Originally posted by caladonea
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.
Originally posted by DZAG Wright
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.
Originally posted by just_julie
This is disgusting. What has happened to your country America?
Originally posted by wasco2
Doesn't look like he was an "innocent" civilian murdered by gubbmint storm troopers so much any more:
13-3116. Misconduct involving body armor; classification; definition
A. A person commits misconduct involving body armor by knowingly wearing or otherwise using body armor during the commission of any felony offense.
B. Misconduct involving body armor is a class 4 felony.
C. For purposes of this section, "body armor" means any clothing or equipment designed in whole or in part to minimize the risk of injury from a deadly weapon.
According to the SWAT members’ statements all law enforcement vehicles approaching Guerena’s home had lights and sirens on and parked in the driveway, Storie said.
As I watch this story unfold, I am dismayed at the wild speculation and wholesale disregard for the truth displayed by the Arizona Daily Star. The comments of the "marine's" attorney were especially poignant: "Christopher Scileppi, who is representing the Guerena family, said nothing seized from Guerena’s home was illegal."
While this may be true, let us dissect it from the typical attorney speak used to couch his comments. Nothing illegal! I suggest that a ski mask and a handgun located in the front seat of a car in a bank parking lot is not illegal either. But the act of donning those items and walking into the bank to conduct a robbery is decidedly illegal. Likewise, owning several semi-automatic rifles, ballistic vests, and police uniforms is not illegal just as the attorney stated. Actually, this probably describes many law abiding citizens--namely police officers. But when these items are possessed by a person who is engaging in nefarious activity--specifically home invasion drug rip offs--it becomes a bit of a problem. So while it is true that these items are not illegal, their manner of use was of some consequence in this matter and I find it noteworthy that the legal counsel chose his words in such a manner.
For that matter, where is the outright denial of illegal activity. Alas, there is none. Instead the attorney stated, "That Storie’s statements were unsupported by facts and meant to discredit Guerena’s character." At this point he is relying on the Sheriff's Department's silence as a means to state there are no facts; actually, Storie is relaying the accounts of eyewitnesses--those officers sent to serve the search warrant on this violent criminal's home. That is right. I called him a criminal.
A Superior Court judge issued a search warrant to go into this man's home because of his involvement in illicit activity. These officers were merely the one's called to gain entry because of the illegal activity involved: Violent, armed robberies of other criminals. The accusation that Storie is sullying the deceased reputation is baseless; he is merely stating the facts presented to him which run counter to the Star's--and much of this community's-- depiction of this man as a "local marine hero."
Prior--or even current military service does not make one a saint. Army psychiatrist Nidal M. Hasan murdered how many of his colleagues in a rampage? Was Lee Harvey Oswald a former marine? This man discredited the Marine Corps; how dare his family try to hide behind his military service. He was invovled in criminal activity and he chose his end; he pointed a rifle at a team of police officers. Does it matter if the police fired 1 or 7 or 70rounds? Does it matter if he fired at the police? Yes it does. But if that first officer through the door was your son or daughter, your brother or sister, or even your spouse, would you not agree that they had every right to defend themselves and get out of their alive?
How many rounds would you allow to protect your loved one? How about yourself? Who was breaking the law here? The officers with a search warrant or the man who responded with a loaded rifle trained on several law enforcement officers. Does anyone see the irony in this community? This community was outraged when a man shot two deputies and killed a police officer with a rifle. We lined the streets at the funeral. We mourned and asked, "Why?"
Now a criminal points his rifle at a cop and dies as a result. And this community has a knee-jerk reaction that the police erred!That was a split second--actually seven seconds in which five men were trying everything to save another officer that they believed had been shot. The call for more facts runs counter to the Star's desire for government transparency. The Sheriff's Department released information too soon--and it was wrong. The department reported that the man shot at officers when the investigation later revealed he did not. Now they are being scorned for this error.
Doesn't it make sense that they say, "No more information until it is all collected, checked, and re-checked?" I'd like to know the facts, not a bunch of hunches and conjecture.
And where did this fact that the man was shot 60 ntimes come from? When I first read this "fact" it was a heresay statement from the robber's wife who said the doctor's told her he was shot 60 times. Now it has become a cold hard fact. Has anyone verified that with the autopsy report? Does anyone really think 71 shots fired in 7 seconds hit this guy 60 times? Not a chance. For that matter there are simply too many facts that have not been disclosed to draw the conclusions that this "newspaper" and Mr. Echavarria have reached. Please demonstrate some responsibility and refrain from sensationalizing this story and inflaming the situation any further.
Originally posted by wasco2
There is no way you can verify my account. I'm not going to name the Arizona LEO or where I got in touch with him.