Rise of the Warrior Cop

[henschman]

They could have easily applied and gotten an arrest warrant for the guy along with the search warrant for the house, and nabbed him when he headed out. If there was probable cause for one, there would be probable cause for the other. Even if they didn't get the arrest warrant, they could have executed the search warrant when the guy was away from home with much less risk to everyone. Of course it isn't nearly as fun, exciting, and glamorous, and doesn't make the story nearly as newsworthy.

So what is your moral justification for initiating force against people to keep them from growing or possessing certain plants, or engaging in voluntary transactions with fellow consenting adults? Why the hard on for forcibly caging people who are minding their own business, or dealing others based on consent rather than force?

 

[inactive]

Do share in your expertise then, making vague references to your work, with out examples, proves nothing.

His occupation is listed on his profile. Just click his name. It's hyperlinked.

 

[Norman]

The word you're looking for is "bear," not "bare." And the simple act of pointing a weapon at an officer (while one is in a disoriented state due to the tactics of those officers) does not immediately justify opening fire. And opening fire doesn't justify holding EMS back for over an hour while your subject bleeds to death without any on-scene medical attention.

It's hardly a red herring when so many raids (arrest or search) have resulted in the death or injury of innocent people. Law enforcement has a duty to minimize the risk to innocent people in or near the site of a raid of any kind. How can you justify no-knock or tactical entry raids against a bunch of old people who engaged in low-level gambling? How can you justify stuff like this?
How?

How can you justify hitting a target and not knowing if your target is able to hear your commands? That should be on the list of target intel, shouldn't it? "Does our subject have any disabilities that might make it difficult to move, or to hear/respond to us?" Then you avoid killing a 62-year-old deaf man.

I was paraphrasing when I said "arrest assault." Creating a new phrase, if you will. Something like Jeff Cooper's word "hoplophobe." How's that for a definition?

Why thank you for pointing out my phone auto correct issues.
Due tell why pointing an "assault rifle" with an "assault safety" at officers doesn't justify lethal force? If you said that to me I'd call you a darned fool, who might need to reconsider carrying a CCW.

Please tell me what a "tactical entry" is? What qualifies it as "tactical" the clothes they were wearing? The fact the deployed an early version of a noise flash diversionary device? How do I justify making entry? Well, I don't because I don't know the totality of the circumstances, and neither do you. I refuse to make decisions based solely in emotions.

You're second story is also severely lacking in facts. How far was the shot made? How far away did Salvator see them. How was his "assault knife" positioned? What were the facts and circumstances leading up to the warrant? After? Does it matter that he was deaf anymore than Martin being 17? They both could kill you. You're basing your judgments off emotions. Restrain your "emotions assault", and view the totality of the facts and circumstances logically.

Now, are you done "derail assaulting" this thread with 17 and 24 year old articles? Can we carry on?

 

[Norman]

They could have easily applied and gotten an arrest warrant for the guy along with the search warrant for the house, and nabbed him when he headed out. If there was probable cause for one, there would be probable cause for the other. Even if they didn't get the arrest warrant, they could have executed the search warrant when the guy was away from home with much less risk to everyone. Of course it isn't nearly as fun, exciting, and glamorous, and doesn't make the story nearly as newsworthy.

So what is your moral justification for initiating force against people to keep them from growing or possessing certain plants, or engaging in voluntary transactions with fellow consenting adults? Why the hard on for forcibly caging people who are minding their own business, or dealing others based on consent rather than force?

You're still ignoring me?

 

[henschman]

That post you just quoted was directed at you, pard.

 

[Glocktogo]

It sure did. Why don't you consider it a win? I'm curious if you place the blame for that on the LEOs. If you are, as I think, doing this then that is a large part of what is wrong with or society today. The result of the Guerena incident was solely his fault. He's the one who was part of a multi million dollar drug organization. He's the one who chose to do this with his wife and child in his home. He's the one who chose to provoke a gunfight, in his home, with his family inside. This blame shifting, accountability lacking, responsibility lacking sense of superiority is what is gnawing at the seams of our nation.

If you were raiding a house and the bad guy used a child as a human shield, would you shoot the kid? Through the grace of God, neither the child or wife was hurt. If the wife knew the husband was dealing, I'd have less sympathy for her if she'd been hit. The child can in no way be lumped into that group.

The VERY first concern when conducting a drug raid should be non-combatants in the line of fire. Yes, this raid was a fail on that point alone. No drug arrest is worth endangering the life of a child. It's irresponsible.

Your points are making no sense, If the guy had a weed farm in his basement, was a armed felon. How's that not a legitimate raid?

Do share in your expertise then, making vague references to your work, with out examples, proves nothing.

What does "swatting" have to do with any of my statements?

You haven't exactly posted you curriculum vitae either. At least not past allegedly having inside information on the killing of a dog that you haven't been able to back up.

Care to post your credentials, training and experience? The reason I ask is because you're a self proclaimed expert in tactics and law enforcement operations, and since you could only be doing it for 4 years maximum that would pretty much make you a savant.

Due to the WOT, there are a lot of 25 year old guys that have more door kicking and gunfight experience that the sum total of most PD's entire force. There are also a lot of those WOT fighters who have passed on into police work and brought those levels of experience with them. I'm not saying he does specifically, but it would be unwise to dismiss someone's level of experience due to their age posted on the internet.

eta: whats with the innocent in danger red herring? None of the people that were subject to the warrants were "innocent". Both brought weapons to bare, and appeared to be involved in narcotics.

Was the child one of the warrant subjects? If not, it would be your post that's pretty much a "red herring".

 

[loudshirt]

Let's not overlook the fact that applicants with military background are given preference over those without it. A good deal of cops now ARE soldiers, in blue instead of brown.

Not always. Most police officers especially federal are college graduates. Some are college with military, many are college only and fewer are military only.

Late 18's and 20's. Do you know what the reaction was? They tracked them down and shot them in an ambush, often with full auto's (military arms such as BAR's and 1928 Thompsons), from a concealed position without saying a word. It doesn't get more "militarized" than a near ambush.

Bonnie and Clyde were gunned down like that.

 

[Norman]

If you were raiding a house and the bad guy used a child as a human shield, would you shoot the kid? Through the grace of God, neither the child or wife was hurt. If the wife knew the husband was dealing, I'd have less sympathy for her if she'd been hit. The child can in no way be lumped into that group.

The VERY first concern when conducting a drug raid should be non-combatants in the line of fire. Yes, this raid was a fail on that point alone. No drug arrest is worth endangering the life of a child. It's irresponsible.

Due to the WOT, there are a lot of 25 year old guys that have more door kicking and gunfight experience that the sum total of most PD's entire force. There are also a lot of those WOT fighters who have passed on into police work and brought those levels of experience with them. I'm not saying he does specifically, but it would be unwise to dismiss someone's level of experience due to their age posted on the internet.
Was the child one of the warrant subjects? If not, it would be your post that's pretty much a "red herring".

Your first question was incomplete and loaded, and you know it. What is the threat the subject is displaying? Are there any peripheral targets available? Head shot? Can I, and do I have time to improve my position?
I would argue that Guerena was the one who endangered his child. First, when he got involved in the drug ring. Second when he continued ro live with the child while working in the ring. Third when he brought out the rifle during the warrant. Yes, the child should have been taken into consideration. Was it? Idk, wasn't there. This thinking though, is still shifting the blame from where it truly sits, IMHO. Guerena. Also, in case you didn't read it, the Guerena's were implicated in the double murder of a couple that worked for them.


I never dismissed his door kicking, gun-fighting experience. I simply asked for his qualifications, as he is a self proclaimed law enforcement operations and tactics expert. If he hadn't made that claim, then I wouldn't care. As an aside, I've been lucky enough to meet or know a hand full of the you door kicker, hero types. Most are also great dudes.

touché on the child be the subject of the warrant. Would it please you more if I said "innocent injury or death" instead of innocent danger? I would again claim that this was a failure on the child's parents. They placed him in the situation. How would you sir have simultaneously conducted the three warrants? Do you have all of the facts and circumstances to make this assessment?

 

[Norman]

They could have easily applied and gotten an arrest warrant for the guy along with the search warrant for the house, and nabbed him when he headed out. If there was probable cause for one, there would be probable cause for the other. Even if they didn't get the arrest warrant, they could have executed the search warrant when the guy was away from home with much less risk to everyone. Of course it isn't nearly as fun, exciting, and glamorous, and doesn't make the story nearly as newsworthy.

So what is your moral justification for initiating force against people to keep them from growing or possessing certain plants, or engaging in voluntary transactions with fellow consenting adults? Why the hard on for forcibly caging people who are minding their own business, or dealing others based on consent rather than force?

Ah, counselor, you know good and well that PC for a search does jot equal PC for an arrest. I'm a little surprised that you would make that claim. Now which guy in particular were you talking about? Do you know all of the circumstances surrounding this incident to judge how and why the warrant was executed? Are you simply viewing the incident through your bias and stating the predetermined conclusion that it was wrong?

It would seem your second paragraph is simply a tirade of frustration about marijuana being illegal. I haven't read anything on here where force was initiated for on someone for having "a plant". I have read multiple articles where deadly force was used on subjects posing a threat of grievous bodily harm or death. As for moral justification, I didn't know I had to have any. I would lean towards Teddy Roosevelt's

No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it

I don't get hard on's for caging people. I'm not into S&M

 

[TedKennedy]

Seems like some folks think they have a "right" to retaliate when a search or arrest warrant is conducted. They'd be much better off to simply comply, and let the police do their business. Some on here act like the police may turn into a paramilitary hit squad.

http://land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/weaver.shtml