AZ - Jose Guerena Shot 60 Times By SWAT Team

[cekim]

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

The real answer is that the only excuse to go in strong is true "exigency," immediate threat to life and limb. Otherwise, issue a summons. If you are there because of a prior summons, then set a spell and wait (obviously a stand-off is a different issue, but there notice was given). If waiting is expensive, then add that to the penalty for failure to appear requiring a warrant and arrest.

We have so perverted this process that we are using swat to do what Sheriffs all over the country used to do with a wrap on the door and two guys (sometimes one). We literally have a case where a door was kicked because a flushing toilet was heard and the courts had no problem with that...

There are 100's of years of common law here that work just fine. This is not Fallujah.

 

[xtry51]

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.



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.

There's a difference between putting on a bullet proof vest and showing up dressed like a Marine in a combat zone. I clearly wasn't talking about a beat cop wearing just a level II or III soft vest.

SWAT teams should not be executing warrants, period. An active reported hostage situation is the only time when a SWAT team is remotely needed.

The issue I was alluding to with the rifles isnt that cops have them, it's that they show up at your house in large trigger happy groups.

 

[bullseye]

There's a difference between putting on a bullet proof vest and showing up dressed like a Marine in a combat zone. I clearly wasn't talking about a beat cop wearing just a level II or III soft vest.

SWAT teams should not be executing warrants, period. An active reported hostage situation is the only time when a SWAT team is remotely needed.

The issue I was alluding to with the rifles isn't that cops have them, it's that they show up at your house in large trigger happy groups.

And kill your dogs, cats too, but they are faster than a dog and we really don't hear of swat shooting cats. Swat needs to be on a leash and only let go when all else has failed.

 

[GunGrey]

I honestly see no reason for there to be swat teams, not in big cities and not in urban/suburban towns. For the police to act like a military force is unacceptable .

Now im not saying they shouldnt be equipped with up to date equipment, but its has gone far far from a "Protect and Serve mentality" to a "Law ENFORCEMENT mentality".

 

[william_munny]

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.

The issue isn't really whether or not they should have these items, but when they are used. Some years ago, my cousins' house was raided because their band practices in their basement and their drummer sold pot to a kid who was a narc conducting a controlled buy. They were high schoolers, mind you. All of them. The Worcester county drug task force raided their house in full gear with machine guns over a high school kid who had an ounce of pot. The war on drugs has gone full retard, and I'm very grateful that no one in my family ended up like Jose, because that was a very real possibility.

Police departments the nation over have already proven they can't have those kinds of muscles without flexing them at the most idiotic of times, and something really needs to be done to curb this shit before more people get hurt. Yet a father is killed in the presence of his family and all we have to show for it is a civil suit that will probably be settled secretly out of court. When is a public example going to be made? I'm getting really tired of waiting.

 

[Jose]

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.

Are you for real?

Are you an MSP plant?

 

[Jose]

Police shouldn't be allowed to wear armor?

Correct

 

[GunGrey]

I smell a troll

 

[namedpipes]

.

 

[pdm]

I smell a troll

Not necessarily.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

No Knock warrants are B.S. I have to agree with previous posters the SWAT team should only be used as an absolute last resort, I.E. Hostage situation, standoff, etc. The Govt will never learn, what do they care about innocent civilians getting killed.

 

[Terminator03]

This is a very sticky debate for sure, because on one hand, none of us feel that the current trend of militarization is warranted, but we also have to look at this from our own viewpoint of discrimination. We are always up in arms when politicians, and the general public cry for the banning of our beloved "assault weapons", but then some of us turn around and say the same thing about the police. To me this is silly because it's the same type of argument that the antis use saying "who needs those type of guns". It is a very slippery slope. Same goes with body armor. Why is anyone ON THIS SITE of all places even remotely opposed to that, and why? If I was a LEO entering the home of almost any member of this site I sure as hell would be wearing body armor, and a kevlar helmet! Same goes with APCs, why is this a problem? Once again, it is simply another level of protecting the lives of the officers. Should it be used in a situation where someone is a "dealer" with an ounce of pot? No way, but then do you ever know what you are going to face when you kick someone's door down? I guess I'm a bit confused because this whole debate seems really contrary to what this site stands for (or my understanding of that). Maybe it's just that the rules should ONLY apply to us, but no one else? Maybe we would be ok if the body armor and attire were blue, instead of tactical black, or desert camo?

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

This is a very sticky debate for sure, because on one hand, none of us feel that the current trend of militarization is warranted, but we also have to look at this from our own viewpoint of discrimination. We are always up in arms when politicians, and the general public cry for the banning of our beloved "assault weapons", but then some of us turn around and say the same thing about the police. To me this is silly because it's the same type of argument that the antis use saying "who needs those type of guns". It is a very slippery slope. Same goes with body armor. Why is anyone ON THIS SITE of all places even remotely opposed to that, and why? If I was a LEO entering the home of almost any member of this site I sure as hell would be wearing body armor, and a kevlar helmet! Same goes with APCs, why is this a problem? Once again, it is simply another level of protecting the lives of the officers. Should it be used in a situation where someone is a "dealer" with an ounce of pot? No way, but then do you ever know what you are going to face when you kick someone's door down? I guess I'm a bit confused because this whole debate seems really contrary to what this site stands for (or my understanding of that). Maybe it's just that the rules should ONLY apply to us, but no one else? Maybe we would be ok if the body armor and attire were blue, instead of tactical black, or desert camo?

me personally i have no issue with police using AR variants or MP-5s, the same with an APC if they wanna use one as a command vehicle whatever, now if they wanna use one to enter a building while mounting an M2 on the top i think thats a bit rediculous. Are there situations that might call for one.....maybe.

 

[PappyM3]

You don't have to look to other states or the past. Just last year in Framingham, a similar teenager was selling pot at the gas station down the street. SWAT raided the house, shot and killed the step father (who was at the time face down on the floor with his hands behind his back). The kid they were after, I understand, wasn't even home. Framingham does have an APC of some some sort, btw. Why?

That terrible situation could have happened with regular LEOs as well. It proves that certain policies need to be looked into rather than basic equipment.

I smell a troll

If the troll thing was directed at me, I am definitely not a troll. Nor am I a "police plant". I am a regular citizen that owns and carries firearms. Sure, there are a*hole cops out there. But a large majority are just other members of the community trying to do their part to keep the community safe. I understand not agreeing with certain policies. And I understand wanting SWAT only for emergency hostage/standoff call-outs. However, the overall anti-police fervor on this site is a little shocking.

This is a very sticky debate for sure, because on one hand, none of us feel that the current trend of militarization is warranted, but we also have to look at this from our own viewpoint of discrimination. We are always up in arms when politicians, and the general public cry for the banning of our beloved "assault weapons", but then some of us turn around and say the same thing about the police. To me this is silly because it's the same type of argument that the antis use saying "who needs those type of guns". It is a very slippery slope. Same goes with body armor. Why is anyone ON THIS SITE of all places even remotely opposed to that, and why? If I was a LEO entering the home of almost any member of this site I sure as hell would be wearing body armor, and a kevlar helmet! Same goes with APCs, why is this a problem? Once again, it is simply another level of protecting the lives of the officers. Should it be used in a situation where someone is a "dealer" with an ounce of pot? No way, but then do you ever know what you are going to face when you kick someone's door down? I guess I'm a bit confused because this whole debate seems really contrary to what this site stands for (or my understanding of that). Maybe it's just that the rules should ONLY apply to us, but no one else? Maybe we would be ok if the body armor and attire were blue, instead of tactical black, or desert camo?

Thank you. The fact that people don't want police to be able to wear armor is troubling. I see absolutely no posible reason to want that, other than wanting to be able to kill police officers. The thought is nauseating. And what is the difference between thinking level II or III armor is okay but level IV is not? I fail to grasp that. Rifles are not uncommon, so why not protect against them?

me personally i have no issue with police using AR variants or MP-5s, the same with an APC if they wanna use one as a command vehicle whatever, now if they wanna use one to enter a building while mounting an M2 on the top i think thats a bit rediculous. Are there situations that might call for one.....maybe.

Yup, pretty much. Though, I can see using the APC as mobile cover so that the officers can safely approach a building. I can think of very few situations that would warrant using an APC as a dynamic breaching tool.

 

[Nicole]

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.[\QUOTE]

While specific tools and tactics can be clues, they do not militarization make. Otherwise, the armies of the 1700s would not be considered martial in nature using your examples.

 

[xtry51]

The fact that people don't want police to be able to wear armor is troubling. I see absolutely no posible reason to want that, other than wanting to be able to kill police officers. The thought is nauseating. And what is the difference between thinking level II or III armor is okay but level IV is not? I fail to grasp that. Rifles are not uncommon, so why not protect against them?

So what you're saying is you're completely ok with Cops actually walking around like Marines in gear that we paid for, with ROE that are FAR more linient that our actual troops have when dealing with citizens in foreign countries? I'm not seeing where you actually draw the line. In fact it appears you don't have one.

 

[drgrant]

This is a very sticky debate for sure, because on one hand, none of us feel that the current trend of militarization is warranted, but we also have to look at this from our own viewpoint of discrimination. We are always up in arms when politicians, and the general public cry for the banning of our beloved "assault weapons", but then some of us turn around and say the same thing about the police. To me this is silly because it's the same type of argument that the antis use saying "who needs those type of guns". It is a very slippery slope. Same goes with body armor. Why is anyone ON THIS SITE of all places even remotely opposed to that, and why?

I don't have a problem with the cops having body armor, machine guns, or armored personnel carriers, with a few of provisios:

-There should be NO LAWS barring me from obtaining exactly what they have, as a free citizen.

-I still get to tell them to **** off as a Taxpayer for wasting my tax money if I think their spending is exhorbitant. I think you will find that this is where a LOT of the objection comes from. Most cities and towns, and even counties simply DO NOT NEED a heavily formalized SWAT team.

-One fundamental thing you are forgetting- These agencies are supposed WORK AT THE BEHEST OF THE CITIZEN. If the citizens don't want their police looking like jackbooted thugs or the military, I'm trying hard to find the fault in that. The citizens are ultimately the boss of these people- if we tell them they have to wear pink camo, they should wear pink camo. If they don't like it they can quit and stop sucking off the trough.

If I was a LEO entering the home of almost any member of this site I sure as hell would be wearing body armor, and a kevlar helmet!

This begs the question, why would you be entering one of our homes, exactly? For some bulls**t malum prohibitum reason like they made up for Jose? The fundamental problem is we now live in a country where the authorities come up with the thinnest of excuses to justify invading someone's home. The way I look at it there'd better be a message from a kidnapped kid, a terrorist bomb factory, or a hostage situation inside a building to warrant a "no knock" type of response. Someone "possibly maybe" having drugs does not rise to the level of exigency required to justify putting people's lives at risk. It's pure bulls**t. Think about it for a minute- you're going to smash down someones door, with a dozen guys armed with rifles, because he possibly maybe might have a plant or a chemical inside his house that the government doesn't like?

Same goes with APCs, why is this a problem? Once again, it is simply another level of protecting the lives of the officers.

Bulls**t. They are a HUGE waste of taxpayer money, and rarely if ever get used for anything other than pomp and circumstance. There are probably less incidents in the country yearly that you can count on one hand, even in a big city where an APC would have been useful for anything. As a taxpayer I would rather have my town/city have something like an extra fire truck or something that might actually get used, instead of the law enforcement equivalent of a gigantic sex toy. Hell, even some of the other garbage that PDs buy (like boats) are potentially way more useful than an APC or armored car is. I talked to one LEO from an MA town, that got an APC a few years ago.... that shall remain nameless, and he basically told me that he was ashamed that the department even owned the thing, that it's presence in their lot made the town look bad. It's a symbol of unchecked waste. Further, why the **** are towns buying APCs when in any given state like half the LEOs serving there can't even handle a handgun competently? Where do you think the money is going to be better spent... training that will keep a LEO alive on the things that they are likely to encounter - or a rolling tactical dildo that basically will serve no purpose whatsoever? (except to make the average citizen/taxpayer thinking that they've been taken to the cleaners AND that they live in a police state.... )

-Mike

 

[PappyM3]

So what you're saying is you're completely ok with Cops actually walking around like Marines in gear that we paid for, with ROE that are FAR more linient that our actual troops have when dealing with citizens in foreign countries? I'm not seeing where you actually draw the line. In fact it appears you don't have one.

Having actually deployed during various stages of ROE changes, all the way up to the strict ROE under the SOFA agreement, I can say that I've never seen or heard of an LEA having ROEs more lenient than the military ROEs.

As for "walking around like Marines", I don't see that. SWAT teams have body armor and carbines, but they are not walking the streets. They have specific call-outs. LEOs walking around look like regular LEOs to me. They walk around singularly or in pairs, not in fireteams or squads. Again, only in specific call-outs. They don't patrol the streets in armored vehicles with machine guns. They only have maybe one armored vehicle that shows up for specific call-outs. And I don't see the SWAT teams walking around with fragmentation grenades, thermite grenades, SAWs, M240Bs, 60mm mortars, HEDP rounds loaded into grenade launchers...

Most cities and towns, and even counties simply DO NOT NEED a heavily formalized SWAT team.

This is true. And most towns only have part time SWAT teams where the officers themselves put up their money for armor and train on their own time in addition to their regular LEO duties.

Bulls**t. They are a HUGE waste of taxpayer money,

LEAs are able to purchase retired federal vehicles at a nicely discounted rate.

 

[william_munny]

I was going to try and respond, but I'll never be able to top what drgrant wrote. Well said, Mike!

 

[namedpipes]

.

 

[drgrant]

The point is, if you were wondering, basic equipment DOES alter the state of mind of the operator.

I don't think it is the gear so much as the mentality and mindset of the people behind the gear and the "mission statements" etc.

We have stuff like "the WAR on drugs" going on, and the narco enforcement types are groomed by their trainers and superiors to believe that they are "soldiers" in this "war" instead of police officers working among and for the public.

The gear doesn't cause the behavior, but it does play into and validate it in a small way. EG- "Ok everyone we're having a WAR on drugs!! ZOMG!". Now we're giving you this TANK, some BDUs to wear, Balaclavas, etc so you guys can all pretend you are Chuck Norris invading some foreign terrorist cell- because drugs will cause the next 9-11. "

Next thing you know every drug warrant served on a house, regardless of merit or lack of solid intelligence, involves a stack of heavily armed guys, and a huge number of the warrants are based on flimsy evidence. Then you end up with stuff like Jose getting killed, and the Columbia MO swat raids where the cops invade his house and some guy's CAGED dog gets shot, all because some wonky CI told the police he was a drug dealer. I think they managed to find a pipe and a small amount of weed, but nothing to really indicate the guy was a dealer... I feel so much safer now. Are people really going " Oh please, Save me, from all the pot smokers! I don't care how many dogs you have to kill, or how many innocent people you have to point a loaded gun at to do this! It must be done!!!!" ?

-Mike

 

[PappyM3]

When I go to the range with a Ruger 10/22, a couple 10 round mags and a .32 pistol for plinking, my "mood" is light and easy, plinkin' time. Pop some donuts and toss a couple hundred .22 rounds downrange.

Now if instead I bring a 91/30 or my HK91 and say, the .357 or a bad ass 1911, I feel more powerful. I'm looking to punish the targets, not place my shots and score my paper.

I don't own an AR15 or a .50, but I've had the pleasure to try other people's rifles and I have to say, the phrase "fifty caliber smile" is based on truth. I don't want to punish the target anymore, I want to see that bowling pin EXPLODE when the .50 hits it.

OE Jack kindly let me shoot a couple of his guns at a shoot. Dumping a 50 round drum of .45 from a Tommy Gun is awesome. Pulling the trigger on a MA Deuce (Thank you Adam!) is even better. I feel invincible!

I can only imagine what dressing up in body armor, helmet and running a minigun from my very own tank would do to my state of mind. Robocop, start running NOW 'cause your tin ass is grass.

That is how you felt as a casual, recreational shooter. Professionals that use various firearms everyday as tools of their trade have a different mindset. Until you've been in both situations, you're out of your lane there. Yes, a SWAT team with plate carriers and AR15s is going to feel more comfortable going into an unknown situation than a normal patrol officer with a pistol by himself or with a partner. The team is prepared with proper tools and know they have teamates that can cover more sectors. That doesn't mean they'll be amped up to "punish" anything.

I agree about tactical teams being employed less and LEOs in general needing to think of their discretionary powers.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

It is a shame this thread is being jammed up by this police state apologist nonsense. I really hope it does not get locked, it serves a great purpose when it is bumped. It takes me back down a few notches when I am comfy and staring at the tv like a zombie.

 

[namedpipes]

.

 

[June4th]

Guns/equipments don't make people kill. People kill. Isn't this what we gun owners always say?

I would object local peace officers upgrade to paramilitary level on the basis that I'm the taxpayer that pays for all these (even for fed grants), and on the basis that I, a lawful citizen, ought to be able to keep up with the arms race with my OWN money.

 

[PappyM3]

Bull pucky.

You're going to believe what you want to believe, but you have zero first hand experience in the matter of using firearms as tools of a trade. There's nothing superhuman about it.

...because our LE are too well trained to get overexcited at wearing their battle equipment and shooting stuff up.

We weren't there that night. But I'm willing to bet that they didn't shoot Jose because they were overexcited. I'm betting they shot him because he pointed his gun at them. A tragic misunderstanding that could have been avoided with proper announcing procedures by the police. But that doesn't mean it went down because they were overexcited.

And dozens of innocent victims of LE errors over the past 20 years is actually a smaller percentage than I thought. Considering the population of our nation, that's really quite low. I'm not defending it, and the low numbers doesn't make it right. Just 1 innocent victim is 1 too many. But if this were truly a militarized police state that number would be MUCH MUCH higher.

Anyway, I've tried to make my points logically. I'm out of this thread until relevent news about Jose's family or that LEA comes up.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

You're going to believe what you want to believe, but you have zero first hand experience in the matter of using firearms as tools of a trade. There's nothing superhuman about it.


We weren't there that night. But I'm willing to bet that they didn't shoot Jose because they were overexcited. I'm betting they shot him because he pointed his gun at them. A tragic misunderstanding that could have been avoided with proper announcing procedures by the police. But that doesn't mean it went down because they were overexcited.

And dozens of innocent victims of LE errors over the past 20 years is actually a smaller percentage than I thought. Considering the population of our nation, that's really quite low. I'm not defending it, and the low numbers doesn't make it right. Just 1 innocent victim is 1 too many. But if this were truly a militarized police state that number would be MUCH MUCH higher.

Anyway, I've tried to make my points logically. I'm out of this thread until relevent news about Jose's family or that LEA comes up.

maybe the amount of people been killed isnt high compared to the population but the fact is this incident could of easily happened to anyone on this forum. Your door breaks in your prob not assuming its the police. If he did point his gun at police its prob because he didnt know it was the police. Its rediculous the police are willing to trade lives for the possibility of avoiding evidence being destroyed. Are our lives worth that little to the govt and police? If that is indeed the case then we have more pressing issues then no knock warrants.

 

[namedpipes]

.

 

[Twigg]

Some people choose willful ignorance, it makes things much easier for them to comprehend.

 

[Terminator03]

There's so much fail in this post I don't even know where to start. I'll try and come back with a calm, rational point by point answer later this afternoon after I get done picking up all the pieces of my head.

I'm waiting to hear your version of why there is so much fail in what I posted! I was merely pointing out the serious hypocrisy that exists with some of our members, and I guess you would be one of those as well since you feel that my statements are so full of fail. Look, I'm not wanting this country to turn into a militarized police state any more than you do, but some of the responses here sound very much like the moonbats calling us out for our super evil, killy black rifles. That's all I'm trying to point out, so if you can't comprehend that, then the problem is yours.