IGX

This is from Arizona Daily Star reporter Fernanda Echavarri's effort to piece together the death of Jose Guerena, 26, at the hands of a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team. Guerena, who joined the Marines in 2002 and served two tours in Iraq, was killed just after 9 a.m. May 5. Guerera had just gone to bed after working a 12-hour shift at a local mine when his home was invaded as part of a multi-house crackdown by sheriff's deputies.

Like enemy of the state Osama bin Laden, Guerena died with his wife close by. Widow Vanessa Guerena, who hid with her four-year-old son when sheriff's deputies raided the home, fills in detail that has been slow to come from Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik’s office:

"When I came out the officers dragged me through the kitchen and took me outside, and that's when I saw him laying there gasping for air," Vanessa Guerena said. "I kept begging the officers to call an ambulance that maybe he could make it and that my baby was still inside."

The little boy soon after walked out of the closet on his own. SWAT members took him outside to be with his mother.

"I never imagined I would lose him like that, he was badly injured but I never thought he could be killed by police after he served his country," Vanessa Guerena said.

The family's 5-year-old son was at school that morning and deputies say they thought Guerena's wife and his other child would also be gone when they entered the home.

Guerena says there were no drugs in their house.

Deputies said they seized a "large sum of money from another house" that morning. But they refused to say from which of the homes searched that morning they found narcotics, drug ledgers or drug paraphernalia. Court documents showing what was being sought and was found have not been made public. A computer check on Guerena revealed a couple of traffic tickets and no criminal history.

Tucson KGUN’s Joel Waldman says the SWAT team prevented paramedics from going to work on Guerena for one hour and fourteen minutes.

The sheriff’s department maintains that Guerena was holding an AR-15 when the paramilitary force fired 71 bullets in his home, but other key parts of the government story have collapsed. While PCSD initially claimed Guerena fired the weapon he was alleged to have been holding, the department now says it was a misfire by one of the deputies that caused this deadly group panic inside a home containing a woman and a toddler:

A deputy's bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield. That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot, [PCSD spokesman Michael] O'Connor said.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/16/marin ... tours-in-i

tough old man wrote:Todays follow up
http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/20/sheri ... guerena-li

Dux wrote: ... the SWAT team prevented paramedics from going to work on Guerena for one hour and fourteen minutes.

Dux wrote: A deputy's bullet struck the side of the doorway, causing chips of wood to fall on his shield. That prompted some members of the team to think the deputy had been shot

Being a Frenchman I'd have expected the most nuanced of the the three.

It was either Patrick Henry or Rooster Cogburn who observed that states and railroads will lie to you quicker than a man will. While the sheriff has been quiet about the case’s details (including the dispatcher’s apparent confusion over the raid during Vanessa Guerena’s 911 call), Storie’s claims are almost perfect examples of lawyerly pettifogging. Having a picture of a “narco saint” is evidence of nothing; in 1975, my wife’s grandmother was killed by one Lebanese militia because while raiding her home they found a magazine published by a rival militia. Finding a uniform in a private residence was one of the KGB’s favorite pieces of flimflammery when they wanted to arrest somebody. Possession of firearms is, for the time being, legal in the United States, and the fact that Guerena had an AR-15 has been part of this narrative since the beginning.

A computer check on Guerena revealed a couple of traffic tickets

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items. Nor is it wise to take the word of a police department that has had to back away from numerous lies about the shooting.

If the dead guy turns out to be a criminal, so be it. However, I'm not about to celebrate the violation of someones Constitutional rights, just because he was guilty of something. No knock warrants are in my opinion Un-Constitutional.

Take these types of police actions and combine it with the muddle headed thinking of the Indiana Supreme court and what do you get. A police state, where the state can barge into your home with a warrant or without one and you're expected to stand there quietly like some stupid cow. Don't worry, after they rape your rights you can go to court and fight a system that has unlimited funds and will lie to protect their own asses.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items. Nor is it wise to take the word of a police department that has had to back away from numerous lies about the shooting.

If the dead guy turns out to be a criminal, so be it. However, I'm not about to celebrate the violation of someones Constitutional rights, just because he was guilty of something. No knock warrants are in my opinion Un-Constitutional.

Take these types of police actions and combine it with the muddle headed thinking of the Indiana Supreme court and what do you get. A police state, where the state can barge into your home with a warrant or without one and you're expected to stand there quietly like some stupid cow. Don't worry, after they rape your rights you can go to court and fight a system that has unlimited funds and will lie to protect their own asses.

How is a sleeping citizen supposed to know who is invading his home when all he sees are screaming uniformed guys with guns? Is it cops or home invaders? Do you just lie there and hope it's the "good" guys?

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items.

EXACTLY. Because it is legal to own such items, it is impossible to draw any conclusions on what such items might be used for. It's like finding a ski mask, handcuffs, gags, and a hunting knife in the trunk of a car, and concluding that the driver, a rape suspect, might not be as innocent as his family lawyer claims. Those items are all legal, so drawing a conclusion based on their ownership automatically makes the concluder a faggot.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items.

EXACTLY. Because it is legal to own such items, it is impossible to draw any conclusions on what such items might be used for. It's like finding a ski mask, handcuffs, gags, and a hunting knife in the trunk of a car, and concluding that the driver, a rape suspect, might not be as innocent as his family lawyer claims. Those items are all legal, so drawing a conclusion based on their ownership automatically makes the concluder a faggot.

The Unflushable DEATHTURD wrote:Now let's get back to something important-- spells' vehicle was damaged during a storm. It was paid for by insurance, but it's a matter of principle.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items.

EXACTLY. Because it is legal to own such items, it is impossible to draw any conclusions on what such items might be used for. It's like finding a ski mask, handcuffs, gags, and a hunting knife in the trunk of a car, and concluding that the driver, a rape suspect, might not be as innocent as his family lawyer claims. Those items are all legal, so drawing a conclusion based on their ownership automatically makes the concluder a faggot.

As usual you're missing the point. The fact that the dead guy may or may not have been a criminal or if he had items that may or may not have been used in crimes; has no bearing on this discussion.

The police violated his rights by conducting a raid with a no knock warrant. The end does not justify the means. The dead guy can be guilty as hell, but the police still violated his rights.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:I think it's normal for a innocent person mistakenly suspected of drug ripoffs and home invasions to own a police uniform and body armor. Further, joining the USMC is a lifetime vaccination against being a shitbird.

Last time I checked it is wasn't against to law to own either of those items.

EXACTLY. Because it is legal to own such items, it is impossible to draw any conclusions on what such items might be used for. It's like finding a ski mask, handcuffs, gags, and a hunting knife in the trunk of a car, and concluding that the driver, a rape suspect, might not be as innocent as his family lawyer claims. Those items are all legal, so drawing a conclusion based on their ownership automatically makes the concluder a faggot.

As usual you're missing the point. The fact that the dead guy may or may not have been a criminal or if he had items that may or may not have been used in crimes; has no bearing on this discussion.

The police violated his rights by conducting a raid with a no knock warrant. The end does not justify the means. The dead guy can be guilty as hell, but the police still violated his rights.

It's a slow day at the office and I'm fucking with you because shit like this gets you all spun up. No knock warrants are fucked up and lead to abuses like this and this.

That said, this guy being a veteran doesn't mean shit and he's probably guilty, so the media is focused on the wrong thing.

Dux wrote:How you figured that he's probably guilty?

How you figured that he's probably guilty?

While too frequent to be acceptable, SWAT teams usually don't storm the wrong house