are you gonna ask me to answer a riddle? when I was watching dora one time with my kid, there is this mean troll that lives under a bridge and he always ask dora to answer a riddle. i remember thinking ..... I wish I could answer a riddle one day to cross a bridge.Okay, so that video did NOT show any sort of lack of proper identification. You can't hear what they are saying, and they are hardly going to show a search warrant to a guy with a gun. Nice try though.
As for name calling, I did no such thing. Hypocrite? If you take that as name-calling you have a serious problem. Childish? That's an adjective, not a noun, and therefore not name-calling. I was describing the nature of your post. Again, please go back and re-read what I said.
And again, I don't care what you believe or value.
you guys" as you say, is reffering to U.S> citizens, not serving as public servants. im not denigrating you, im just saying you have a lot to learn. i think you have been indoctrinated because of the environment your in daily. i was once with blinders on too, then i got out into the real world outside of the military and I saw a lot of things I had been led to believe were right, that I then saw were wrong. and my education continues till the day i die.
but i do believe .... no strike that. I KNOW that these academies are teaching new recruites its them against the world. until the bad training and indoctrination stops it will get worse before it gets better. and there are a lot more citizens than cops, so who do you think its gonna get worse for? exactly. fix it internally before the people have to.
Yeah well that's not hard when you just made your forum name. He has no logical response for me so he just tries to silence me. Trying to silence the voice of a free person, gee that really is within the ideals of his Oath.I see Red.
Hope you choke on it.
was it grown in america?
Of course not. I'm not talking about conjecture at all... I'm referring to the fact that they changed their story initially claiming Mr. Guerena shot first, to acknowledging (only after evidence proved otherwise) that he actually did not fire at all. There was also a statement about discovering a stolen police uniform, which turned out to be a BP baseball cap, and even though the home was searched on warrant for "known drugs" and evidence of home invasions, they actually found neither. Then they found it necessary to speedily seal the warrant, but to disclose items they found when searching. Who needs speculation about planting weapons when the factual events and evidence are so much more damning?
I know that cops screw up and I know that some of them have an "us vs. them" mentality, but I can only control what I do. And yes, I've heard/read officers who have a very poor attitude but I don't let it rub off on me. I've never thought about it as "us vs. them." Maybe it's because I'm fortunate enough to work in a "podunk town" where I get to know people that I see the "us" as the honest people living and working in the area and the "them" as the people trying to break into their houses. I knew a guy who routinely carried a big .44 revolver into one of our businesses and said he carried it because he worried about the employees' safety. Good for him, that's one guy I don't have to worry about! You think I'm going to look at that guy and say he's one of "them" because he doesn't carry a badge? Do you really think that I don't see that guy as being on my side when things hit the fan? I really don't appreciate you assuming things about me when you've not even met me. I can guarantee you that I'm the guy you want to be dealing with should you ever be involved in something that gets the police called. I just don't like when people insinuate that I blindly stand up for cops because they are cops. If this had been a military raid gone wrong, I'd have said the EXACT same things that I've said in regard to this situation. If it had been a thread about firefighters causing someone's death then I would have given them the benefit of the doubt too. We very rarely get any threads about that kind of stuff though, only police stuff. I haven't followed the latest updates on this case but if the police intentionally lied about him firing at them then I disagree with them. I'm just not going to make the leap that lying (or misremembering, or whatever they say happened) about one thing translated to lying about everything or going so far as to say it justifies thinking that they planted a gun on him.
Of course not. I'm not talking about conjecture at all... I'm referring to the fact that they changed their story initially claiming Mr. Guerena shot first, to acknowledging (only after evidence proved otherwise) that he actually did not fire at all. There was also a statement about discovering a stolen police uniform, which turned out to be a BP baseball cap, and even though the home was searched on warrant for "known drugs" and evidence of home invasions, they actually found neither. Then they found it necessary to speedily seal the warrant, but to disclose items they found when searching. Who needs speculation about planting weapons when the factual events and evidence are so much more damning?
I think they planted the Border Patrol hat.
Now in the video at the end of the melee when a Swat team member runs up with his sidearm and reaches over the other team members thru the door and comences to empty his magazine would that be considered to be justified because everybody else was doing it and he was'nt the first one to fire? Or would that be pileing on at that point?Now about the number of rounds that were discharged, we are taught to shoot until the threat is eliminated. Some say that the teams actions were an excessive use of force, the only shot that was fired which could be reviewed for excessive use of force in this case was the first one. If the first officer was justified in pulling the trigger, the rest of them are justified as well. Dead is Dead, there are no greater or lessor states of being dead. You do not shoot to kill or wound, you shoot to eliminate the threat before you.
Now in the video at the end of the melee when a Swat team member runs up with his sidearm and reaches over the other team members thru the door and comences to empty his magazine would that be considered to be justified because everybody else was doing it and he was'nt the first one to fire? Or would that be pileing on at that point?
@E5Ranger, you call the team murders let me ask you this. Apparently you are prior service and I'm guessing you spent some time in the box. Put yourself in a stack outside Hadji's house, you make entry and find the same situation, would you fire on the subject? Furthermore would you question the commanders intent, or Intel? My guess from my time as a soldier you would execute the command as given as long as it was lawful.
I enjoy discussing these issues with you guys, and I understand your dis-trust of those of US that wear a badge. I just ask that you put yourself in our shoes before commenting and think about what you would do.
Now about the number of rounds that were discharged, we are taught to shoot until the threat is eliminated. Some say that the teams actions were an excessive use of force, the only shot that was fired which could be reviewed for excessive use of force in this case was the first one. If the first officer was justified in pulling the trigger, the rest of them are justified as well. Dead is Dead, there are no greater or lessor states of being dead. You do not shoot to kill or wound, you shoot to eliminate the threat before you.
EXACTLY!! that is exactly what that is and nothing more. total disregard for anyone's safety. Im VERY glad that more people were not killed here, but with the spray and pray tactics we see here, I almost wish that they would have shot one of his neighbors too with some of the stray rounds. then maybe some of these guys would serve jail time. still wishful thinking though probly.Those are "me too" shots.
Now in the video at the end of the melee when a Swat team member runs up with his sidearm and reaches over the other team members thru the door and comences to empty his magazine would that be considered to be justified because everybody else was doing it and he wasn't the first one to fire? Or would that be pileing on at that point?
Just to be sure of what I am about to say I reviewed the video. The Officer you described was a member of the stack who was in the process of rejoining the stack after the breach. When the shooting starts he is rejoining the team, then he steps to the left to use the house for cover. Upon reaching the stack he fires several shots at the subject. I saw nothing that could be considered an unprofessional act on his part.
Link to video: <iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XP0f00_JMak" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I read all of these posts from officers asking us to "put ourselves in the shoes of the SWAT team."
Okay, now put yourself in the shoes of the U.S. Marine who is sleeping and hears someone breaking into his house without properly identifying themselves. Picture you grabbing your weapon to defend your family from harm, then seeing bullets come at you.
Put yourself in his shoes as well. How would you react to someone breaching your door with a weapon when you have no idea it's coming?
Now in the video at the end of the melee when a Swat team member runs up with his sidearm and reaches over the other team members thru the door and comences to empty his magazine would that be considered to be justified because everybody else was doing it and he was'nt the first one to fire? Or would that be pileing on at that point?
Just to be sure of what I am about to say I reviewed the video. The Officer you described was a member of the stack who was in the process of rejoining the stack after the breach. When the shooting starts he is rejoining the team, then he steps to the left to use the house for cover. Upon reaching the stack he fires several shots at the subject. I saw nothing that could be considered an unprofessional act on his part.