After a discussion that began here in late April when I mentioned that cops were not only training for terrorist attacks on the ground in the US, but citing positively armed citizens’ response in some such incidents, the matter morphed into a debate about whether the cops themselves were terrorists. Several who took that position cited YouTube videos, and I said that a tutorial on the topic of how to analyze such videos for the truth they contain might be in order. Several who commented here endorsed that idea, so here’s the first segment.
I was going to start with a non-police case, but since my last blog entry some have suggested that the recent fatal shooting of Jose Guerena in Pima County, Arizona would be a good place to begin. Fair enough. A good synopsis of this incident appears at Wikipedia, and should be read for background.
Prior to the recent release of a video of the incident from a camera mounted to the helmet of one of the SWAT cops, an aggregate of the myriad accusations against the police ran as follows.
Supposedly, the evil police (1) came silently like thieves (2) in the night, (3) wearing masks like burglars or home invaders, and (4) without identifying themselves, and opened fire on the homeowner (5) for no reason. It has also been alleged that they (6) shot him 60 to 71 times, (7) conspired to deprive him of emergency medical care until it was certain he was dead, (8) and made an illegal warrantless entry in any case, (9) should have known they weren’t in danger because the fully loaded rifle of the homeowner was recovered “on safe,” and (10) didn’t have grounds to make the raid to begin with. Oh, and they supposedly (11) “attacked” the wrong address, to boot.
Six of those eleven accusations, more than half of the allegations, are proven false on their face by the helmetcam video.
We see and hear that the SWAT team (1) announced their presence with a high-decibel siren wail that lasted for several seconds. (2) It all takes place in broad daylight, shortly after 9:30 AM. (3) Several have no gear obscuring their facial features, and all are in readily identifiable SWAT uniforms. (4) If you listen for it, you can hear the cops verbally identify themselves. (5) The body language and movement patterns of the officers are consistent with people in fear of their lives, and one officer is seen to fall, giving others the impression that he has been shot.
Other points are refuted by other documentation released from the investigation. (6) The autopsy lists 22 gunshot wounds, not 60 or 71. (7) It is common custom and practice for emergency medical personnel not to enter a shooting scene until it has been searched and secured for other armed perpetrators; if you don’t believe the cops, ask any paramedic or EMT you know. (8) Newsmen have independently investigated and confirmed that they indeed had a warrant. (9) Seen from the front (as when it is pointed at you) the AR15 rifle can’t be visually determined to be “on-safe” or “off-safe.” (10) The continuing investigation indicates that there were indeed grounds for the search warrant to be issued by the officers. Read it here (in detail, please, if you’re going to comment). And note from both film and warrant that (11) Mr. Guerena’s home was indeed the designated, judicially approved target site for the warrant service.
The lesson? Ask yourself if the evidence of your own eyes and ears confirms the allegations in question…and do the same with documented reports as soon as they are released.
Until the investigation is complete, Jose Guerena should be considered innocent until proven guilty insofar as the drug and home invasion allegations…and the police who shot him should be considered innocent until proven guilty of having done so wrongfully.
“And the ignorant sheep just keep complaining and complaining… pathetic…”-sheepdog.
Denigrating information and questions from knowledgeable concerned citizens is another data point, evidence of what we’re saying: Many enforcers hold themselves apart and above the citizens, separate and more equal.
Be happy that people keep trying to reason; ‘complaining’ in your words.
The Torries found out what happens when the complaining stops.
Initiating violence & threatening innocents makes for a long train of abuses, which invariably leads to
Yeah, I’ll keep pleading.
Because I want my country to avoid what you are pushing so hard to create. Please acknowledge crime even when the perp is wearing a costume. Rejoin America, rather than making yourselves ‘more equal’ and separating yourselves from the rest of the country.
***
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, …”
-sorta relevent
hmmm, Governments instituted to secure the rights of the people?
And taking rights and lives under color of law de-ligitimizes the courts, legislatures, and invariably leads to something or another…
It was the foundation of a country, now long dead; But the words still ring true. …is it a case of those ignorant of history, rushing to repeat it?
@Sofa
“Denigrating information and questions from knowledgeable concerned citizens is another data point, evidence of what we’re saying: Many enforcers hold themselves apart and above the citizens, separate and more equal.”
No, it’s “evidence” of one person making a comment on the internet. Prejudiced people (like cop haters) always have this need to present 1 incident or 1 comment (or a small amount of such incidents or comments) as “evidence” of their pre (and ill) concieved notions.
You have no clue whether or not the person you quoted (Sheepdog) is a cop or not, how then can his post be “evidence” of what “enforcers” think? No, the truth is, that is what you WANT to imagine Law Enforcement Officers think. In other words, it’s evidence of your prejudice. There is no scientific way to determine what 850,000 human beings “think”.
This is why so very much of what you cop haters say is so irrelevant, it isn’t based on facts but rather fallacious perceptions. All currently available facts point to an American Law Enforcement establishment that is less dangerous to society now than it had been in many points in the past.
But as it usually works in human societies, perception and reality are usually seperate. It’s a shame really.
I’ve always supported Law Enforcement. I’ve had family and friends serve in many different types of organizations. I know Military Police, US Marshals, Local PD Officers and even Correctional Officers. From them, I have been told about things that would probably be considered abusive. But never anything public or that resulted in someone’s death. Lately, I have been seeing more issues with Law Enforcement around the country. Whether it is ignorant cops in Philadelphia that don’t know the law and treat citizens (who do know the law) with complete disrespect, while threatening his life. Or the raid on a home in Tucson, where the “suspect” had no history of violent crime, in fact had no convictions whatsoever. Or the officer in New Jersey who was in a car accident and used his undercover ID to attempt to avoid responsibility. It seems the last is the only one to receive any reprimand, over a year later.
Maybe all the guys out there claiming that everyone who questions these events is a “cop hater” should take a moment to think about these events. I know I don’t view them in a vacuum. They illustrate a general arrogance that I have heard expressed by even the friends I have who are LEOs. When they get in a car accident, they brag how they will be taken care of. When they have a “problem” they are able to get it “fixed”. It starts with the small stuff people. How can I trust these individuals to act in truth and fairness when it is a common practice to stack the deck?
” Lately, I have been seeing more issues with Law Enforcement around the country.”
This is one of the reasons why some of us apply the cop-hater tag so liberally. Because cop “haters” are different from true critics of Law Enforcement.
Cop haters rely on perceptions rather than facts. Cop haters see youtube vids or news stories about cops doing wrong and take that to mean some trend is going on. I shouldn’t have to remind people that the VAST majority of America’s 850,000 cops NEVER make the news, the media is a business and the average day/career/life of the average cop is never news worthy.
That should not be taken to mean that their aren’t problems or abuses in specific places, but like all prejudiced people, cop haters take what little information they get and blow it up into a massive national problem that truthfully doesn’t exist.
In this, the Cop hater is like the anti-black racist who sees black folks doing bad things on TV but doesn’t understand that those folks are a tiny portion of the 50 MILLION blacks in America. The VAST majority of black males (for example) will never have a problem with the law worse than a speeding ticket, but you can’t tell a racist that , now can you?
Here is an example that i’ve posted here before. One anti-cop group puts out a publication called “The National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project” they gather information from every source they can get their hands on. Here is the abstract:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/?page_id=4135
” * 4,861 – Unique reports of police misconduct tracked
* 6,613 – Number of sworn law enforcement officers involved (354 were agency leaders such as chiefs or sheriffs)
* 6,826 – Number of alleged victims involved
* 247 – Number of fatalities associated with tracked reports
* $346,512,800 – Estimated amount spent on misconduct-related civil judgments and settlements excluding sealed settlements, court costs, and attorney fees.”
Despite spending ALL YEAR tracking police misconduct, the best they can come up with is “6,613 – Number of sworn law enforcement officers involved”
6600, out of 850,000. NOT EVEN 1%. Of course the cop haters will say “well, those are just the ones that get caught”, to which I reply “well, yea, but not all of those reported are guilty, so it balances out.
———-
I’ll give you an example form my neck of the woods. I live in Dallas (I am not a member of the Dallas Police Department). Last year after a police shooting I overheard a friend say “wow, the DPD is killin up everyone”. There had been 2 police shootings in 2 weeks.
Dallas PD has 3200 sworn officer, most unformed, most in patrol or posistions where they interact with the public frequently. DPD answers some 300 to 400 THOUSAND service called per year, each time a cop interacts with a citizen, it’s a potential gun fight (because every gunfight needs atleast 1 person with a gun lol).
And out of these 3200 gun carrying cop having litteralyl hundreds of thousands of oppurtunities to kill them some civilians, how many police shooting fatalites does Dallas (a city of more than a million people) average per year?
5. Every year 5-10 Dallas Police Officer end up in shooting situations with people, in which, on average, 5 citizens die.
5 out of 1 million.
How in the #$%^ is an average of 5 equal to “wow, DPD is killin up everybody these days”? It only does if the speaker is kinda stupid lol. If Dallas PD were the jackbooted fascists people want to believe they are, wouldn’t that 5 be 5000? 50,000?
Standard disclaimer, that does not mean that when a cop does something wrong or even criminal he should not be punished, he should, and more severly than regualr citizens because that cop swore an oath in order to become a peace officer. And sometimes the truly bad cops don’t get punished enough or at all, and that’s an injustice.
But the VAST majority of us have nothing to do with that, and everyone who for some reason thinks it DOES have something to do with the rest of us is, indeed, a cop hater.
Bigtex, you know, I don’t think you and I are as far apart as it might seem on this. I don’t think the majority of police officers are bad people, but they are put in a position where an elitist attitude can develop quickly. Maybe the perception would be better if more cops stood against those abusers more firmly. The knee-jerk reaction of ” the perp had it coming” and “I’ll do whatever it takes to go home at the end of my shift”, without examining what occurred only benefits those who do break the rules. I want you guys to make it home too, but I also would like to know that I could survive a law enforcement encounter if I were accused of something.
In an incident, you tend to think first of your survival, and only after it is over does one consider the law. Considering that there were a bunch of guys breaking and entering, the Homeowner had every right to shoot them in self defense. ‘Tis indeed unfortunate that he did not. Below are 2 quotes I think are pertinent to this issue…
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.” ~Lord Acton
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? […] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!” —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1 “Arrest”)
The gov should always be suspected of wrongdoing since by their mere existence they are violating the ZAP… A bunch of guys acting as this swat team did violated all 3 rights at once; Life, Liberty, and Property.
Guard Duck, you say it’s unfortunate that the drug suspect did not shoot the police officers who were executing a lawful search warrant?
Do you think he should have shot him with his stolen gun?http://www.kold.com/story/14964867/stolen-gun-found-in-dead-mans-home
And you compare the officers shooting a suspect pointing a rifle at them while they’re serving a lawful warrant, with Stalin’s minions carrying out mass murder on their own people?
Guard Duck, you sound like a quack-pot.
My father was LEO until the day he died. I have a lot of respect for those LEOs who put themselves in harms way for us non-LEO citizens.
“I’ll do whatever it takes to safely go home to my family.” paraphrased?
And a similar sentiment form an ex LEO GF, “They don’t pay me enough to get shot.”
And I told her, “That is exactly what we pay do you for, to take the bullet, so we don’t have to.”
The first quote above strongly implies that the speaker is willing to shoot a good guy rather than risk being shot by a bad guy. In my ex GF’s case, she quit the force a week later.
We, as a society, hire LEOs to protect us. As individuals, we expect them to take risks for our safety, not risk our lives for theirs.
While Specail Weapons And Tactics are now a necessary part of law enforcement and will continue to be so for as long as the Paper and Chemical industries can keep hemp illegal.
IMHO, a siege tactic is far better than a blitzkrieg tactic in those cases where the LEOs have not yet been conclusively fired upon. The only rationales I have heard for prefering a blitzkrieg over a siege is that the perps may dispose of evidence and that the monetary cost of a seige is too high.
The presuppositions in those rationales is that an innocent life is not as worthy as convicting a bad guy and is worth less than money. In particular to the Guerena case, any of the wild shots made could have hit the wife or son.
An acceptable tactic to me, would have been to quietly surrond the house from cover, turn off the water at the curb to prevent massive flushing of evidence, and send an entry team to remove the electric meter. Only after that, would I have loudly and clearly, with a PA system directed Mr. Guerena to leave the house. I would have given him warning that if he did not exit in 1 minute, I would fire tear gas into the home. Then I would have counted down the time in ten second intervals.
This strategy would protect my officers, protect the occupants of the house, unless they definately shot first, and intimidated any non psychotic from losing their life. (sic, I know.)
Mr. Ayoob, I think you have painted yoursdelf into a corner, effectivley paraphrasing President Nixon, “If the police do it, it’s not wrong.”
Any police tactic that can be easily copied by the bad guys, which also gives the badguys an overwhelming advantage against their victims is morally wrong in that it places the citizen in the untenable position of having to either defend himself against the police, (and dying,) or not defending himself against the bad guys, (and dying.)
In a society where Blackstone’s ratio, “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”, is considered the law of the land, why is it that it is better that an innocent be shot by police, rather than one guilty escape (conviction?)
Sam T:
First, thank you for the reference you kindly supplied to the young couple attempting to adopt. They are following the blog comments and I’m sure they’ll pick up on it.
Second, while we do indeed take an oath to, in essence, stand between an innocent citizen like you and a criminal’s bullet, there’s nothing in the oath that says we’re supposed to let a suspected criminal shoot us with a rifle (which we now know was a stolen gun) after we have identified ourselves as law enforcement officers and are in the act of serving a lawful warrant.
-“An acceptable tactic to me, would have been to quietly surrond the house from cover, turn off the water at the curb to prevent massive flushing of evidence, and send an entry team to remove the electric meter. Only after that, would I have loudly and clearly, with a PA system directed Mr. Guerena to leave the house. I would have given him warning that if he did not exit in 1 minute, I would fire tear gas into the home. Then I would have counted down the time in ten second intervals.”-
Ah, Monday morning Quarterbacking at it’s finest. Like the MMQ (sitting in his easy chair watching a real quarter back run for his life because 300lb armored dudes are trying to take his head off), YOU would suffer not one ill consequence if you ill-concieved “tactics” didn’t pan out. The people potentially getting shot at trying to turn off water and electricity might have something to say about that.
Do you think police were “born yesterday” so to speak? Does the outsider never take into consideration the idea that perhaps the things they believe would somehow be a good idea have been tried before and found lacking? Law Enforcement Tactics are a matter of trial and error and actual human beings have BLED trying to get it right.
What people who, you know, actually do the job have learned is that the faster you can bring a situation to an end, the less likely it is to end with someone hurt. Also, containing someone in their home is usually better than trying to catch them at large where potential innocents are int he way (that’s another cop-hater favorite tactic, “just wait till he comes outside and grab him on the street, again, it’s not the cop hater that gets killed or sued if that goes wrong).
The intelligent outsider, rather than playing MMQ, understands that their persepctive is limited and should strive to learn more about a subject (and learn more about how their own biases with skew their perceptions) before he comments.
No one is saying “take our word for it”, we’re saying “learn how to think 1st, comment 2nd”.
“What people who, you know, actually do the job have learned is that the faster you can bring a situation to an end, the less likely it is to end with someone hurt. ”
If this is true, and I would tend to agree that it is, why did they take more than an hour to clear the house?
So the answer is the police are right regardless of what they do, from the point of Mas and BigTex. It is good you are here to protect the police from all the “cop-haters” here. Haha. I am sure you will tell me wrong I am, but it seems any line of thought that tends toward questioning a police tactic bring ” think first, comment 2nd” quotes from you and the boys, while any possible string of cover for these “operators” is immediately broadcast to the masses. The gun was stolen three years ago = Jose is a thief about to go on a murderous rampage.
-“So the answer is the police are right regardless of what they do, from the point of Mas and BigTex.”-
See, when people either lose an argument or realize they are wrong (but can’t admit it), they try to turn the tables of the original speaker. Point out the post where I said any such thing as “police are always right” please. I’ll wait….
….still waiting, take your time…….
Ah, so you got nothin lol. Police officers are fallabile human beings. But those fallible human beings are in the situation, unlike you. Long history and experience drive what we do, and as time goes on the technology and society change, so will what we have to do. But as it is now, we know that some things work and some things don’t.
It’s all theoretical for people like you John. It is not for the people you are “suggesting” do things differently. I’m sorry if you cannot understand the concepts I’m talking about.
Just curious, how much say in these matters do the taxpayers have? I realize we can vote out a sheriff, but what about forcing changes in policies?
Mas Says:
June 25th, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Guard Duck, you say it’s unfortunate that the drug suspect did not shoot the police officers who were executing a lawful search warrant?
Do you think he should have shot him with his stolen gun?http://www.kold.com/story/14964867/stolen-gun-found-in-dead-mans-home
And you compare the officers shooting a suspect pointing a rifle at them while they’re serving a lawful warrant, with Stalin’s minions carrying out mass murder on their own people?
Guard Duck, you sound like a quack-pot.
====
Just because some old dude in a black dress gives you a paper doesn’t mean you can break in someone’s house and murder him. If you break in someone’s house it’s a given they’re going to point a gun at you. Seriously, anybody can yell “police” and break a door down. That’s how the gangs here break in. They dress up like cops and break the door down, then they shoot you and take your stuff.
As to the stolen gun, police could have planted it. They plant “evidence” all the time. I’ve seen it happen many times in my old neighborhood.
Quack-pot LOL… good one.
Funny how cops always show themselves as bullies.
Duckie, you’ve chosen an appropriate pseudonym. In Stephen Pastis’ comic strip “Pearls Before Swine” the “Guard Duck” character is funny because of how grotesquely it overreacts and exaggerates. You are doing those things here, and in this context it makes you more sad than funny.
You can’t answer simple questions, you call a judge issuing a warrant based on probable cause an “old dude in a black dress,” you don’t seem to grasp the distinction between murder and homicide, and you feel those who question you are bullies.
Here’s a little mentoring as opposed to bullying for you. Take a basic civics class. Read a book or two on how the criminal justice system works in this country. Then get back to us.
Happy Independence Day,
Mas
You been going on about my nickname I got for having a huge weapon collection. It has nothing to do with why the duck is funny. I use that nickname here because it’s what Claire knew me as on TCF/TMM forum. Since you’re so keen on comparing me to a Pearls character, that would make you the pig right? Or are you rat? Just saying. I called you a bully because you called me a “quack pot” not because you questioned me.
I suppose a judge could be an old biddy in a black dress too. YMMV.
I know how the system is supposed to work. I also know that it doesn’t work. Been broken a long time. There is no justice in America except for the justice the victim doles out to their attacker in the form of 1.5 oz of lead. Sadly, in this case, justice was not carried out.
“Happy Independence Day”? LOL The irony here is intense. A cop is telling an an-cap “Happy Independence Day”… A holiday that celebrates rebellion against authoritah of the day. ROTFLMAO
Weak deflection there, Duck. Anyone who can read our short dialogue above can see I’m not harping on your self-chosen net nickname, I’m harping on your inability to back up your position and answer logical questions.
An inability you continue to display in the above post.
Mas Says:
July 6th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Weak deflection there, Duck. Anyone who can read our short dialogue above can see I’m not harping on your self-chosen net nickname, I’m harping on your inability to back up your position and answer logical questions.
An inability you continue to display in the above post.
==========
ORLY?
==========
Guard Duck, you sound like a quack-pot.
(and)
Duckie, you’ve chosen an appropriate pseudonym. In Stephen Pastis’ comic strip “Pearls Before Swine” the “Guard Duck” character is funny because of how grotesquely it overreacts and exaggerates. You are doing those things here, and in this context it makes you more sad than funny.
==========
Sure, you haven’t said a word about it occifer. No harping at all… :rolleyes:
I totally thought you would get the connection that the US and the USSR are both totalitarian police states, and that their respective forces terrorize the population into submission through excessive violence. The US has the highest prison population per capita, and the vast majority are for mala prohibita cases where there was no victim. Protests at political conventions become riots when cops attack otherwise peaceful people who assembled without state permission. Cops raid families at night over a tiny amount of a harmless plant simply because it’s hard to tax. Cops stole people’s guns after hurricane Katrina. They steal and murder with impunity, and as George Bernard Shaw said, “All government is cruel; for nothing is so cruel as impunity.” a 10 minute google search will back up everything I just said.
==========
Guard Duck, you say it’s unfortunate that the drug suspect did not shoot the police officers who were executing a lawful search warrant?
==========
The only difference between cops and the mob is that the law supports one and tries to stamp out the competition from the other. Pirates and Emperors ya know….
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” ~ John Locke
“No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist or killer, like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended victim.” ~W. Emerson Wright
I doubt those were the answers you wanted, and you surely could have figured it out for yourself.
“Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-… That’s all, folks.”
Note to self:
Next time I empty my magazine into another human being, I should investigate MYSELF. That way I can say I acted according to procedure, and not have to deal with tedious things like courts, judges, and especially JURIES.
Klapton: it sounds as if you have the strange idea that officer-involved shootings are NOT investigated by the prosecutor’s office at a minimum, and often also by LE agencies with overriding jurisdiction, ranging from state police to the FBI. Who on earth gave you such a strange idea?
Duck: “Th–Th–That’s all, folks?” You have cleverly morphed from a sophisticated cartoon character to an earlier, more primitive one? And in between, your attempt to answer questions (thanks for trying at last, anyway) is that cops and criminals are the same, and there was no difference between the USA and the USSR?
You, uh, DO know that the USSR ceased to exist like, oh, 20 years ago, right?
In such a fantasy world, it’s no wonder that you default to cartoon characters.
Sad for you…
I wasn’t referencing myself when I quoted porky pig. Darn, why do I smell bacon?
===
You, uh, DO know that the USSR ceased to exist like, oh, 20 years ago, right?
===
Yup. And the Third Reich ended in the 1940’s. Yet for some reason I still am expected to carry my identification papers around so if one of you guys want’s to know who I am, all you have to do is demand them. Reminds me of this phrase: “Ihre papire bitte.”
===
In such a fantasy world, it’s no wonder that you default to cartoon characters.
===
lol
Says the guy standing up for murderers who also keeps attacking my nickname instead of my actual arguments. Needless to say, I find this thread amusing.
Dupnik’s department investigated Dupnik’s Sturmabteilung. Other “LE agencies with overriding jurisdiction” are also not trustworthy, because they are just as interested in hiding the misdeeds of their underlings and protecting the thin blue line as anyone else.
All large organizations and heirachies do it. In the Catholic church, the “agencies with overriding jurisdiction” simply moved the pedophiles around rather than allowing their entire organization to be shamed by them.
And when these organizations cannot hide their shame, they find a scapegoat. For example, BATFEces gun running scheme. They are going to pin it on someone below Holder, they will resign, and we are all supposed to be content and STFU.
It’s all part of how authoritarian structures work. And your denial of these organizational dynamics can only be explained one of three ways:
1) You are too immature or stupid to recognize these basic patterns of human behavior. (You are not a child, so that leaves stupid.)
2) You are a liar. You know very well that police shootings are RARELY ever properly investigated, and that the first instinct of every organization is to cover up. This one in particular has NOT been taken over by any other agency.
3) You are in denial because if you admit that these pigs are indeed a bunch of JBT asshats, that you too must bear the shame of being their brother.
Klapton, you seem to be projecting your own weaknesses on others here, and it’s obvious that you’ve never been closer to an officer-involved shooting investigation than reading the hate blogs.
Duckie, you continue your grotesque and cartoonish exaggerations of something you don’t understand, and ignore explanations you’ve been given. Perhaps a re-read of the thread is in order.
“Klapton, you seem to be projecting your own weaknesses on others here, and it’s obvious that you’ve never been closer to an officer-involved shooting investigation than reading the hate blogs.”
I guess I was wrong. You really ARE stupid.
Let’s try this again…
THIS SHOOTING THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING WAS “INVESTIGATED” BY THE SAME DEPARTMENT THAT DID IT. THERE HAS BEEN NO OTHER INVESTIGATION FROM STATE OR FEDERAL OFFICIALS.
I am not talking about all the OTHER flim-flam cover-ups that happen all the time that you are in denial about. I am talking about THIS ONE.
You know, I did reread, and I found that you never tried to argue against the Lord Acton quote:
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
オイ。 あほ豚、今あなたがまごまごするですか？
分かりましたか？あなたの脳が論理学の欠乏です。
Duck, do you take from the quote that all in authority are automatically corrupt?
Klapton, do you seriously think police shootings are not reviewed by prosecutors’ offices?
Mas Says:
July 8th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Duck, do you take from the quote that all in authority are automatically corrupt?
===
Those in power are mentally corrupted. Lording over others is mala en se. You’d have to be touched in the head to think otherwise.
“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” ~James Madison
“Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” ~Robert Lefevre
“The state calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.” ~Max Stirner
So you feel anyone having authority over anyone else is evil in and of themself?
The parent, the teacher in charge of the classroom, the owner of the shop supervising employees, are all evil in and of themselves?
That is, in essence, what you just said.
Duck, do you by any chance describe yourself as an anarchist, or a “sovereign citizen”?
“Klapton, do you seriously think police shootings are not reviewed by prosecutors’ offices?”
You are avoiding the point. Dupnik’s thugs “investigated” Dupnik’s thugs. They changed their story several times from the very beginning. If a perp does that, it is presented to a jury as evidence of FALSEHOOD. But you conveniently ignore these things, because cops lie all the time. It is one of many double-standards that statists like you just accept as being just.
Prosecutors cover up cop criminality all the time. Or they administer the slaps on the wrist that would have meant hard time for a mundane. If a prosecutor’s office “reviewed” Dupnik’s cover-up (aka “investigation”), they are just as untrustworthy as any other government stooge.
Why have YOU not called for a state level or FBI investigation of this incident?
Regarding your question about “authority” to guard duck, if you cannot discern the difference between the coercive “authority” of the State vs. the voluntary “authority” of an employer or teacher, you are more stupid than I thought.
Mas Says:
So you feel anyone having authority over anyone else is evil in and of themself?
The parent, the teacher in charge of the classroom, the owner of the shop supervising employees, are all evil in and of themselves?
===
In business:
“The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest functionary possesses who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am to be allowed to live or to work.” ~Friedrich von Hayek, Road to Serfdom, 1944
The Teacher may be “in charge” but she can’t just shoot a student for being disobedient, and most punishment handed down by her is often taken voluntarily because of a guilty feeling. The kid can refuse to be punished as my brother and I have both done on occasion. In fact, rather than accept an unjust punishment in High-school, I dropped out and got a GED… Long story there, maybe tell you some other time.
A parent can raise a child without violence. People do it all the time. Some very good friends of mine have not laid a hand on their kids but the kids are perfectly behaved on their own because it is recognized as a benefit to them to be in their parent’s good graces. Being good results in getting to help out making dinner or some other privilege.
===
Duck, do you by any chance describe yourself as an anarchist, or a “sovereign citizen”?
===
One can’t be sovereign and a citizen. That’s just silly.
See the last paragraph in this comment:
https://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2011/06/05/reading-evidentiary-videos-point-1/comment-page-4/#comment-9149
I clearly stated my political persuasion but I hear doughnuts aren’t very good for memory. So you may need to read it again.
Klapton, the county prosecutors had “boots on the ground” while the shooting scene was still fresh, and followed the investigation throughout. The misperception that the first shot was fired by Guerena instead of SWAT was understandable to anyone who has ever reconstructed a shooting, and as soon as discovered, was announced by the sheriff’s office, not covered up. Those of us with experience know that prosecutors’ offices don’t “cover up cop criminality all the time,” quite the reverse in fact.
You ask why I don’t call for an FBI investigation of the Guerena shooting? Because (1) I see no reason for it, and (2) people like you would just call it a cover-up anyway.
Duck, your most recent statement contradicts your statement of the 9th, that “Those in power are mentally corrupted. Lording over others is mala en se. ” You might want to spend a little less time dissing people who do a job you’ve never done and which you obviously don’t understand, and a little more time putting your own thoughts in order.
You are correct that “people like me” who have watched as government thugs cover up and make excuses for other government thugs (gee… kinda like this thread?) won’t trust what the other government thugs say.
Nice going ignoring the “slap on the wrist” issue. If you deny that criminal cops get off easy, you are completely full of crap. But rather than reveal yourself as the liar you are, you’ll probably just avoid that point again.
There’s a REASON We The People don’t trust JBTs like you. There’s a REASON that Our anger is building. When you and your JBT brethren continue to ignore and deny those reasons, you are feeding and building that anger.
An explosion IS coming, and payback WILL be a bitch.
I have nothing more to say to you.
How so? You can quit your job, you can drop out of school, and you can run away from home. Staying is a choice. Government is everywhere. You can’t leave it all behind. Refusing to follow orders results in death, imprisonment, or fines. The US charges expats income taxes on money earned overseas. So even leaving the country does you no good.
It’s apples and oranges.
Nice try though.
PS: I’m not dissing you Barney, I’m cop bashing. You insulted me first, and unlike the average folk you’re used to dealing with, I’m not afraid of the Aynasız. You dish it out, you better be able to take it too.
Ducky, I’m afraid you lost your standing to quote “apples and oranges” when you first said any authority was evil in and of itself, and then tried to distinguish between whether compliance was voluntary or not. You also conveniently fail to connect how any of your regurgitated rhetoric makes it unjust for police officers serving a lawful warrant to shoot a suspect pointing a loaded rifle at them.
Encouraging to see that brief flash of honesty when you admit you’re cop-bashing, though.
I would tend to agree with Klapton. Talking to you is pointless. It’s not that I’ve failed to connect anything, it’s that you refuse to consider the possibility that the fuzz are the bad-guys here.
I have come to the conclusion through this conversation, that to be an LEO requires that you supplant your mores with the heady sensation of arbitrary state power.
So “I have nothing more to say to you” also.
Mas, most of what I wanted to say has been covered in one post or another. There are good points on both “sides.” I have a military background, but I have received training from LA SWAT, San Diego Sheriff’s SWAT, and Navy Seals dealing with dynamic entries (and other topics). I was point on a 6-man entry team. I had always assumed my training was brief compared to that received by those who are on SWAT teams, but the video made me begin to doubt that.
There are some things that I think most can agree on:
1. The SWAT team in the video is in DIRE need of training, both for their own safety, and that of the citizens of the county.
2. The shooting, once the police and citizen are facing each other with guns, is almost inevitable given the level of violence these days. Unless further evidence comes out that incriminates them, I would not charge the police. Likewise I would not have charged the citizen if it had gone the other way, up to the point where he knew it was police.
3. This incident should be reviewed, separately from any attempt to assign blame, to possibly develope better tactics for the welfare of all concerned. I believe it is always possible to improve.
4. Our society as a whole needs to take a look at whether crimes that do not deserve the death penalty, should have tactics used that can so readily result in death if things go wrong.
5. For the future of our country, we need to lessen the gap (chasm?) between citizens and LEOs. Didn’t there used to be a bumper sticker something like: Support your local police, and keep them local. Or something like that. Our LEOs need to remain part of our communities, not become paramilitary outsiders.
That’s my two cents.
Also, good book – In the Gravest Extreme. Wife is reading it next.
Mr Ayoob,
have you studied the shooting, in Toccoa Georigia, of Jonathan Ayres?
And if so, would you share your opinion?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZFlzvt0w7Q&playnext=1&list=PLA9BF6C5B3B1B3DDC
http://www.thenortheastgeorgian.com/articles/2010/03/19/news/top_stories/01topstory.txt
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=547544
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/jun/17/stephen-county-deputy-charged-felony-ayers-case/
http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/jun/17/stephen-county-deputy-charged-felony-ayers-case/
First I’ve heard of that case, Justin, thanks for sending it along.
Cordially,
Mas
Mas you asked the following and being a busy person I failed to follow up, “Mas Says:
June 10th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Lee, you missed the point here. Mr. Guerena was not a suspect because he had been arrested in the past, and the matter dropped for whatever reason. He was a suspect because of the investigation that led to the search warrant in question. He was shot by police because he pointed a rifle at them as they attempted to serve that warrant. You claim to be a better person than the “jack boots” who inhabit your corner of Arizona…exactly how many of them do you know, enabling you to make that statement?”
I do want to point out three errors ON YOUR side, first YOU made the claim originally that he had been arrested in the past (which according to you is reason enough to be READY) I than showed you how you were wrong, after all charges dismissed MEAN innocent and that those same charges SHOULD not be used against you…you than stated “search warrant” and SADLY failed to again show WHY a SWAT team was being used on a SIMPLE SEARCH warrant- and WHY after 20 months an ARREST warrant had not been issued, again of course failing to show how at any point this man had shown to be a bad person, (his brother maybe and father- but not him, or is it you are bad now by virtue of who your family is?)
As for the last comment, I know personally and shoot with 22 of the local sheriffs, 3 DEA, and between 15-25 BP agents every two weeks – I like and am friends with exactly 3 of these men/women, and the reason for that is, I trust them- the rest of them 68 sheriffs, 48 local PD, over 2000 local BP and more I dislike and distrust as they have made it clear in more than one conversation (several hundred in fact over the course of 4 years of shooting every two weeks) that they prefer the BLUE line (as you obviously do) to the citizens they are “sworn” to protect.
Mas, I respect you for what you offer to the shooting community, however, I cannot respect your approach to the police and their many indiscretions, I mean are you seriously going to tell me that the SAME prosecutor who SIGNED off on and approved the use of the SWAT team should be the one reviewing the case? WAKE UP!
Mas, this seems like one huge apology for violent behavior. What evidence did the police have that this guy was harming someone? Where is his alleged victims? Was he about to harm someone? Did he harm someone in the past? Do you really believe violent force is moral if there is no immediate victim to protect? Is it justified to break in and shoot someone just to go looking for “evidence?” Because some judge in a room somewhere decided that it was okay, so that makes it moral? Why does his opinion matter when it comes to private property and the right to be left alone?
And do you really expect me and other “taxpayers” to be happy about having our money taken from us by force to pay these thugs’ salaries? Seriously?
I’m sorry, but there is NO EXCUSE for this raid. Period. I won’t call these police terrorists–I’ll call them what they actually are: thugs, no better than Mafia hitmen.
Shame on you for apologizing for them. They are crooks and they should pay restitution to the family of their victim and resign in disgrace.
This subject has exposed a huge number of cop haters, and not just here, I never suspected. While I’m all for prosecuting cops who cross the line, this shooting was 100% justified and caused entirely by Guerena’s actions. While you can argue the search warrant was unjustified, though I think it was, or criticize the way SWAT went in the fact is they had a legal warrant and identified themselves. When Guerena raised his rifle they had every right to shoot.
And for those wanting a civilian investigation, here’s one:
http://kold.images.worldnow.com/images/incoming/webdocs/SWAT%20justified.pdf
I think this article on dynamic entry from 2009 applies quite a bit to the incident:
http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/published/Push_or_Hold_8July09.pdf