warrant. Sorry, I agree with IrishJoe.

sawchain
06-28-2011, 11:10 PM
:xeno:

Read the whole artice like I did! Click on all the links. I did...It's in there ;)



Do you normally walk around your house with a AR15? I don't.

He also had illegal firearms in the house. They also found body armor in the garage. Mix that with him being a former Marine. This isn't your average Joe, and not your average search warrant. Sorry, I agree with IrishJoe.

Please, cite the evidence that he pointed it at officers. I don't think there is any. Prove me wrong. Please!

sawchain
06-28-2011, 11:16 PM
http://www.kgun9.com/story/14838574/entire-swat-team-says-guerena-fired-at-them

He said, "…as soon as I saw the male suspect come from that direction he yelled something. At that point I began firing my weapon at the suspect."

On closer questioning, that officer told detectives, "…whether at that point he actually had raised the rifle up...I couldn't..."

The interview was conducted via audio, with no video, but the officer was making gestures at the time. The investigating detective described those gestures out loud for the benefit of anyone who might need to listen to the recording. "You're making a motion like he's bringing a rifle up on you," the detective said.

The rifleman then answered, "Absolutely, absolutely."

In other words, the SWAT member who opened fire is describing to the detective who is debriefing him, with gestures, his observation that Guerena had begun to swing his weapon in the direction of the SWAT team members.

The SWAT member holding the shield at the door said he saw a muzzle flash. The detective asks: "Where was the muzzle flash?"

The shield holder replies: "Directed right towards us."

One of the team assigned to break open the door says, "They were coming from basically, the front door, but directly straight back from the front door."

"I'm seeing the muzzle, from the muzzle flash from inside the house, coming, you know, towards us."

The other officer assigned to break open the door turned away as the door swung open.

The detective asks: "So at that point you breached the door, you turned around, you turned around you're facing the team and the gunfire is coming at your back from...."

Breacher#2: "Yes."

Detective: "Inside the house?"

Breacher#2: "Yes."

And the team commander says, "Immediately I saw a muzzle flash and gunfire or heard gunfire." he went on to say that Guerena "Raised the rifle and pointed it towards us and fired multiple times."

Are you relying on this testimony?

IrishJoe3
06-28-2011, 11:22 PM
Sorry, I just don't think that's reasonable. ….

IMO (and I know you probably don't agree) the Jose Guerena situation demonstrates poor judgment by the warranting judge, the department and the individual officers.

I don’t agree with you, but that’s the great thing about it, we’re all entitled to our own opinion.


Please, cite the evidence that he pointed it at officers. I don't think there is any. Prove me wrong. Please!

So....you're willing to accept the Sheriff Departments statement that the AR15 was on "safe", but unwilling to accept their statement that he pointed the rifle at them. You can't pick and choose which facts are the most convient to you.

Additionally, I did read in the DA’s (?) report that they determined the rifle was pointed at the deputies based on the angle of impact marks of the rounds on Mr. Guerena’s weapon.

Ron-Solo
06-28-2011, 11:26 PM
How about don't shoot him?

:troll:

sawchain
06-28-2011, 11:27 PM
Additionally, I did read in the DA’s (?) report that they determined the rifle was pointed at the deputies based on the angle of impact marks of the rounds on Mr. Guerena’s weapon.

Thanks for the tip. I'll see if I can find it.

TRICKSTER
06-28-2011, 11:29 PM
http://www.kgun9.com/story/14901255/pima-county-attorney-sides-with-swat

"A close examination of the rifle revealed it appeared to have been damaged by being fired upon from such an angle that it must have been pointed toward officers."

Riddle me this, how is it that a "highly trained" Marine doesn't have enough sense to use cover and concealment until he knows who is coming in the door, and then seeing it's the police, doesn't leave his weapon in the hallway before emerging into the open. Either he isn't the highly trained Marine that everyone claims or he meant to confront the officers.

sawchain
06-28-2011, 11:40 PM
Riddle me this, how is it that a "highly trained" Marine doesn't have enough sense to use cover and concealment until he knows who is coming in the door, and then seeing it's the police, doesn't leave his weapon in the hallway before emerging into the open. Either he isn't the highly trained Marine that everyone claims or he meant to confront the officers.

It's presumptive to think he ever knew it was the police. Only about 32 seconds elapsed between the time they knocked/announced and shots were fired.

Further...wasn't a flashbang thrown in the door during that time? If he was flash banged how the hell could he hear or see anything? Let alone that the people busting down his door were police officers?

sawchain
06-28-2011, 11:49 PM
My Google-fu is failing to find a copy of the original DA report. Anyone have it?

"A close examination of the rifle revealed it appeared to have been damaged by being fired upon from such an angle that it must have been pointed toward officers."

This sounds like supposition to me. There are other reasonable scenarios that might produce such damage, especially considering the volume and wildness of fire by the officers involved.

TRICKSTER
06-28-2011, 11:58 PM
Further...wasn't a flashbang thrown in the door during that time? If he was flash banged how the hell could he hear or see anything? Let alone that the people busting down his door were police officers?

If this is the case, it adds even more to my question. Why would a "highly trained" Marine, who knows what a flashbang is, leave a position of cover and confront people that he cant see or hear? Everything that I have read on this case leans towards the conclusion that he knew exactly who it was, and for some reason, chose to confront them.

jeep7081
06-29-2011, 12:35 AM
It's presumptive to think he ever knew it was the police. Only about 32 seconds elapsed between the time they knocked/announced and shots were fired.

Further...wasn't a flashbang thrown in the door during that time? If he was flash banged how the hell could he hear or see anything? Let alone that the people busting down his door were police officers?

If he can't see or hear. How did he grab the AR15? He already had it before hand and was ready for them ;) Follow?

Please, cite the evidence that he pointed it at officers. I don't think there is any. Prove me wrong. Please!

Sorry, not your parent our your spouse. Your going to have to do your own leg work if you want the answer. ;)

If this is the case, it adds even more to my question. Why would a "highly trained" Marine, who knows what a flashbang is, leave a position of cover and confront people that he cant see or hear? Everything that I have read on this case leans towards the conclusion that he knew exactly who it was, and for some reason, chose to confront them.

Agree 100%

SVT-40
06-29-2011, 12:56 AM
Here is a link to a much better quality audio of the incident....

More that sufficient knock and notice in both English and Spanish.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/audio_ec593d68-88ea-11e0-a4e6-001cc4c03286.html

jeep7081
06-29-2011, 7:23 AM
Here is a link to a much better quality audio of the incident....

More that sufficient knock and notice in both English and Spanish.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/audio_ec593d68-88ea-11e0-a4e6-001cc4c03286.html

I don't see a video. I guess I am missing some software to view? Arggg...

9mmepiphany
06-29-2011, 7:48 AM
It's presumptive to think he ever knew it was the police. Only about 32 seconds elapsed between the time they knocked/announced and shots were fired.

Further...wasn't a flashbang thrown in the door during that time? If he was flash banged how the hell could he hear or see anything? Let alone that the people busting down his door were police officers?

I could see where the shouted warnings and announcements, in both English and Spanish, could have been partially covered by the siren. And while I know of cases where home invaders have identified themselves as LEO upon entry, they don't happen in the middle of the morning and they surely don't draw attention to themselves with a siren.

I think you can clearly hear on the tape that there was no flashbang used. If you are referring to the loud bang heard upon entry, that is the door giving way

There are other reasonable scenarios that might produce such damage, especially considering the volume and wildness of fire by the officers involved.
There was only one direction that the officers could have fired at him from at the point he confronted them. If the damage to the gun was from the direction of muzzle toward the stock, the gun must have been oriented toward the shooter at the time. It is simple firearms/ammunition forensic evidence...the direction of damage is pretty clear if the surface isn't completely destroyed/consumed

SVT-40
06-29-2011, 12:46 PM
I don't see a video. I guess I am missing some software to view? Arggg...

That's because it's only a audio clip......:)


click on the link. Below the short story is a speaker icon. Beside it is a triangle "start" icon. Click on the triangle.

jeep7081
06-29-2011, 12:53 PM
That's because it's only a audio clip......:)


click on the link. Below the short story is a speaker icon. Beside it is a triangle "start" icon. Click on the triangle.

I just did all these updates, etc, etc. :D Only to just discover a few seconds ago what you posted. Still laughing...

guns4life
06-29-2011, 2:21 PM
If you don't have the experience or knowledge...would you then concede that your opinion would than be based of speculation and emotion, rather than science?...or at least experience?

I'll ask you the same question...but let me stop you before you try to use the impact on the rifle as an example, it is not. What science do you have?

jeep7081
06-29-2011, 2:34 PM
I think the fact that he had an AR15 in his hand, in the hall way, being an ex' Marine dealing in stolen firearms says it all. The part of science is irrelevant. Did I miss something?

9mmepiphany
06-29-2011, 3:23 PM
I'll ask you the same question...but let me stop you before you try to use the impact on the rifle as an example, it is not. What science do you have?
Just basic physics classes, evidence collection classes, forensic gunshot classes and blood splatter classes. All the stuff you'll see on Bones (the television show) or in Abbie's lab in NCIS...except not as fancy and we didn't have the neat CG stuff. We used rods, string and lasers in crime scene recreation

Why would the bullet strikes on the rifle not be evidence? The obviously thing would be to correlate it to the bullet strikes on the furniture...since they would have less tendency to move under impact

sawchain
06-29-2011, 4:51 PM
If he can't see or hear. How did he grab the AR15? He already had it before hand and was ready for them ;) Follow?

I follow. Here's my understanding: Jose's in bed. His wife sees men with guns out the window. She wakes him up telling him there are men with guns outside. He tells her to grab the son and hide in the closet. He grabs his AR-15 and starts heading for the door. The flashbang goes off. Jose is now blind and stunned. The SWAT team throws the door open, sees the gun and opens fire.

This account is supported by Venessa Guerena's statements (http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/c/8f/524/c8f5246a-8825-11e0-9f33-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4ddf3c9948269.pdf.pdf).

I wasn't trying to imply that he was flashbanged, then grabbed his gun. It's important to keep these events in order so we can figure out what truly took place. Despite what some of you may think, I'm not trying to arbitrarily pin blame on one side or the other. I want to know the truth of what happened and, if necessary, hold someone accountable.

This whole situation scares the crap out of me because I see myself doing exactly what Jose did. That is, if I hear a noise outside, I WILL grab my gun and investigate. But before I know what's happened the SWAT team will bust down my door and fill me with lead. Then, to hear folks here suggest that Jose was just a damn POS and deserved what he got scares me even more. Am I a damn POS, too? Does my wife and son (a bit younger than Jose's) deserve to see their husband/father splattered all over the living room because I chose to defend our home? Do any of you LEO's understand this point of view? What if you hear someone smashing down your door? Wouldn't you also grab a gun, only to be filled with lead when at the last moment you realize it's your fellow officers?


Sorry, not your parent our your spouse. Your going to have to do your own leg work if you want the answer. ;)

If you make a claim, it's up to you to support it with evidence. Otherwise you have zero credibility. You have to do your own leg work if you want to be taken seriously.

sawchain
06-29-2011, 4:56 PM
There was only one direction that the officers could have fired at him from at the point he confronted them. If the damage to the gun was from the direction of muzzle toward the stock, the gun must have been oriented toward the shooter at the time. It is simple firearms/ammunition forensic evidence...the direction of damage is pretty clear if the surface isn't completely destroyed/consumed

I would argue against this (i.e. maybe the muzzle was struck as Jose was knocked back or falling), but it's pointless since we'll probably never be able to inspect the gun for ourselves. So...until more data comes out, we'll not know one way or the other.

TRICKSTER
06-29-2011, 5:05 PM
I follow. Here's my understanding: Jose's in bed. His wife sees men with guns out the window. She wakes him up telling him there are men with guns outside. He tells her to grab the son and hide in the closet. He grabs his AR-15 and starts heading for the door. The flashbang goes off. Jose is now blind and stunned. The SWAT team throws the door open, sees the gun and opens fire.


I don't believe that the flashbang was deployed in the house,I believe that there was one set off in the backyard as a diversion. Even if one was used in the house, it would mean that it was thrown in after the door was opened. You also keep dodging the fact that he was a "highly trained" Marine, who would know what a flashbang is and would also know not to expose himself to any intruders coming in the front door until he knew what he was facing. So either he wasn't as "highly trained" as people claim, or he intentionally confronted the officers.

9mmepiphany
06-29-2011, 6:03 PM
I would argue against this (i.e. maybe the muzzle was struck as Jose was knocked back or falling), but it's pointless since we'll probably never be able to inspect the gun for ourselves. So...until more data comes out, we'll not know one way or the other.
If your statement is based on the prior post of:
"A close examination of the rifle revealed it appeared to have been damaged by being fired upon from such an angle that it must have been pointed toward officers."
You're mis-interpreting the statement

from such an angle doesn't mean it was struck on the muzzle. I could be wrong, but my training and experience would lead me to believe that they are referring to glancing/gouging marks on the body of the rifle

9mmepiphany
06-29-2011, 6:19 PM
This whole situation scares the crap out of me because I see myself doing exactly what Jose did. That is, if I hear a noise outside, I WILL grab my gun and investigate. But before I know what's happened the SWAT team will bust down my door and fill me with lead. Then, to hear folks here suggest that Jose was just a damn POS and deserved what he got scares me even more. Am I a damn POS, too? Does my wife and son (a bit younger than Jose's) deserve to see their husband/father splattered all over the living room because I chose to defend our home? Do any of you LEO's understand this point of view? What if you hear someone smashing down your door? Wouldn't you also grab a gun, only to be filled with lead when at the last moment you realize it's your fellow officers?

This is one of the problems of dealing with personal fear by attacking the fear (a form of denial) rather than accepting that it exist and taking steps to minimize the possibility that it would occur. It would have been more productive if you had started with this statement rather than take a less defensible stance.

We don't have to understand this view, because we have been trained and have trained others in the correct response to avoid this chain of events.

...Even setting aside the argument of what he and his family are accussed of being involved in...

There is one major tactical error that you seem to take for granted as a normal response. Not only is it not well thought out, it goes against all training at major schools...it is the kind of thing that is done in movies and on television and is the basis of all horror movies

...if I hear a noise outside, I WILL grab my gun and investigate.
Is wrong on so many levels, it is akin to committing suicide
1. yes, secure your family
2. yes, grab your gun
3. DO NOT go and investigate
4. Get into a secure (cover) position and call 9-1-1
5. Announce your address and what is happening.
a) if it is a warrant service, they'll give you instructions of how to survive
b) if it is a home invasion, they'll send help
6. Either way, you'll know for sure if you should disarm to survive the encounter

sawchain
06-29-2011, 6:22 PM
You also keep dodging the fact that he was a "highly trained" Marine, who would know what a flashbang is and would also know not to expose himself to any intruders coming in the front door until he knew what he was facing. So either he wasn't as "highly trained" as people claim, or he intentionally confronted the officers.

I don't respond to it because it's invalid. Your logic doesn't work at all. Do you think veterans walk around their homes acting like they're in a combat zone? Are Marines incapable of being surprised by a flashbang?

sawchain
06-29-2011, 6:46 PM
There is one major tactical error that you seem to take for granted as a normal response. Not only is it not well thought out, it goes against all training at major schools...it is the kind of thing that is done in movies and on television and is the basis of all horror movies

...if I hear a noise outside, I WILL grab my gun and investigate.
Is wrong on so many levels, it is akin to committing suicide
1. yes, secure your family
2. yes, grab you gun
3. DO NOT go and investigate
4. Get into a secure (cover) position and call 9-1-1
5. Announce your address and what is happening.
a) if it is a warrant service, they'll give you instructions of how to survive
b) if it is a home invasion, they'll send help
6. Either way, you'll know for sure if you should disarm to survive the encounter

Your tactical assessment is sound. Thanks.

I still assert that using SWAT to deal with a non-violent crime is a misapplication of force. It only increases the risk that someone will be hurt. If a bit more tactical thinking were done PRIOR to issuing the warrant, the order of events you describe could never occur. The warrant itself described officers following and watching Jose. Why didn't they follow and watch him as he drove home from the mine that day? Why not observe the house if it was the target? If they did he would still be alive, AND if he was guilty of a crime, would rightly be sitting in jail.

9mmepiphany
06-29-2011, 7:49 PM
How could following him home and observing the house have changed anything?

They would have still needed to enter the house to search it. plus the service of the warrant had to be coordinated with the other warrants to prevent warnings and escapes

Why are you calling being involved in home invasions and drug rip-offs (the crime they were investigating) a non-violent crime?

guns4life
06-29-2011, 8:35 PM
This is one of the problems of dealing with personal fear by attacking the fear (a form of denial) rather than accepting that it exist and taking steps to minimize the possibility that it would occur. It would have been more productive if you had started with this statement rather than take a less defensible stance.

We don't have to understand this view, because we have been trained and have trained others in the correct response to avoid this chain of events.

...Even setting aside the argument of what he and his family are accussed of being involved in...

There is one major tactical error that you seem to take for granted as a normal response. Not only is it not well thought out, it goes against all training at major schools...it is the kind of thing that is done in movies and on television and is the basis of all horror movies

...if I hear a noise outside, I WILL grab my gun and investigate.
Is wrong on so many levels, it is akin to committing suicide
1. yes, secure your family
2. yes, grab your gun
3. DO NOT go and investigate
4. Get into a secure (cover) position and call 9-1-1
5. Announce your address and what is happening.
a) if it is a warrant service, they'll give you instructions of how to survive
b) if it is a home invasion, they'll send help
6. Either way, you'll know for sure if you should disarm to survive the encounter

Unrealistic to approach every "noise outside" in this fashion.

sawchain
06-29-2011, 8:52 PM
How could following him home and observing the house have changed anything?

They would have still needed to enter the house to search it. plus the service of the warrant had to be coordinated with the other warrants to prevent warnings and escapes

Why are you calling being involved in home invasions and drug rip-offs (the crime they were investigating) a non-violent crime?

Home invasions are indeed violent.

The affadavit in support of search warrant (http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/3/93/10e/39310ee6-8d90-11e0-af6b-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4de852a567d70.pdf.pdf) said absolutely nothing about home invasions or drug rip-offs. All it cited was that Jose had Saran wrap and had registered too many cars.

9mmepiphany
06-29-2011, 9:30 PM
Unrealistic to approach every "noise outside" in this fashion.
Not every noise outside, just the one's that start out as described at the beginning of sawchain's post that I was replying to:

Jose's in bed. His wife sees men with guns out the window. She wakes him up telling him there are men with guns outside.

TRICKSTER
06-30-2011, 12:43 AM
Home invasions are indeed violent.

The affadavit in support of search warrant (http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/azstarnet.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/3/93/10e/39310ee6-8d90-11e0-af6b-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4de852a567d70.pdf.pdf) said absolutely nothing about home invasions or drug rip-offs. All it cited was that Jose had Saran wrap and had registered too many cars.
No one said it did, but most of us here have read all of the articles/documents covering this case and viewed and listened to the video and audio files. This is something that you apparently haven't done, or if you have, you choose to conveniently ignore those that conflict with your point of view.
So if you have reviewed all the info, you are intentionally being deceptive. If you haven't you should review the info before you post again so you can at least appear somewhat informed on the subject. Until then, goodbye.

sawchain
06-30-2011, 6:57 AM
No one said it did, but most of us here have read all of the articles/documents covering this case and viewed and listened to the video and audio files. This is something that you apparently haven't done, or if you have, you choose to conveniently ignore those that conflict with your point of view.
So if you have reviewed all the info, you are intentionally being deceptive. If you haven't you should review the info before you post again so you can at least appear somewhat informed on the subject. Until then, goodbye.

If you have information that justifies the approval of that search warrant for the Guerena residence, or the use of a SWAT team to investigate a nonviolent crime, you should present it.

If I'm being deceptive, present your evidence and discredit me. Otherwise your posts are mere harassment.

jeep7081
06-30-2011, 8:49 AM
If you have information that justifies the approval of that search warrant for the Guerena residence, or the use of a SWAT team to investigate a nonviolent crime, you should present it.

If I'm being deceptive, present your evidence and discredit me. Otherwise your posts are mere harassment.

I don't want to get into your sword fight. But, the stolen guns he had wasn't enough? Just asking.

Maybe your missing the point. But from what I read. He was an 'ex Marine, there were stolen firearms, Which shows he was on the wrong side of the law, they found body armor to add. This will result in swat being called. Then to see once he hears sirens, he is "locked & loaded" in the hall way with an AR15, just proves whomever made that call to have swat there made the right call.

I'll also work your other scenario. You said if any of us heard something we would grab our weapon and do a meet & greet? Some said yes while others said no. For a knock at the door? Probably not. A pound on the door, at night? I might. Although there were sirens! You did hear them, no? So, let's say he didn't. Which I doubt. Once he walked down the hall way with his AR15, which is not a common weapon for a home owner to grab for a noise. The noise being a police siren none-the-less. Then he heard SEARCH WARRANTY CALLED OUT 9X (english & spanish)!!! Then the door come down, he should have dropped his AR15. Period! He didn't.

Read the search warrant, if you still defend him, you either know him, or your just here to cause trouble....Case closed.
http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf

1911su16b870
06-30-2011, 9:40 AM
saw reads but fails to see. States they should have pulled him over in his car, but missed how when LE followed him a couple days later there was a DMV query on that unmarked car. Then asks for info that even if someone in the thread would have, would never post and does not trust the law (DA and Judges) in Pima Co. with application of said law.

jeep7081
06-30-2011, 10:55 AM
saw reads but fails to see. States they should have pulled him over in his car, but missed how when LE followed him a couple days later there was a DMV query on that unmarked car. Saw that! Then asks for info that even if someone in the thread would have, would never post and does not trust the law (DA and Judges) in Pima Co. with application of said law.

Bold above. I agree. When you look at the case as a hole, it was justified.

TRICKSTER
06-30-2011, 12:01 PM
The cops were wrong, the DA was wrong, the judge was wrong, the interpretation of the evidence was wrong, the reporting was wrong, you are wrong.
But......
"I'd love for you guys to educate me." :rofl2:

SVT-40
06-30-2011, 7:29 PM
It's sad that you guys can't see the damage you're doing. I'm a private citizen. An average Joe. All I want is to find truth and make sure justice is upheld. ...and all you can do is insult me. I hope you guys find your way out of law enforcement before someone gets hurt.

So if you are looking for the "truth" what would convince you?

Define "justice"?

As a private citizen now more than ever there is so much info available to you on the net regarding the "truth" of what happened both before, during and after this incident.

I think the reason you are in conflict with some in this thread is based on perceptions.

As a cop one is totally immersed in thousands and thousands of investigations during your career. You garner a great understanding because of that exposure.

Because of their experiences cops are accustomed to all phases of the investigative process. From building a case which could take years depending on it's complexity. To obtaining search warrants, planning "raids" serving search warrants and dealing with evidence. Writing reports related to all phases of the investigation are a given. Nothing happens without it being documented on paper.

Now lay on top of that a deadly encounter where a suspect is killed and you add many many more layers of all sorts of interviews, reports, recordings, videos ect.

All of this information is scrutinized by the legal authority who is responsible for determining whether the use of force was legal.

Now because cops are accustomed to the "system" they tend to accept the results of these investigations because they know due to their experience just how detailed the investigations are.


You as a "non LEO" are not privy to all the years experiences, as well as the processes involved for the County attorney to decide whether the use of force was appropriate, and if the warrant was legally obtained and served...

This occurred and the governing legal authority found that the officers were justified in their use of force.

In reality how could you really have a good understanding?

So if you are seeking the "truth" as you said. you need to be a whole lot more specific.

If you need to know "why" Jose chose to arm himself as he did, and why he confronted the officers as he did. That information is, and will never be obtainable.

So if you can't have his story, what can you use to determine what happened?

The only source is the investigation which was exhaustive, and determined that the officers acted reasonably.

Remember that is the standard...

Officers must act "reasonably". Which means what would a reasonable officer given the exact same situation do?

Not anything else.



So it seems you are "in a loop" of sorts.

You distrust the investigation because you really don't know all of the detail that is involved.

You don't agree with the results because again you are not used to the legally black and white nature of the justice system.

You want the "truth", but will not accept the reports and statements which are the truthful stories of all of those who were involved.

I'm not being critical of you. I'm trying to point out just how different the approaches are between the LEO's on this board and you are when viewing this incident.

I think you are "FEELING" bad because of the outcome of the incident, and are letting those feelings intrude on what you want (justice and truth).

If you ask anyone here whether they "feel bad" because of what the outcome was, I'm sure all would agree that they "feel bad" because a man was killed and a family will have to deal with that.

However that is much different than determining if according to the laws of our country whether what happened was "reasonable" given the actions of all involved including Jose...

Ron-Solo
06-30-2011, 9:08 PM
It's sad that you guys can't see the damage you're doing. I'm a private citizen. An average Joe. All I want is to find truth and make sure justice is upheld. ...and all you can do is insult me. I hope you guys find your way out of law enforcement before someone gets hurt.

It is sad that you come into the LAW ENFORCEMENT forum and attack LE when you don't have a clue what really happened. This isnt the place to come in and bash law enforcement.

You have no clue, but we understand.

Samuelx
06-30-2011, 9:27 PM
I don't mind inexperienced/uneducated people, that's expected. Clueless people with attitudes (dumb sheep)(e.g. refusing to acknowledge their ignorance and somehow believing they are capable of accurately critiquing LE work) is another story - way too many of them around... :rolleyes:

retired
06-30-2011, 11:58 PM
guns4life, you and sawchain evidently did not read the rules for this specialty forum prior to posting in this thread. If you had both done so, you would have not made the comments that you did.

The rules are located in the sticky near the top of this forum. They are in addition to the rules for the rest of the site. This leo forum is a place for active and retired leos to relax, joke around with each other and to answer civil questions asked of them by the non leo members. It is not a place for non leos to post leo bashing comments or become argumentative with them.

Sawchain, if you wish to retain the privilege of posting and viewing in this forum, you will immediately stop your argumentative comments and your opinion that the judge and police were wrong in issuing the warrant and serving the warrant. Your opinion is just that; an opinion and since you do not have the legal expterise of the judge, nor the training of the SWAT team, it really does not hold any water; especially in this forum.

Guns4life, your leo bashing comments are unacceptable. They are unacceptable on this site and especially in a forum devoted to active and retired leos. If you have a difference of opinion concerning the rules of this particular forum, I would suggest you contact the owner of this forum (Kestryll) and make him aware of that opinion since he wrote the rules.

Big surprise...one hand holds the other

Sure, at some point the muzzle of the rifle may have been orientated in the direction of the officers...possible after the 15th shot, 20th shot, 3rd shot? Of course, having never been shot to death I cannot tell you whether or not my rifle would could have positions while I was being riddled with bullets.

Sawchain, the last part of one of your posts is also unacceptable:

...I hope you guys find your way out of law enforcement before someone gets hurt.

If you continue to post comments like this in the future, your stay in this particular forum will be short.

This thread has run its course.