AZ - Jose Guerena Shot 60 Times By SWAT Team

[PappyM3]

I'm sure glad that I met up with an expert on the uniforms of the Mass State Police like you, PappyM3. Maybe you should check things out first before you make a blanket statement about a subject that you are not so well informed.

A little testy are we? Thank you for clearing that up. If you'll re-read my post, I did hint at his uniform being wrong, but I also explicitly asked the questions about why he was wearing said ribbons/medals. I was genuinely curious why he was wearing them. I should not have suggested that he wear the uniform the way it is supposed to be worn. However, instead of the attitude, you could have merely stated the rules and regulations regarding Mass State Trooper uniforms.

As for the "new militarization of the police", I don't really see a militarization of the police. In regards to the original topic of the thread, I understand that eliminating no-knock searches would make LEO's jobs more difficult and would allow some suspects to get free or destroy evidence. However, this is the United States and citizens should be afforded proper notice before search and seizure. Sometimes you just have to accept that some bad guys will slip through the cracks to make sure that innocent citizens are not treated wrong.

 

[inerlogic]

Why does he have a Combat Infantryman Badge and Army ribbons on his uniform? I understand pride in one's service. But he's a State Trooper now, not an Army Infantryman.

i dare you to say that to his face, he'll probably make you drop and knock out 20....
then he'll write you a ticket for having a blown taillight (even though there's nothing wrong with your lights)

Sometimes you just have to accept that some bad guys will slip through the cracks to make sure that innocent citizens are not treated wrong.

no one in this country is innocent... you probably broke 6 laws you didn't know existed before you left the house this morning....

 

[PappyM3]

i dare you to say that to his face, he'll probably make you drop and knock out 20....
then he'll write you a ticket for having a blown taillight (even though there's nothing wrong with your lights)

If he had pulled me over I'd probably ask him where and how he got it, try and share some stories, and ultimately try to schmooze my way out of a ticket If I just saw him on the street, I'd probably ask if it was within regs to wear it.

 

[Madball13]

You obviously know nothing about the uniform regulations of the Massachusetts State Police, (BTW are you a veteran, if you are, you can wear your ribbons or medals on civilian clothing, nothing stopping you) but I digress. Military ribbons and badges are authorized for wear on the MSP blouse and have been since the inception of the Uniform Branch back in the early 1920's. In fact, that is the reason that the badge is worn on the left breast pocket instead of over the pocket, the way many police departments do. This allowed for military ribbons to be worn. Most of the first troopers appointed were WWI veterans and had ribbons to wear. It is part of tradition that goes back decades. Today, the tradition seems to be fading a bit. I know many troopers who are veterans or in the reserve who do not wear their ribbons.

The tradition of wearing military ribbons on police uniforms is one that currently pre-dates the new militarization of the police, in general.

I'm sure glad that I met up with an expert on the uniforms of the Mass State Police like you, PappyM3. Maybe you should check things out first before you make a blanket statement about a subject that you are not so well informed.

Way to treat someone new to the forum with class. Instead of assuming he is being a dick, why not assume he is asking a legitimate question.

 

[joeendris]

...meh, not worth the aggravation

 

[inerlogic]

Joe: right up there with this one:

 

[mark056]

To answer both Madball and Pappy for being "testy" or unkind to a new member. It was not me who so grand-eloquently and authoritatively pronounced:" Wear your current uniform the way it is supposed to be worn. " That sounds rather testy to me.

Now I come from an era where gentility breeds gentility and good manners were the norm but today, alas, we no longer have those little niceties in either written or verbal discourse. In general we respond in kind. Had our new member PappyM3 raised the issue and posited the question: "Why is the Mass State Trooper wearing military ribbons and CIB on his uniform?" He would have received a cordial welcome and a polite answer to his question.

Call me some bad names if you will, personally I like sanctimonious prig but some of you might prefer the word that stats with "d" and ends with "d" ya know it is what it is...but you see it is all about reciprocity...ask nice, you get a nice answer...pretty simple, eh?

 

[bullseye]

OK ENOUGH, Let's bring this back to Jose's murder and what isn't being done about it. If you want start a uniform thread, go start one. This thread has been going for some time, we don't need it locked over MSP uniforms, it's about a Marine who was murdered, remember. Thank you and now back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[drgrant]

OK ENOUGH, Let's bring this back to Jose's murder and what isn't being done about it. If you want start a uniform thread, go start one. This thread has been going for some time, we don't need it locked over MSP uniforms, it's about a Marine who was murdered, remember. Thank you and now back to our regularly scheduled program.

This, please, for the love of god.

-Mike

 

[Jose]

for the "new militarization of the police", I don't really see a militarization of the police.

Then you are willfully blind.

 

[mark056]

Mike,

Maybe it's time to lock this thread. I personally don't think much more can be said about poor Marine Jose that hasn't already been said. Bottom line: the guy is dead, and the police have been exonerated and nothing is going to bring him back...And of course you have to endorse Bullseye's virtuous diatribe.

I guess PappyM3 and I aren't the only ones feeling sanctimonious today...right, Bullseye?

And...no, Bullseye, no one is hijacking the thread, you are merely enhancing a potential derailment or closure. I have nothing more to say on this thread regarding MSP uniforms or the dead Marine, he's dead and not a damn thing is going to bring him back, and the cops are going to get away with it...okay? What more can one say?

 

[drgrant]

Mike,

Maybe it's time to lock this thread. I personally don't think much more can be said about poor Marine Jose that hasn't already been said. Bottom line: the guy is dead, and the police have been exonerated and nothing is going to bring him back...And of course you have to endorse Bullseye's virtuous diatribe.

Then you are free to unsub from it and not post into it, if you don't want to. I'm not closing it just because someone had an internet argument over police uniforms.

I think it is important to keep this thread alive- despite the fact that nothing dramatic has happened recently- If anything, to make people aware of what happened here. This incident has an unprecedented level of LE f**kup written all over it, and if people don't get pissed about this kind of thing, then nothing will change.

Last I heard the family had sued the county (for something like 20 million) and the swat officers involved in the incident, but who knows where that is right now.

-Mike

 

[MichaelJR]

Last I heard the family had sued the county (for something like 20 million) and the swat officers involved in the incident, but who knows where that is right now.

-Mike

If anything, I hope there's a fundraiser for the family to hire shark lawyers and drain that department and town dry to the point that they can't put gas in their cruisers nevermind pay a pension.

 

[PappyM3]

To answer both Madball and Pappy for being "testy" or unkind to a new member. It was not me who so grand-eloquently and authoritatively pronounced:" Wear your current uniform the way it is supposed to be worn. " That sounds rather testy to me.

Now I come from an era where gentility breeds gentility and good manners were the norm but today, alas, we no longer have those little niceties in either written or verbal discourse. In general we respond in kind. Had our new member PappyM3 raised the issue and posited the question: "Why is the Mass State Trooper wearing military ribbons and CIB on his uniform?" He would have received a cordial welcome and a polite answer to his question.

Call me some bad names if you will, personally I like sanctimonious prig but some of you might prefer the word that stats with "d" and ends with "d" ya know it is what it is...but you see it is all about reciprocity...ask nice, you get a nice answer...pretty simple, eh?

I DID raise that question: "What's up with that State Trooper in the picture? Why does he have a Combat Infantryman Badge and Army ribbons on his uniform?"

If you wished to be terse, you could have said something along the lines of "PappyM3, you're out of your lane. State Trooper regs allow...." There was no need for the smug condemnation.

Jose, I don't see APCs and tactical teams to be militarization. Sure, they look scary, but that's it. APCs are invaluable when approaching barracaded suspects. And tactical teams help to eliminate risk to the officers when attempting to arrest said barracaded suspects. That M2 .50 on the top of that one APC is troubling, but it's the first time I've ever seen police with a .50 MG. When police start setting up sectors of fire with machine guns and implementing suppressive fire while executing platoon attacks, then we'll talk about militarization. Just having advantageous tools does not make it military.

Last I heard the family had sued the county (for something like 20 million) and the swat officers involved in the incident, but who knows where that is right now.

Back on track, I really do hope that this family takes the town for everything. I'm not normally a litigious person, but the town needs to be taught a lesson in ensuring police procedures are done properly and safely.

 

[xtry51]

Jose, I don't see APCs and tactical teams to be militarization. Sure, they look scary, but that's it. APCs are invaluable when approaching barracaded suspects. And tactical teams help to eliminate risk to the officers when attempting to arrest said barracaded suspects. That M2 .50 on the top of that one APC is troubling, but it's the first time I've ever seen police with a .50 MG. When police start setting up sectors of fire with machine guns and implementing suppressive fire while executing platoon attacks, then we'll talk about militarization. Just having advantageous tools does not make it military.

If you're going to hang around doing nothing until it reaches that point it will be way too late. That's like saying Jews did the right thing letting Nazis do their thing until the ovens fired up. At that point it is way beyond the point of control. Police should not have APCs period.

Also isn't a SWAT team a platoon attack with automatic weapons that lay down fire?

Have you ever seen what happened at Waco? First they went in with a platoon and a helicopter with a .50 and lit the place up, then They had a ****ing tank. That was not the military that did that.

 

[inerlogic]

[video=youtube_share;Puh6AdmfVms]http://youtu.be/Puh6AdmfVms[/video]

 

[Admin]

A lot of agencies have the hardware available to do just that.

But they are from the government, they are here to help us.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

incidents like this is what cracks me up when liberal anti gun nuts say "only the police should have guns", "What do we have to fear from our government", etc. The sad thing is this isnt an isolated incident. Police are continuing to use escalating levels of force against civilians without accountability for their actions. This is down right scary.

 

[pdm]

incidents like this is what cracks me up when liberal anti gun nuts say "only the police should have guns", "What do we have to fear from our government", etc. The sad thing is this isnt an isolated incident. Police are continuing to use escalating levels of force against civilians without accountability for their actions. This is down right scary.

Those nuts believe that their adherence to those ideas will secure them a place in the Inner Party.

They are wrong.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

Those nuts believe that their adherence to those ideas will secure them a place in the Inner Party.

They are wrong.

personally i just think they are high, drunk, and retarded but your theory works to

 

[inerlogic]

personally i just think they are high, drunk, and retarded but your theory works to

with all the crap going on these days i wish i were high, drunk and retarded, then i wouldn't care.......

 

[SteelShooter]

I don't know how many times I have read the story and watched different videos about this, each time it turns my stomach more and more.

 

[PappyM3]

If you're going to hang around doing nothing until it reaches that point it will be way too late. That's like saying Jews did the right thing letting Nazis do their thing until the ovens fired up. At that point it is way beyond the point of control. Police should not have APCs period.

Also isn't a SWAT team a platoon attack with automatic weapons that lay down fire?

Nope. A platoon attack would involve them having a team just mowing down the area near the barracaded suspects with heavy suppressive fire. They would then continue to fire, but shift fire as other members approached and cleared the area. I don't see police shooting up neighborhoods willy-nilly with belt feds.

APCs are not inherently offensive. I am personally fine with a police department using an APC to approach an aggressive and barracaded suspect. If that armored vehicle means that a man who has volunteered to serve his community gets to go home to his family that night, then I'm okay with it. Police should not have belt fed machine guns or anything like that, but an armored vehicle by itself is only there to protect the policemen. Just like their individual soft armor and plates. I guess I just don't understand what the objection is to a weaponless APC. Is it the tracks or is it the fact that it's armored?

Waco was a very unique cluster****.

I don't know how many times I have read the story and watched different videos about this, each time it turns my stomach more and more.

Me too. I think it hits me so hard because I can imagine myself in this man's situation. Unknown individuals coming into your house so you try to defend your family.

 

[william_munny]

Waco was a very unique cluster****.

Would you say it was an isolated incident?

 

[PappyM3]

Would you say it was an isolated incident?

For an incident on its scale, yes. Sure, there have been many incidents where police(local, state, federal, whatever) have messed up when trying to search a home, arrest someone, or conduct a hostage rescue. That's just going to be a fact of life. Nobody's perfect. And sure, some procedures need to be looked at and some need to be changed. But Waco is the only situation I know of where I might say that militarization took place. The incident that is the topic of this thread was not a militarization issue. It was a horrible misunderstanding and mistake on the part of the police. And it highlights one of the procedures that needs to be looked at. But it wasn't because the police were militaristic.

 

[william_munny]

For an incident on its scale, yes. Sure, there have been many incidents where police(local, state, federal, whatever) have messed up when trying to search a home, arrest someone, or conduct a hostage rescue. That's just going to be a fact of life. Nobody's perfect. And sure, some procedures need to be looked at and some need to be changed. But Waco is the only situation I know of where I might say that militarization took place. The incident that is the topic of this thread was not a militarization issue. It was a horrible misunderstanding and mistake on the part of the police. And it highlights one of the procedures that needs to be looked at. But it wasn't because the police were militaristic.

I'd say it was manslaughter (at best) on the part of the police, considering they had no justifiable reason to even enter the house in the manner that they did, which led to them opening fire on a man who thought he was defending his family.

Speaking of, how do you feel about no-knock warrants?

 

[xtry51]

For an incident on its scale, yes. Sure, there have been many incidents where police(local, state, federal, whatever) have messed up when trying to search a home, arrest someone, or conduct a hostage rescue. That's just going to be a fact of life. Nobody's perfect. And sure, some procedures need to be looked at and some need to be changed. But Waco is the only situation I know of where I might say that militarization took place. The incident that is the topic of this thread was not a militarization issue. It was a horrible misunderstanding and mistake on the part of the police. And it highlights one of the procedures that needs to be looked at. But it wasn't because the police were militaristic.

Wow. If you don't consider a squad of people wearing armor and carrying rifles to kick down a door where no crime is being committed militarization, I'm 100% positive I don't want to wait around to see what you will put up with.

 

[PappyM3]

Speaking of, how do you feel about no-knock warrants?

I've mentioned it a few times so far. However, I think it's a horrible procedure that should be banned from use. Stopping the use might let some criminals slip through the cracks and let some destroy evidence, but that's a small price to minimize harm to regular citizens. Citizens should be properly notified before any search or seizure.

 

[xtry51]

I've mentioned it a few times so far. However, I think it's a horrible procedure that should be banned from use. Stopping the use might let some criminals slip through the cracks and let some destroy evidence, but that's a small price to minimize harm to regular citizens. Citizens should be properly notified before any search or seizure.

So it's ok to use SWAT as long as they call you first? Really?

 

[PappyM3]

Wow. If you don't consider a squad of people wearing armor and carrying rifles to kick down a door where no crime is being committed I'm 100% positive I don't want to wait around to see what you will put up with.

Police shouldn't be allowed to wear armor? And what's wrong with rifles? It's a tool. Fear of police tactical units having rifles is very similar to the fear that anti-gunners have of regular citizens having those EVIL assault weapons.

So it's ok to use SWAT as long as they call you first? Really?

Umm... yes. Before entering the home, the police should notify the occupants in a way that the occupants are sure to hear. That would prevent some poor guy from getting killed for trying to defend his family. Ideally, SWAT should only be used on suspects that are known to be armed and dangerous. But bare minimum, the police should notify occupants of a dwelling that they are about to enter... and not miliseconds before they kick down the door.