Right to defend your home?

[elgin111]

more information is being released

There's not much I can add that hasn't been addressed by Sam1911 and 9mm, but more information is being released... including the video shot while the raid was happening. (found on cnn.com)

Interesting points from watching the video... first, it is broad daylight. I think I read somewhere that it was 9a - not the middle of the night. Secondly, sirens are wailing. Third, you can clearly hear the police knock on the door, shout "police, search warrant", and see them stand around waiting. Granted, not a long time, but it wasn't a "no knock".

Just my two cents... but, since I wasn't there, it's not really worth even that amount.

Ed

 

[Bonesinium]

So you are sleeping in your home, you hear a banging on the door, a window break, and some muffled yelling. You grab your AR, and walk out your bedroom door and see a bunch of people with guns. You are then immediately shot 20 times. Your wife calls 911, you are still alive. There is no other people in the house besides your wife and child. The police refuse to allow any medical treatment for over an hour until you are dead, and then still prevent any medical personal on the scene.

It sounds like this guy was dead no matter what he did. As you can see from the video, he was shot almost immediately after they broke down the door. I know if I was sleeping, and awoke to some yelling and my door being kicked in, I would emerge from my room pointing my gun in that direction. Because there is no way I would have heard what they said if I was asleep.

If you forget how the initial incident went down, say it was all valid and everything was done right, just for the sake of the argument. If they truly didn't allow medical treatment, for what appears to be, ever, that seems to me like they wanted him to die. I can't really see how you could justify letting someone, criminal or not, lay there shot for over an hour, with medical personal there, and not treat him at all. That might as well be murder...

 

[9mmepiphany]

The threat that initiated the firefight was police invading a sleeping citizens home in the middle of the night

Quite frankly, though, breaking and entering at night...these no-knock raids

the break in to Jose Guereña’s house by a un announced SWAT team

As has been posted before and now substantiated on the helmet cam footage:
1. this entry occurred during the day...not at night
2. the officers knocked loudly, announced who they were and demanded entry...it wasn't a No-Knock entry
3. after knocking, they waited for a response before forcing entry
4. they did not enter and immediately begin shooting, several members had enter before the first shot is heard

 

[hermannr]

Just another reason that a drug problem should be addressed as a medical problem, not a criminal problem.

Most of our firearm, gang related problems had to do with "prohibitions" that had no reason to exist other than one group of people, feeling "holier than thou" trying to impose their will on another group of people.

Think of all the late night raid "no knock" warrants you have heard of...how many were not because of some "prohibition" (that is drug, or in the 30's alcohol). Why do they want a "no knock" warrant? because the "evidence" can be flushed down the toilet and they might not get their conviction.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I can't really see how you could justify letting someone, criminal or not, lay there shot for over an hour, with medical personal there, and not treat him at all.

Medical personnel never go in before the house is secured. Since they believed that the victim was part of a home invasion gang, it would not be unreasonable to believe that there might be other shooters in the home. Given that he said, "I have something for you", I'd be concerned about IEDs or other trip devices...these are fairly common as criminals become more aware that they are subject to attacks

 

[Sam1911]

More information comes to light: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_ffd3cd6b-6564-59a9-8b43-a1635ae66bd4.html

So what does it appear that we now know?

The most recent information seems to suggest that:
The police did not go to the wrong house.
The police announced their presence and reason for being there before entering.
The police did not arrive in the middle of the night.
The police appear to have been confronted by the deceased who was armed with a rifle.
The officers shot and retreated for their own safety. (Why so many shots? A huge number of police and self-defense shootings end whenever the ammo runs out. That's just human nature in such stressful situations.)
The time lag appears to have been due to officers needing to ensure that no further hostile suspects remained in the structure for their safety and that of medical personnel -- which need does trump the desire to offer medical assistance to someone injured while appearing to resist arrest/search.

And...

The warrant covered four residences owned and inhabited by Guerena's family, who do indeed appear to have given authorities plenty of reasonable suspicion that they were involved in narcotics, making the warrant appear entirely lawful and reasonable.

This last item, ties in well with my comment from posts 10 and 29. Jose Guerena may have been utterly innocent of any involvement whatsoever in drug use or trafficking. But the alleged, or apparent actions and involvements of his relatives lead directly to his home being listed on a search warrant, and him facing a SWAT entry team, unfortunately over the sights of his rifle.

Let me state clearly that I'm not championing the law enforcement officers' actions. The investigation is probably far from over, and more information will almost surely come to light. But this is a far cry from the outraged questions presented in post 1 and many others throughout the thread.

Like the old game of "telephone" back in elementary school, we hear a little of a story and begin to repeat it amongst oursleves and the story grows and changes to become something we need to be up-in-arms over. We like to be outraged and kick back against oppression. It feels good (it does to me, too). But we certainly don't do ourselves any favors when we don't scrupulously understand the facts before we vent our outrage.

 

[zeos]

here is video from the incident

at least the bloggers were wrong about the no knock part, but I can't hear any shots before the swat starts shooting and there is no explanation why paramedics were not allowed to treat the victim. At one point they talk about not going back in because he may still be a threat; well excuse the heck out of me but is it not your <edit> job to confront threats? if he was still a threat they could have shot him 60 more times and if he wasn't they could have sent in the paramedics.

 

[9mmepiphany]

This is often the misconception between duty to confront and contain.

You'll also note in the tape and the commentary that the sirens were clearly on (wife says they weren't) before initial entry and that it took almost half and hour before they were able to evacuate anyone willing to come out of the house (to avoid innocents being in the line of fire). It is a bit hard to imagine a mother leaving her 3 year old in the house alone.

Sending in the robot was much safer than possibly engaging someone laying in wait for them to enter

 

[hobodemon]

Back on topic: Defending your home.
In my homestate of KY, you have a right to assume that if someone is knocking at your door in a rude manner at an inconvenient hour they are attempting to enter unlawfully and you may shoot that person through the door without looking at them. Now, my front door is made of glass, so unless that person was my ex-roommate (currently serving time for burglary, that's why we're no longer on speaking terms), I'll probably see what they want.
Back off topic: Announcing a raid.
The cops in the video blasted a siren and shouted "police warrant etc" for 8 seconds before entering, and on the video it doesn't even sound like they were shouting very loud. The siren itself could easily have been mistaken for a car alarm. We'll never know if the ex-Marine inside realized they were cops or not in the last few seconds of his life, all we know is that when he was shot his weapon was on SAFE.
Now, how many ex-Marines do you know who use mechanical safeties in lieu of the one between their ears?

 

[hirundo82]

Medical personnel never go in before the house is secured. Since they believed that the victim was part of a home invasion gang, it would not be unreasonable to believe that there might be other shooters in the home.

If it took the SWAT team over an hour to secure the scene and make sure there were no more shooters, there is a need for some serious retraining.

Plus, what major metropolitan SWAT team doesn't have a medic? Their website even mentions it:

The SWAT program is composed of several distinct elements: Tactical, Negotiations, EOD, Canine, and Tactical Emergency Medical Support (TEMS).

 

[zeos]

Sending in the robot was much safer than possibly engaging someone laying in wait for them to enter

regardless of whether he was the pot dealer they thought he was or just a hard working veteran like the wife and blogs say, he still had a right some medical attention. by some reports the guy had 60 bullets in him, your saying they couldn't subdue someone they shot 60 times without the help of a robot. instead they stood around for an hour while the only eyewitness to their mistakes died.

that fact alone smacks of that old saw about nyc bus drivers being told that if they hit someone backup and make sure they kill them.

 

[Sam1911]

he still had a right some medical attention.

Plus, what major metropolitan SWAT team doesn't have a medic?

Yes, but if the officers haven't finished checking every room for accomplices/others who may be lying in wait to ambush them when they re-enter the building, it isn't reasonable to expect them to send in the paramedics to catch the next volley of bullets.

Using an exploratory robot as they did makes a lot of sense for officer safety, and probably even in preventing further injury or death to anyone inside. The fact that it takes a lot longer to stage and send in that machine than it does to send a squad (back) in to clear the structure is an unfortunate reality.

 

[merlinfire]

Something needs to change in political and legal channels here. Its true that in the microcosm, defending yourself against a state-sponsored home invasion will simply end your life and in the eyes of some vindicate the use of force.

But in the political channels and legal channels something needs to change. This is a gross miscarriage of basic justice and human rights, and we are allowing this to happen nationwide, not just AZ. We as Americans need to stand up and DEMAND from our government that no-knock warrants END NOW. Too many innocents have died, and even those upon whom a suspicion was cast, they would never be able to stand trial and be judged by a jury of their peers. This is a violation of their basic civil rights granted by the constitution.

 

[Sam1911]

We as Americans need to stand up and DEMAND from our government that no-knock warrants END NOW.

Holy cow, dude... did you read the last ELEVEN posts? This was NOT a "no-knock" warrant service.

This was a standard felony warrant entry, announced, in the daytime...http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_ffd3cd6b-6564-59a9-8b43-a1635ae66bd4.html

 

[merlinfire]

This was NOT a "no-knock" warrant service.

I'm hearing conflicting reports. I've read in some places that his wife claimed the police did not identify themselves. Its possible they just didn't hear them, maybe.

That still doesn't really explain why its the smart thing to do to ambush a man at home, where his weapons probably are, when they could have just as easily gone to his workplace where he was at every day. But then, I wonder if they'd be able to perform a "criminal forfeiture" of his property if they didn't arrest him at home?

 

[9mmepiphany]

If it took the SWAT team over an hour to secure the scene and make sure there were no more shooters, there is a need for some serious retraining.

your saying they couldn't subdue someone they shot 60 times without the help of a robot. instead they stood around for an hour while the only eyewitness to their mistakes died.

Did you guy not understand the video clip?

The officers withdrew after exchanging gunfire. They called out for anyone inside the residence to come out and it took almost 30 minutes before the wife and child were out of the house. Not knowing how many more possible shooters were inside the house, they sent in the robot. I don't think that is the same as "standing around"

When you exchange gunfire with someone, your first obligation isn't to render aid...that is how a lot of LEO died in the '60s...the first thing you do is secure the area. Then you try to get anyone not involved in the shooting to come out...locally, we would have evacuated the neighboring houses before proceeding also

 

[9mmepiphany]

I'm hearing conflicting reports. I've read in some places that his wife claimed the police did not identify themselves. Its possible they just didn't hear them, maybe.

I'll take from this that you did not watch the video that we have been discussing for the last few post...since post #57

That still doesn't really explain why its the smart thing to do to ambush a man at home, where his weapons probably are, when they could have just as easily gone to his workplace where he was at every day.

It was a Search Warrant, not an Arrest Warrant...it has to be served at the place to be searched

 

[Zoogster]

#3- we have the the right not to be searched without authority of law. the warrant was not legitimate. it didnt meet the law's requirement to state particularly the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized; it was open ended.

No longer true as of a week ago, go to the link provided to the thread created describing the Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution that has determined warrants themselves are no longer needed (as long as officers say the right thing afterwards, "we thought they might be destroying evidence".)
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=593678

That case even involved the wrong house, so right house wrong house, they don't even need to obtain a warrant. Things subsequently found even without a warrant are also admissible as evidence based on that case as well.
While warrants themselves are quite easy to get these days. When was the last time you heard of a judge losing their job because they signed off on a bad warrant? For every judge that wouldn't sign it there is another judge to call up that will, and LEO learn which judges work with them and let them operate more easily rather quickly.


This Supreme Court Decision generally means LEO are only subject to state laws or restrictions on warrants now, federal Constitutional protections no longer apply and search warrants are no longer needed. It also means all evidence obtained is admissible irregardless of whether it was found in a warrantless search without permission.

 

[crossrhodes]

Knock knock...who's there ?

I'm going to have to watch the video. But an hour to secure the place? sorry gents but those of us who have been in the CQB business know that is to long for that situation. Like I stated, I'll have to watch the video to make an educated decision. Like they say...two sides of the story and then the truth.

 

[hermannr]

9mm....there was no "Exchange of fire". The fire was one direction only. The marines AR was never fired. The SWAT team emptied their mags into someone who wasn't even awake.

This wasn't an "arrest" it was an execution. I, for one, have a real problem with what happened.

A while after I came back to the US from Vietnam, I was assigned to Fort Benning, GA. Unknown to me, we rented a place that was closer to the artillery impact range than the firing range.

One night they were doing a night fire, and the artillery rounds went wizzing through the air way to close to our house then I was prepared for. My wife said I came three feet off the bed yelling incoming and then crashed into the wall full tilt. (headed for the bunker in my mind). I have no way to know what this poor guy felt, or thought, but I do know what happened to me.

I have said it before and I will say it again..."no knock" warrants are totally un-necessary, and can cause considerable unintended problems. Death in this case. I would rather have 10 "possible" criminals free than one innocent man dead. Waiting "seconds" is not enough time for anyone to respond to a knock on the door, let alone someone that is asleep, it might of well have been a no knock..

 

[Twiki357]

According to the latest news reports, the warrants were issued based on a tip. The murdered ex-Marine had no criminal record and (At least as so far as is known) was not involved in ANY criminal activity.

So far, it appears that the warrant was issued based on erroneous information by an unnamed informant without any preliminary investigation or verification. I only wish that the judges who sign these warrants could be held liable for their conduct and be financially responsible to reimburse the taxpayers for the lawsuit that will result.

 

[Twiki357]

Oh, as for him shooting at the LEOs, some of the news reports are saying that his weapon was not only unfired, but the safety was still on.

 

[macadore]

Originally Posted by macadore
your saying they couldn't subdue someone they shot 60 times without the help of a robot. instead they stood around for an hour while the only eyewitness to their mistakes died.

You got the wrong guy. I didn't write that.

 

[9mmepiphany]

You got the wrong guy. I didn't write that.

You're correct, I misquoted, it was zeos... I corrected the original

 

[9mmepiphany]

9mm....there was no "Exchange of fire". The fire was one direction only.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that there had been. I was referring to the normal procedure of not rushing back into a home after there has been a perception of gunfire. I should have used the term barricaded subject when shots are fired...barricaded simply meaning, not in the open, rather than actually behind a barricade