Another Tuscon shooting....

Post Reply New Topic

This one however a SWAT team fired 71 rounds hitting a man 60 times, the man fired 0 shots, and the police's story has changed several times.

Maybe, as it's been alleged, Jose Guerena was part of a home-invasion ring with family members, ripping and running with body armor and assault weapons, posing as law enforcement.

But all we know, more than two weeks after SWAT officers shot him 60 times, is that Guerena was a Marine who served in Iraq and had no criminal record. We know he worked the night shift at the Asarco Mission Mine, and he was a father and husband.

We know that what SWAT officers said they found in Guerena's home - guns, body armor, a piece of law enforcement clothing, a portrait of Jesus Malverde, "the narco saint," under his bed - might be suggestive of home invasions, but certainly are not illegal.

Could Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik have bungled the explanation for this shooting any worse? His department first said Guerena fired at the SWAT officers. Then it said he didn't. The officers now say he raised his gun with the safety on and pointed it at them. Since the correction, Dupnik has refused to comment on what went down.

"I have to do what I think is right to protect the case to ensure that it has the opportunity to progress where we think it should go," he told me Friday, explaining his silence.

Dupnik said he was withholding comment because his department is continuing with its criminal investigation into the alleged home-invasion ring. Meanwhile, the Pima County Attorney's Office is investigating the shooting. And a shooting board, made up of commanders from the various agencies involved with the SWAT incident, is also investigating. Dupnik said it wouldn't make any sense to talk to the public before talking to the shooting board.

Besides the wall of silence, court documents and the search warrant for the home have been sealed. The Star plans to sue for those records.

Dupnik said opening up those documents would put someone's life at risk. An informant? Presumably, but he wouldn't say.

"I don't know when they are going to be unsealed, if ever," he said. "Those are the real sensitive parts of why we are having difficulty with trying to put information out publicly - because we don't want to get somebody killed."

That would make sense, except Michael Storie, the attorney for the SWAT officers, gave a press conference Thursday to provide details of the May 5 shooting.

When I asked Dupnik if anything Storie said at that presser undermined the criminal investigation or other concerns, all he said was, "No."

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article ... 03286.html


Scileppi said it took two weeks for "the fourth version of the story" and these details to emerge because "they needed to put a story out that is going to protect them."

"Bottom line is they've had two weeks to construct a story, circle the wagons," Scileppi said.

Scileppi asked Storie and the Sheriff's Department to release more information about the incident. "The family wants to know the truth," he said.


http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/a ... mode=story

I honestly would say this was either a screw-up and the cops are now trying to smear the man to hide the fact they screwed up, or the cops were actually planning a cold blooded murder.

I'm normally pro-police, but I don't think the police can be trusted in this case at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the "evidence" is planted.

Oh this is the same county with the Sheriff that falsely accused Conservatives like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, of being responsible for the Gifford's shooting.

"To serve and protect"...
...oh wait, the DC Court of Appeals struck down that obligation in 1981. Ever since then, it's been turning more and more into "we'll do what we damn well please, and if you don't like it, take a number".

............

Just remember, you're 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than you are a terrorist.

If the police really knocked on the door and announced they were police for 45 seconds before breaking in, it was kind of stupid to be pointing a gun at the doorway when it opened.

Would be nice to have some video to back up that story, though. Way too many police these days break in without announcing themselves first.

They changed their story four times in two weeks...

First they claimed he was shooting at police, now we know that he never fired a shot, we also now know that the safety was on (so he couldn't have fired a shot).

There also apparently isn't a video of this which also makes it look like the police is pulling a cover-up. There had been home robberies with people posing as police for goodness sakes.

Why didn't they yell for him to put down his gun, he probably would have demanded they show their ID's so he was sure they were cops, and when they did that he would have put down the gun and the situation would have been over. Instead the cops came in shooting, lied about the fact he was shooting. They denied him medical aid for over an hour and let him die there, wouldn't surprise me if they lied about the fact they couldn't see him either.

So he took 60 bullets, but if somebody had slapped some gauze on him half an hour later he would have been fine?


Oh, you don't say...

this is what cops do all the time why does it bother you now?

The first time isn't much better than the last time. Every single incident needs to be brought to light to keep em in check. Why should we just be like "Meh"? Law enforcement officers get away with this type of BS way too easily.

I think all of this can be explained by incompetence. In a bureaucracy it's really easy for a high level official who wants to look smart to shoot his mouth off before he knows the actual facts. Then instead of admitting he's wrong he tries to slide out of it, leading to another bogus story. It happens a lot.

Now, sure, it could be a conspiracy instead. I try never to attribute things to malice that can be explained by incompetence, though.


SWAT teams are generally trained in paramilitary tactics. In a military situation, if someone points a gun at you, you shoot him before he can shoot you. You don't give him a chance to shoot first by asking him to put down the gun.

That said, I do agree that's problematic. In a police situation like this, the reaction should not be to shoot, but instead to duck back out of the line of fire. Then you can ask him to put down the gun, and get a trained negotiator in there to get him to give himself up. Unfortunately a lot of police departments don't have that kind of training.


It happens all the time, but it's bogus every time it happens. Why doesn't it bother you to have police that shoot first and ask questions afterwards?

Oh you misread me the stress is on the word you.
yeah we should not let cops get away with anything.
there is a reason it is called a police state.