Fighting Back From The Grave

Status
Not open for further replies.
What's more dangerous, a suspected drug dealer, or a SWAT team slinging lead in a residential area?

I contend there are better ways to deal with this. One being grab him while he on his way to or from work, secure him, then execute the search. No reason to endanger the entire family and neighbors.

LE is too quick to choose dynamic entry. I believe all other options deserve consideration before this approach is chosen.
 
Give a child a hammer,,,

And he soon discovers everything needs a good pounding.

Give the cops a SWAT team,,,
You can guess the rest.

I'm starting to fear the para-militarization of even my small college town police force.

Aarond
 
If my wife and baby were threatened, the odds are irrelevant and I doubt Ortiz had much time to compute them. I would be shooting as the door came down, I guess. I don't know. Hope never to be in that situation.

That his AR15 was safed, in his dead hands, is a tribute to the Marine inside him. Hard to believe he made a mistake he didn't have time to fix (going to fire if he thought he should). More likely he went to safe, or not from safe, before or about when he saw the first uniform and took the first rounds and took the first rounds.

It's hard to hold police to the Hippocratic oath, but 60 rounds? They can't do better than this?

God knows.
 
"You point a gun at police, you're going to get shot". I'm not sure that's quite the right attitude to have. Any number of scenarios could occur where an innocent person might end up pointing a gun at a cop. Scary premise that owning a firearm and accessories makes you a likely drug-runner.
 
Isk said:
"You point a gun at police, you're going to get shot". I'm not sure that's quite the right attitude to have.
Click to expand...

If you point a gun at many of us you're likely to get new perforations. Why do you think the police should be any different? It's not like they have an obligation to take fire.
 
"Scary premise that owning a firearm and accessories makes you a likely drug-runner. "

That was not the basis for the warrant to search the house. He was hanging out with folks moving hundreds of pounds of pot at a time. The one load I recall being mentioned was a half a ton.
 
Young.Gun.612 said:
Seems like "no-knock" warrants are pretty dangerous. I mean, any state that adheres to the castle doctrine and allows no knock warrants is setting its police and citizens up for a lot of sticky situations.
Click to expand...

This is the unintended consequence of the castle doctrine. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a critic of standing your ground, but I do firmly believe that it means that law enforcement agencies need to take that particular law into account when they charge into action.
 
The Pima County Sheriff's position on the 2nd Admendment is well documented.

He is dead set against private ownership of firearms.

He routinely lobbies against gun rights and for tighter restictions.

The actions of his deputies are reflected in their approach to enforcing all laws.

His department will justify this action up to and including manufacturing evidence.
 
Frankly, a great example of why no-knocks are so unbelievably stupid. The sheriff should face murder charges for this. Each time a no-knock warrant is executed, the police initiate aggression. The role of law enforcement is to uphold the law - not to initiate aggression. Furthermore, it undermines the home owner's right to self defense.

Just screaming 'police, police, drop your weapons' is not enough evidence to know that you are being served a warrant. Robbers can do the same, so how can you be sure? The only way to really serve a warrant, is the traditional way. If that's too dangerous, then surround the house and have a standoff. Sure, it's more costly and takes longer, but you pretty much are sure to avoid all confusion about what's going on, and you guarantee that no one is going to get shot unless someone in the house starts the fight.
 
Seems like "no-knock" warrants are pretty dangerous. I mean, any state that adheres to the castle doctrine and allows no knock warrants is setting its police and citizens up for a lot of sticky situations.
Click to expand...

I would argue that it's not just castle doctrine states. If you have a child in the house, how can you honestly leave if someone is breaking down your door? What about people who are deaf? They have no chance of knowing that it's a no-knock warrant vs some thugs breaking in to kill him.

At 2am when the lights are turned down and you just woke up and see people breaking in, are most people actually going to recognize the intruders as police? Highly unlikely, because in this country the expectation is that police don't barge into your house like home invaders and rapists.
 
Frankly, a great example of why no-knocks are so unbelievably stupid. The sheriff should face murder charges for this.
Click to expand...

The sheriff who wasn't actualy present should face murder charges for a legally initiated action? I don't think so.

Each time a no-knock warrant is executed, the police initiate aggression. The role of law enforcement is to uphold the law - not to initiate aggression.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, each time most cops go on patrol they start their cars. Their job is to uphold the law, not start their cars. :rolleyes:

I don't know where you have been, but passive police work hasn't been a winning strategy.
 
I am stuck on the stolen shotgun

I am wondering how that will come into play in the lawsuit.

I am trying to figure out how someone accidentally or innocently gets a stolen shotgun.

His nefarious brother asked him if he could hold on to it and store it for him for a little while?

Is it that easy for a pawn shop or gun store to receive a stolen weapon and then resell it without it triggering any flags in any databases?
 
Just screaming 'police, police, drop your weapons' is not enough evidence to know that you are being served a warrant.
Click to expand...

I'm not keeping count, but increasingly the above scenario is becoming an indicator it may not the cops breaking and entering, but home invaders, sometimes dressed as police. That's a tough one for the occupants, indeed.

It's amazing that in a place like Tuscon, AZ the incumbent sheriff could keep getting reelected. Must be more to it than guns.
http://www.pimasheriff.org/about-us/meet-the-sheriff/
 
DNS; "...Passive Police work..."? would you please define this???

Last I read both the US constitution and our state constitution we are to be "secure" in our person and property..."except through an operation of law" The courts have shown that "authority of law" means "warrent" not "wim" of someperson.

WA constitution Article 1:

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

Every state in the union has a simular section, as is also in Article V of the Bill of rights.

That someone "might" flush evidence down the toilet or whatever, so what? To say that law enforcement MAY miss some evidence is not a reason to trample on peoples rightful safety and security.

The corralary is: Someone MIGHT shoot a cop, so we will prevent that by breaking into and siezing all non cop's firearms, or photographic equipment or.... Same idea, different right trampled on.
 
the SWAT team could have come when Guerena was at work
Click to expand...

That right there is the golden truth, it would have been safer for everyone involved if they would have raided the house when he left for work, the store or was at work rather than while he was home. The same type of thing started ruby ridge, they could have just let the situation diffuse itself and waited for the guy to go into town but they chose a militaristic responce.

On the OTHER side of the coin though: If you are dealing as a LEO with a typical drug guy, then he has no gainful employment. If he leaves yeah it might be to the store but it might just as well be he was tipped off and is fleeing from the law never to be seen again so they HAVE to strike when they KNOW where he is.

Some PD's don't have the money for a proper 24/7 detail to watch a guy so they might not have known every detail of this guys life, I think a big part of this story is missing and hopefully will come out so everything can start to fit together.


In regards to no-nocks I must say this is where I find some common ground with groups typically associated with the anti gun crowed. I think our police force has become over-militarized, they dont "talk" to people any more. Many PD's wont try to "work it out" with someone, Many PD's seem to lack proper training in diffusing situations leading to things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc

Sometimes the best thing to do , LEO or not is to step back from a situation and defuse it.
 
The officers had a valid search warrant, correct address, their subject was inside at the time. They executed the warrant legally.
Click to expand...
Actually no, the warrant was not executed legally.

For nearly a thousand of years of legal history, for a search warrant to be legally executed it had to be presented to to person in charge of the place to be searched before the police entered and the search began. Even in Soviet Russia and Apartheid South Africa they would at least knock and present you with a warrant before ransacking your place.

The cops and judges can SAY that the warrant was legally executed, but properly understood, the warrant WAS NOT legally executed as no attempt was made to present the warrant to the occupants of the home before the police entered
 
There's a thousand years of legal history in the USA? I don't think so. And that's all that matters, the state law here.

And not the state of WA, the state the deceased lived in.

We've heard about Ruby Ridge, has Hitler been mentioned yet? :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top