After Serving Two Tours in Iraq, Ex Marine is Killed in Own Home by SWAT Team

reply to post by DZAG Wright


the police are saying they had their lights and sirens on, as per the article. Dont know if it's true, because this horrible lacking article didnt interview any of the neighbors. Regardless, your post implies you either missed or ignored that bit of info.

I'm not defending the cops. I'm pointing out the facts as reported in this 'article' (to use a term loosely)

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
That's what happens when you point a semiautomatic rifle at police officers.

lewrockwell.com doesn't strike me as a credible source either.

ATS should ask that users cite multiple sources before posting something of this nature.

edit on 17-5-2011 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)

A-freaking-men. Glad to see at least one other person here is willing to use a little critical thought instead of jumping on the anti-cop bandwagon based on a very sketchy 'news' release.

Why does everyone blindly, without question accept the woman's side of the story, with no facts?

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

the police are saying they had their lights and sirens on, as per the article. Dont know if it's true, because this horrible lacking article didnt interview any of the neighbors. Regardless, your post implies you either missed or ignored that bit of info.

I'm not defending the cops. I'm pointing out the facts as reported in this 'article' (to use a term loosely)

I would say common sense would tell you they didn't have their lights and horns on, but it may not be common sense to you...not meant in a insulting manner. You may have no idea about door kicking.

However anyone who does, or has witnessed such will inform you that they do not play the lights and horn when going to kick a door. As someone else said, it would be counter-productive.

Hell I was watching "Capitalism: A love story" last night, and the door kicking they showed at the start, the officers didn't come in with lights and horns.

Lets say they did have their lights and horns on...would someone in this house hear/see them? Does sound penetrate that homes walls sufficiently? Do they keep their curtains drawn and house dark so they wouldn't see the lights? I know in my home I wouldn't see any lights, though I could hear some horns because I'm a corner lot.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Because the article says they only struck him once in the stomach. Its not a movie or television show where you get shot once and it throws you 10 feet in the air. In real life, getting shot once does not automatically incapacitate you unless you get hit in the head or central nervous system.

With that said, if he was hit once in the stomach and made it to another room and out of sight, the SWAT team is not going to rush into the room. There are no hostages and no threat to anyone else. So they are going to hold their position and it turns into a stand off.

I have said all this before. They did not stand over him while he was bleeding to death. Why do you automatically assume this? Which scenario does the more reasonable person find believable?

No lights and horn here. When i abscounded on a felony probation SWAT showed up to the house where i was supposed to be at. No sirens, just a big group of guys in black armor, and a bunch of unmarked cars. You know when its coming watch for cars and trucks driving behind your alley every other day. Or the car that parks at the end of your street everyday.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


How did you come to that conclusion. I have provided logical and reasonable circumstances which are true to real life. While doing so, I make statements that the regular everyday person can relate to without claiming I have some sort of expertise, which can not be proven either way in this forum anyway.

So first you are a drug dealer and now you are a former US Army Ranger? And I am the one embellishing the facts?

I am sorry people but lets consider the source here. The former US Army Ranger drug dealer is calling for the police to be relieved of duty and imprisoned. I think Mr. Wright has discredited himself enough to the point we can all discount what he has to say.

Maybe he was a US Army Ranger. Maybe he was a drug dealer. I would think that being a US Army Ranger, the military would have instilled enough discipline and honor to steer one of its members away from dealing drugs after being discharged. OR, the US Army would have done a more complete background check on you and not hired a drug dealer in the first place.

You do a disservice to all the honorable veterans on this forum when you claim you are a former US Army Ranger that also is a drug dealer because it goes against all the US Military Servicemen and women's morals and standards.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


Everyone please. Ive had enough of this guy.

What he wants you to not take into consideration is if this guy was dealing drugs, both the guy in the article and Mr. Wright himself both took the actions to cause the police to get a search warrant on their houses. They broke the law first by dealing drugs. If they were not dealing drugs then the chances of the police accidentally doing a search warrant on their house would be miniscule at best.

Mr. Wright, instead of blaming himself, has put the blame on the police for executing a search warrant on his house. Which is backwards and rediculous.

***Oh and now his friend is on the phone with someone who says something that is supposed to lend credence to his argument.***

Get real. This type of debate is below the standard of a member of ATS.

Get back to debating the facts or this debate is over.

And you were not assaulted by the police for nothing. You were a drug dealer.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


In this post, we can see Mr. Wright has provided us with a clear example of the system failing to protect the people of the state of Florida. If he is telling the truth. We have no way to verify his claims.

And the police are the bad guys? Some state you would rather live next to this guy and not a police officer? Someone that would "let it rip" blindly through the walls and does not care if your family is right next door?

Mr. Wright, what if the officer was black? They you would have shot him? What if the robbers were white? They you would have been fooled?

Lets consider the source people. Mr. Wright first attempted to argue with facts. That did not work so now he has degraded to this mess.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


NVM, it's like talking to a wall, screw it.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

How did you come to that conclusion. I have provided logical and reasonable circumstances which are true to real life. While doing so, I make statements that the regular everyday person can relate to without claiming I have some sort of expertise, which can not be proven either way in this forum anyway.

So first you are a drug dealer and now you are a former US Army Ranger? And I am the one embellishing the facts?

I am sorry people but lets consider the source here. The former US Army Ranger drug dealer is calling for the police to be relieved of duty and imprisoned. I think Mr. Wright has discredited himself enough to the point we can all discount what he has to say.

Maybe he was a US Army Ranger. Maybe he was a drug dealer. I would think that being a US Army Ranger, the military would have instilled enough discipline and honor to steer one of its members away from dealing drugs after being discharged. OR, the US Army would have done a more complete background check on you and not hired a drug dealer in the first place.

You do a disservice to all the honorable veterans on this forum when you claim you are a former US Army Ranger that also is a drug dealer because it goes against all the US Military Servicemen and women's morals and standards.

How have I discredited myself...I joined the Army at a young age, ETS'd, got caught in the street life and am now working a white collar job.

Yes I am calling for them to be relieved of duty...going solely from the article. Going solely from the article the SWAT behaved at best like trigger-happy rookies looking to burn bad guys, and at worst they behaved as judge, jury and EXECUTIONERS.

I love bringing people the real life. The military did instill discipline in me and honor to a certain degree...but it couldn't take care of me forever. Upon entering these cold streets things went bad and I had to go bad...it happens.

When I joined the Army, LOL, you'd be surprised at what some of my brothers had been convicted of! Some were even the "Go to war or Go to jail" subjects! I don't know how strict their background checks are now.

I can never do a disservice to other veterans and active duty, because I've been there, and I can look them in their eye and let them know, that I KNOW, their # stinks same as mine.

You should hear what some of the soldiers serving with me went to prison for WHILE still enlisted! It's why when I hear claims of soldiers doing unspeakable things over in the ME and the people with red, white and blue glasses jump to their defense, I just chuckle. Cause I know my brothers, I know soldiers and how filthy we are LOL!

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

Everyone please. Ive had enough of this guy.

What he wants you to not take into consideration is if this guy was dealing drugs, both the guy in the article and Mr. Wright himself both took the actions to cause the police to get a search warrant on their houses. They broke the law first by dealing drugs. If they were not dealing drugs then the chances of the police accidentally doing a search warrant on their house would be miniscule at best.

Mr. Wright, instead of blaming himself, has put the blame on the police for executing a search warrant on his house. Which is backwards and rediculous.

***Oh and now his friend is on the phone with someone who says something that is supposed to lend credence to his argument.***

Get real. This type of debate is below the standard of a member of ATS.

Get back to debating the facts or this debate is over.

And you were not assaulted by the police for nothing. You were a drug dealer.

I never blamed the police for getting a warrant, that would be part of the game.

I blame the officers for serving that warrant in a sloppy and trigger-happy manner!

So even if the guy was dealing drugs, it doesn't give the police to serve that warrant in such a trigger-happy manner...unless they name themselves as judge, jury and executioner.

I never blamed the police for kicking my door...some dope probably was sold to a informant from there. I never said I was assaulted by the police. I used my personal story to counter the whole concept that they come with lights and sirens blaring.

It's a entirely different thread concerning rather a police should be allowed to arrest persons who sale drugs...

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

In this post, we can see Mr. Wright has provided us with a clear example of the system failing to protect the people of the state of Florida. If he is telling the truth. We have no way to verify his claims.

And the police are the bad guys? Some state you would rather live next to this guy and not a police officer? Someone that would "let it rip" blindly through the walls and does not care if your family is right next door?

Mr. Wright, what if the officer was black? They you would have shot him? What if the robbers were white? They you would have been fooled?

Lets consider the source people. Mr. Wright first attempted to argue with facts. That did not work so now he has degraded to this mess.

Loving it...

I guess you're liberal stating the State of Florida failed to protect its citizens from guys like me? Not one of those people who decry that stuff about "nanny government" and personal responsibility?

I would have let it RIP because no one lived on the side of us or directly across the streets. I'm lying...I would have let it RIP if someone did and it was indeed a robbery!

Don't understand the black and white thing you state...

I've been discussing facts the entire while. It's you who have been sidetracked by my personal account. My facts were:

1. They don't come in lights and horns blaring.
2. They were trigger-happy and excessive upon seeing someone with a gun.
3. They were sloppy and unprofessional for not clearing the home.
4. They are murderers for letting that man bleed out.

Those facts can not be argued...

How did the police deem themselves executioners? If the man was unarmed and was shot then I could see where you could make that argument. The guy had a rifle pointed at them. Its not an execution if the other person has a weapon.

It does not matter if I am liberal or conservative. I am pretty sure anyone on both sides of the spectrum would agree that drug dealers and criminals should not be able to possess firearms.

Unless you lived on a farm in the middle of no where, "letting it rip" with an AK47 puts anyone living near you in danger.

The black and white thing:

Originally posted by areyouserious2010

Mr. Wright, what if the officer was black? Then you would have shot him? What if the robbers were white? Then you would have been fooled?

Was in response to this:

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

I locked my door, grabbed the "bin laden" and was about to let rip when I noticed a voice was white. Me and the guy who ran in the room with me looked at each other and was like, "Maaaann...that's those PEOPLE (police)"

1. No, but there were plenty other ways the police identify themselves during a search warrant.
2. The guy had a rifle and was pointing it at them. How is that sloppy and trigger happy?
3. How is, after confronting someone with a weapon, stopping and holding your position sloppy and unprofessional? They were thinking of the safety of the team and not the suspected drug dealer who just pointed a rifle at them.
4. They did not let the man bleed out. He was hit in the stomach and bled out before the officers knew he was shot.

None of what you listed were facts. They sound more like opinions to me.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010

It does not matter if I am liberal or conservative. I am pretty sure anyone on both sides of the spectrum would agree that drug dealers and criminals should not be able to possess firearms.

Drug dealers are only criminals because the government made it that way.

Once their arbitrary "debt" to society has been paid why shouldnt they be permitted firearm ownership?

If they are to forever be treated as criminals why ever let them out of prison in the first place?

It's an admission the system is broken made by the system itself. Like a cry for help nobody is bothering to hear.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Drug dealers are criminals because the people enacted laws to prohibit drug dealing. California's Proposition 19 was voted down. Meaning voters directly voted yes or no and it failed.

Proposition 19

So no, at least in California, it is not just because the government says its illegal.

Once someone has paid their debt to society, measures are taken to stop those from committing the same acts easily. The recidivism rate of violent criminals and drug offenders is argument enough that if someone chooses to engage in these types of acts in the first place, there is a great chance they will do it again.

Recidivism rates in 2007

So once these people are identified, steps are taken to ensure having access to a firearm is more difficult than walking into a gun store and buying it. In most states, there is a charge for a felon in possession of a firearm as well.

I do not agree with locking someone away forever if they commit any crime, only very serious ones. But with that said, the justice system forgives eventually but never forgets.

There are problems with the system, like giving Mr. Wright his firearm back, but you have listed none of them in your post.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


So mob rule wielding the hand of government is not a problem? How many of your peers or elders or juniors do you trust to dictate the parameters in which you should be permitted to exist? I guess if the answer is "the majority" then you dont have a problem. You feel confident in your ability to know what's best for others as well? That is essential for faith in the mob rule system.

Recidivism rates are indeed high. So why do we keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over....

If you dont think these are problems then that's just a fundamental difference between you and me.

It isn't directly the fault of the SWAT team, they were just doing their job.

The problem is the "War on Drugs" as a whole.

It creates violence and empowers the violent.

It destabilizes society.

Innocent people should not have to fear being a victim of this insane behavior.

I am very upset and sad that this has happened....I did some research on this....and I believe that the Swat team did not knock.....that the man didn't know why they were breaking his door down...and he was protecting his family.

I also believe that they let him die...when he could have been saved.,,,,,as a coverup for one of 3 reasons:

(1) they made a mistake and invaded the wrong house....realized their mistake too late...and tried to cover it up

(2) or...................someone in very high places had some sort of vendetta against this young man...so they attacked...and again tried to cover it up

(3) or....maybe many with the Swat team are associated with a coverup regarding themselves (involving drugs sales and information that maybe the man knew about or did not know about)....and they used him as the fall guy for their coverup. NOTE: (this drug money is used to fund building etc. of underground bases)

A definite law suit is in order....I hope his widow sues them and wins!

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I would not categorize democracy as "mob rule." Everyone gets a vote. It is your responsibility to exercise that vote. The Judicial Branch of government can deem a law unconsititutional even if enacted by popular vote. The Judicial Branch has not ruled the drug laws are unconstitutional.

Look I can see where you are coming from. Everyone makes mistakes. Some mistakes are more serious than others but a person should not be condemned for life for those mistakes (unless heinous enough).

We are both on the same spectrum. We both fight for freedom as well as safety and government accountability which includes the police. We are just each a little further towards opposite ends of the spectrum.

In the end, we are both neither right nor wrong. It is the middle ground between us that should be practiced. And debate such as this is where that middle ground is discovered.

Why not question if they're actually SWAT?

If this really was an assassination, I'd think that they'd be highly trained military soldiers who will never deviate from orders. After all, it's a simple task to put on a uniform.