Now to the meat of this post. Beginning at comment 17 a commenter named Federale posted thusly:
“He was sound asleep when his wife Vanessa saw armed men in their front yard. A native of Mexico, Vanessa was alarmed and rushed to awaken Jose, who immediately ensured that Vanessa and their four-year-old son were hidden in the closet of a back bedroom, as far from the front door as possible. Wearing only boxer briefs, he retrieved the nearest weapon: a scoped AR-15 rifle. He had no idea what he was facing. The police were parked in front of his garage and the blinds of his front window — the only window offering a view of the front yard — were closed.
In the front yard, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department SWAT team, comprised of officers from four local agencies, assembled. The 54-second video of their botched assault is a stunning testament to their ineptness and lack of training and leadership.”
Actually the video that you mention completely exonerates the officers and proves that Vanessa Guerena was lying.
She claims that she saw armed men in her yard. The video clearly documents that the police arrived in marked police vehicles, with lights activated and they sounded their siren.
Officers in standard PCSO olive drab uniforms with “Police” in yellow lettering on the front and back of their raid vests entered the front yard and stationed themselves at the front door, then knocked and announced their presence.
If Vanessa Guerena saw “armed men” in her yard, then she saw uniformed police officers and sheriff’s deputies.
The real question is what she said to her husband. Why didn’t she say police were in the yard? Why did she say “armed men?”
This question is clearly more important that the issue of competancy of the entry team.
Clearly Vanessa Guerena either set up her husband to die, or he chose to resist the police.
It is most likely that since the police knocked and announced that in the end Jose Guerena knew it was the police. All esle is an academic exercise on how to stack, or command & control, or fire disipline.
It is clear that the writer is trying to gin up a controversy by selective analysis.
And, no, police do not only request search warrants for big raids on multiple suspects and large amounts of drugs. Agencies, both State, local and Federal used small raids and small amounts to start with in an investigation. To roll up a drug trafficing organization you have to usually start at the lowest level, meaning the street user or lowest level dealer.
Clearly this could be the case with Guereno. He was probably the smallest of the fish that the PD and SO were going to flip on the higher ups. Clearly the author needs some remedial training on investigations no matter his skill and familiarity with SWAT operations.
But in the end, the questions about what Vanessa Guerena says she saw must be answered before you can blame any of the officers for anything. It is sad and disconcerting that the author refuses to address what Vanessa Guerena says she saw when it is so critical.
Perhaps since the Erik Scott case has petered out and there has been no rush to Scott’s defense by his fellow West Pointers, this is why the author is riding this latest of his hobby horses.
But, to mix metaphors, this dog ain’t hunting either.
In the front yard, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department SWAT team, comprised of officers from four local agencies, assembled. The 54-second video of their botched assault is a stunning testament to their ineptness and lack of training and leadership.”
Actually the video that you mention completely exonerates the officers and proves that Vanessa Guerena was lying.
She claims that she saw armed men in her yard. The video clearly documents that the police arrived in marked police vehicles, with lights activated and they sounded their siren.
Officers in standard PCSO olive drab uniforms with “Police” in yellow lettering on the front and back of their raid vests entered the front yard and stationed themselves at the front door, then knocked and announced their presence.
If Vanessa Guerena saw “armed men” in her yard, then she saw uniformed police officers and sheriff’s deputies.
The real question is what she said to her husband. Why didn’t she say police were in the yard? Why did she say “armed men?”
This question is clearly more important that the issue of competancy of the entry team.
Clearly Vanessa Guerena either set up her husband to die, or he chose to resist the police.
It is most likely that since the police knocked and announced that in the end Jose Guerena knew it was the police. All esle is an academic exercise on how to stack, or command & control, or fire disipline.
It is clear that the writer is trying to gin up a controversy by selective analysis.
And, no, police do not only request search warrants for big raids on multiple suspects and large amounts of drugs. Agencies, both State, local and Federal used small raids and small amounts to start with in an investigation. To roll up a drug trafficing organization you have to usually start at the lowest level, meaning the street user or lowest level dealer.
Clearly this could be the case with Guereno. He was probably the smallest of the fish that the PD and SO were going to flip on the higher ups. Clearly the author needs some remedial training on investigations no matter his skill and familiarity with SWAT operations.
But in the end, the questions about what Vanessa Guerena says she saw must be answered before you can blame any of the officers for anything. It is sad and disconcerting that the author refuses to address what Vanessa Guerena says she saw when it is so critical.
Perhaps since the Erik Scott case has petered out and there has been no rush to Scott’s defense by his fellow West Pointers, this is why the author is riding this latest of his hobby horses.
But, to mix metaphors, this dog ain’t hunting either.
You are disgusting. The police had their lights flashing when they pulled up? For a no-knock warrant? They were deploying, and Mrs. Guerena saw them. So she set her husband up to die? Really? Why don’t you just call her a whore and stone her while you are at it? A war hero was undeniably murdered, and you choose to slander his wife.
The police behavior was consistent with a botched operation. They massed at the doorway. They fired without any provocation whatsoever. There was no proper investigation.
There was no reason for the judge to sign the order, except that it has become so banal to issue such warrants. He probably never read the details. There was no “judgment” used at all.
Neither the police nor the judge showed any concern for the possibility that the person might be innocent. Innocent until proven guilty means nothing to them. Nor does the 4th Amendment mean anything to them.
The worst part is the mentality, that it is far better that a civilian (whom they are supposed to be protecting!) die, than some “heroic” cop risk his life. I rather expect the cops to risk their lives and demand a surrender before opening fire. The problem is that the guy in the house had a gun. Police do not think citizens should have guns. They immediately get hostile. So, they fired as soon as they saw the gun.
Jack-booted thugs.
- Agreed …guys probably a fed-pig…or wannabe …hoping one day he can armor up and crack some skulls …
Deal with the facts. Why did Vanessa Guereno lie to either the press, which is more likely, or lie to her husband? There are only two choices.
Facts are facts. Deal with it. And grow up. And learn to read.
- Fed, You base your entire arguement on supposedly knowing what Vanessa saw. If she heard noises and took a quick peek out, she very likely saw “men with guns.” Nobody would stop to read the backs of their shirts – even if they could. Maybe she told Jose she didn’t know if they were cops or not.You have no “facts” other than the ose you made up. You want real facts, look at the total lack of competence in the video. Look at the changed stories after the fact – by the cops. And look at the absurd warrant request. I’m in law in enforcement and support it – when done right.
- Men with guns, in uniform with “Police” embazoned on the chest of their uniforms, with marked police cars in the front of the house, with their emergency lights activated, and sirens sounding.
That is why I know she is not telling the truth.
-
-
“Actually the video that you mention completely exonerates the officers and proves that Vanessa Guerena was lying.”
The video may or may not show anything that Venessa Guerena may or may not have seen. Your “assumption” of the timing involved and what she might have seen is your own, not mine, and certainly subject to further analysis.
What the video does show is the tail end of an obviously uncoordinated, undisciplined, poorly trained and ill-performing SWAT team setting up and then breaching the front door of a private residence and then losing control of themselves by shooting the place up.
During my career I was present at another police shooting like this, one where an armed suspect had broken into an empty residence. Thirty four officers set up containment on the house and were considering how best to enter when a gunshot rang out inside the house. In the next two minutes one hundred four shots were fired into the house. Only six officers, including myself, failed to fire – basically because we had no target. The suspect was found dead from his own bullet, the first shot we had heard. One other stray round stuck him in the leg. One hundred three of the shots, in my view, had been “panic” induced. I firmly believe the same should be said for at least 70 of the shots in Pima County that morning.
So, the basis of your argument is that Vanessa looked out a side window? Did she say that? No, she did not. We don't know where she looked. She did not specify. But then you must also claim that any police officer in the raid on the side or back of the house was also not in uniform and did not have "POLICE" emblazoned across their chest.
ReplyDeleteAnd your claim that the curtains of the house would have obscured the police uniform and "POLICE" lettering is absurd.
The second part of your argument is that police sirens sound like car alarms. Not much to rest on. I don't know how car alarms sound where you are from, but where I live they don't sound alike.
And, no, the issue of the competence of the raid is a secondary issue. The real issue is what Vanessa Guerena knew and when did she know it.
Nice try, but total fail. Again, you are relying on facts not in evidence. You need to prove that Vanessa Guerena looked out a side or back window that was obscured by curtains and that the police on the side and back were not in uniform. And you need to prove that car alarms sound like police sirens. All clearly a stretch at best and pretty ridiculous at worst.