>> ^possom:

It does seem excessive when the line regarding "Criminal contraband" was stricken through on the warrant, suggesting they had no anticipation of drugs, weapons, etc. Then why the 13 armed men?

I'm pretty sure that was the judge that stroked through that line. It had what I assumed was his initials on the side. That just means the judge didn't give them authority to look for "Criminal contraband".

"SWAT" is probably accurate, but the government probably has some other more innocuous sounding name they call their task force.

I guess since they were looking for evidence of fraud, their reasoning for busting the door with a SWAT team was to prevent any evidence from being destroyed. The usual absurdity.

I had the same reaction to the new title. Was this guy trolling? Or was he misinformed about jurisdiction and who was doing what? Did he exaggerate a little bit (he is hysterically funny) but the essence of his story is true?

I'm still not all that comfortable with feeling like we have the whole story.... if we had all the facts, we might still think that the SWAT response was over the top for the offense. Warrants by definition are written very broadly -- how many loans are we talking about? I can't tell from the warrant. Is it one bad application? Or multiples? How much money?

When it is okay to bring in SWAT on a financial crime? From wiki: "A SWAT team is an elite tactical unit in various national law enforcement departments. They are trained to perform high-risk operations that fall outside of the abilities of regular officers."

Fraudulent loan application(s?) is a "high-risk operation"? Maybe @Lawdeedaw can give us some perspective, if he's willing?


>> ^marbles:

In response to the latest title edit "California man trolls local news station?"
He was probably going by what he was told by the Federal Agents when he said it was about unpaid student loans. Does the rest of his story not jive?
Going by the warrant, it looks like his wife was running multiple financial aid scams.
She may have been just trying to take out a bunch of different loans and then stick her husband with them.

http://videosift.com/video/SWAT-Team-Raids-House-at-6-AM-for-Student-Loan-Debt

Someone else posted this vid and killed it, had the text of the news article, including these declarative sentences:

"The Office of the Inspector General has a law enforcement branch of federal agents that carry out search warrants and investigations.

Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant.

Stockton police did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home."

So it was the feds. And it looks like the title to this vid is incorrect -- SWAT? What SWAT?

Now I AM outraged. What the hell? It's a civil matter, a financial matter. Are banks allowed to break down doors to collect debts? Then the federal government shouldn't be allowed to break down doors.

(And the guy still is entertaining -- and he needs to go to the feds for the apology and the new door, if that is really all he wants. Maybe the ACLU will get involved and help change procedures.)

@JiggaJonson

Ok. First of all it's standard operating procedure for a SWAT team to perform a dynamic entry on a premises suspected to be holding drugs because they need to get in there and apprehend the suspect(s) quickly before they have time to flush or otherwise destroy the EVIDENCE. Whether he actually had drugs or not is a moot point. They had a warrant suggesting he did.

You've just proven you dont have the first idea of how these things work in the real world and instead have some kind of firmly held belief that drugs aren't a big issue and dealers, etc should be treated with kiddy gloves and asked to come out quietly and leave the evidence alone. What world are you living in?!

I value human life as much as the next guy, but when it's shoot or be shot you must make a snap decision and always assume the person pointing the gun at you is indeed intent on using it. You'd probably be happier if the suspect had have hosed down half the entry team before they started shooting back?

The simple fact is that in this situation the killing was definitely lawful. Whether they should have been there in the first place is a completely different question, but having announced them selves as police and serving a drug warrant and being faced with a suspect with military training and a high powered rifle aimed at them, they responded in a completely lawful manner.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

What they were supposed to do, is try to get the man out of the house through some non-violent means.

So the fact that the man had an enormous assault rifle and was pointing it at the cops as they came in the door means nothing?
All I'm saying is that I don't think the cops who actually pulled the trigger are at fault here. Should they have even been there in the first place? Probably not. But that's not their call. Someone should be held accountable for this, but it's not those cops.


Sure they are. Why did they lie and say he fired at them first? Why did they seal the search warrant after the case starting getting publicity? Why were they ignorant to the fact of who lived at the house? Why wasn't Guerena's name on the search warrant if he was a suspect of criminal activity? Why is paramilitary police busting down his door and 4 or 5 others that day for marijuana? (Forget the fact they found NOTHING) Why did they have the urgency to bust down his door but then the "SWAT" team decides to clear the house with some sort of robot? Why did they deny paramedics access to Guerena for over an hour? Why did they change their story multiple times and now claim he was a suspect for home invasions?

You seem to be giving the cops a pass and blaming their superiors. I guess we should've applied that to those Third Reich officers that were only following orders too. The cops took an oath to uphold the constitution, so any abridgement of the 4th amendment rests squarely on their shoulders. And any law enforcement agency that makes excuses for it or tries to hide the truth about it is utterly corrupt. Honest and moral people are not going to carry out the orders of tyrants. If the people in charge are violating The Law, then the subordinates by default are going to be lawless thugs "just following orders".

The SWAT team had a ballistic shield, busted the door, and stood on the outside shooting in. Guerena may have a had a gun pointed at them but he never fired and still had the safety on. The SWAT team never clearly identified who they were, and just starting shooting. Even if this wasn't Guerena and it was a drug smuggler with a house full of drugs and money, what the SWAT team did is straight up murder and disregard for human rights.

@Sarzy @NaMeCaF

Sarzy - Don't act like there are no other ways of apprehending people who ALLEGEDLY have drugs in their home (he didn't) besides breaking down their front door with a fully armed entourage of SWAT members.

Namecaf - I know enough about the world to value human life over an alleged drug charge. Thanks for illustrating for me how people keep the mindset that allows a completely unjust killing like this to happen.

>> ^gwiz665:

Alcohol is not the killer, the gun is. You can't kill anyone with alcohol, you need the car (or a weapon).
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^gwiz665:
This is why amateurs should not have guns and this is why gun laws in the states are also crazy.
Might as well outlaw alcohol too then. Idiot drunks kill people on the highway, so obviously no one can be trusted to drink.
On a side note, I know an "Alcohol Enforcement Officer"... drinks more than anyone I've ever met, and not in a good way.



the same could be said for guns. it takes someone pulling the trigger to kill.

i do want to add a bit of commentary on these developing stories. between this and the jose guerera case, both cases piss me right the fuck off and heres why. In both instances you have an overwhelming force subduing another. in this case, gun toting cop vs knife toting dude. in jose's case, an entire swat team vs one armed man. the end result was death, fucking wrongful, wasteful death.

now having said that, the commentary i would like to add is this: i know that in armed conflict and escalating situations such as these (presumably, even hypothetically, ie, he could have charged the cop with the knife off screen and an attacker can close distance in most cases faster than the shooter can react and fire) it takes steel nerves and lightning reflexes reinforced by training to make the decision to fire or not fire.

........however, when i was in afghanistan, i found myself in the middle of a legit "mexican standoff". long story short, my PCC team were to accompany the scout platoon to escort a rogue afghan border patrol police general back to our FOB to speak with his superiors. When we arrived to our PCC compound we found that he was there, along with over 100 of his loyals, preparing to mount a raid of their own (they were usually running illegal checkpoints, shit like that). Naturally when they figured out that we were there to detain their leader (in their eyes, our direct orders were to not detain but persuade him to come with us, if he refused we were to leave without incident). My CO talked with the general and persuaded him to willingly come with us.....but to his loyals, we were capturing him. within seconds, the guards they had in their towers had oriented their crew served weapons inwards, ANP loyals were loading their RPG's with armor piercers and taking fighting positions behind buildings oriented at us, you could hear dozens of ak's "racking" (chambering a round). There was over a hundred of them and less than 20 of us. Had it exploded into a firefight, we certainly woulved fucked all shit up.......but few, if any, of us were leaving alive. all it wouldve taken was one round to go off from either side to fully escalate that encounter to a full on gun battle. fortunately we kept our cool (as did the anp loyals), assessed the situation, navigated the battle space, reinforced by our training which emphasizes self control, discipline, and situational awareness, and we were able to diffuse the situation without incident. Not a single round was fired. and we had accomplished our mission (btw turns out the general had been hoarding police gun stocks, by the thousands, and had cached them at his house and was selling them off to taliban)

now my point being if i and the members of my team had the intestinal fortitude and mental tenacity to diffuse that highlyvolatile situation without incident, especially considering the higher stakes (this was in the middle of a fucking war, not in someones neighborhood or on a crosswalk), so to speak.......what is your fucking excuse Tucson swat team? what is your fucking excuse, cop in this video?

Innocent victim? Probably not. Stupid victim? Probably.

I have a rifle and a shotgun along with two separate pieces of body armor. Comes with being a Marine. Sometimes there's extra stuff and you end up with it. Does that mean I'm into any illegal activity? No. Maybe this guy is involved with all of that nasty business. Maybe he wasn't, but sure as hell they didn't need to fire that many rounds nor should be have had his weapon.



Initial news reports didn't say anything about sirens wailing or SWAT teams yelling anything, so that's where the outrage stems from. Seeing this though, no matter if you had just woken up, you're kind of stupid to grab a gun.

>> ^residue:

Police allege that the former Marine was involved in drug smuggling, robbery and human smuggling.
But a search of the home found nothing illegal. Officers found a handgun and body armour in the house.
The five SWAT team members remain on active duty. No criminal charges have been filed and no disciplinary action taken.
Mr Guerena's wife, Vanessa, said she heard her husband moaning as he lay dying, his body struck by 22 of the bullets.
Ms Guerena told ABC News: 'I saw his stomach, all the blood on the floor'.
She said her goal now is to 'clear his good name'. Ms Guerena said their son Joel keeps asking about his deceased father, 'Is he a bad guy?'
Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-1391567/Iraq-war-vet-Jose-Guerena-did-open-SWAT-team-killed-him.html#ixzz1NZJKnTZx


Can we stop noting the number of rounds used? One 15 round clip can be unloaded in about 5 seconds, so with two or three shooters, that's not much. Besides, the point of firing one round is to kill, the others are to confirm.

I am not even going to watch this video. I have had enough death videos for the day. (I just read the comments.)

Sounds like there was one primary shooter on the swat team. A second person sporadically shot after a notable delay. What got me was.. there was no verbal warning given in the clip. There was no identification given. The door was knocked open, and they began shooting in a matter of seconds.

The names of these swat guys need to be released. They should immediately be put on administrative leave and the situation should be investigated by an INDEPENDENT investigator. Charges need to be filed.

Police allege that the former Marine was involved in drug smuggling, robbery and human smuggling.

But a search of the home found nothing illegal. Officers found a handgun and body armour in the house.

The five SWAT team members remain on active duty. No criminal charges have been filed and no disciplinary action taken.

Mr Guerena's wife, Vanessa, said she heard her husband moaning as he lay dying, his body struck by 22 of the bullets.

Ms Guerena told ABC News: 'I saw his stomach, all the blood on the floor'.

She said her goal now is to 'clear his good name'. Ms Guerena said their son Joel keeps asking about his deceased father, 'Is he a bad guy?'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391567/Iraq-war-vet-Jose-Guerena-did-open-SWAT-team-killed-him.html#ixzz1NZJKnTZx

There's a difference from cracking a joke, and being the SWAT team ordered to this mans house and actually killing the guy and messing up the girls life. One is benign and will wear off, the other was physical, violent and audacious.

>> ^EMPIRE:

71 rounds??? WTF?? That's more than 2 full clips from assault rifles. Were they firing in automatic? With glue on the trigger?


ya the mere fact that 71 fucking rounds were fired to "subdue" this man is evidence enough that that swat team was there with ill intent.....fucking ridiculous

definitely wanna hear more about this

I remember when search warrants didn't require SWAT teams.

Did you even read the comment of mine you quoted??? I didn't say "THAT OFFICER" I said "the police." As in the police who planned an entire raid to arrest one guy; as in the police who planned unwarranted overexertion of power; as in the police who don't seem to care about civilian casualties. Not the one guy.

So yeah, now I DO think you're an idiot, but for different reasons than the ones you eluded to.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

Sure the policeman who shot the guy was a bit too trigger happy, but that's because he's trained to react in a split-second to any threat he might encounter. I'm not saying he handled the situation perfectly, but you need to look at the bigger picture. Why was a SWAT team sent to arrest one guy? What warranted an action like that? At what point will the government admit that it's fighting a war it cannot win, with civilian casualties piling up left and right?
That's just my opinion, if that makes me an idiot in your eyes so be it.