http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=1725249,b=facebook
they don't if they have a 'no-knock' warrant which is to have the element of surprise. and no the guy had his safety on, this wasn't a mistake for him, that is what he was trained to do, to see if the targets are allies or hostile in a sense. he wasn't going to fire at allies, switching a safety on and off is easy and quick so he would of been able to turn his gun's safety off if he needed too and survive.MASTACHIEFPWN said:This is why I don't like america's police system. Don't they have to show you a warrent to get into your damned house? Don't they have to pronouce themselves as Police? I mean if someone just randomly bashed into my house, I'd blow them away, Cops, Robbers, Fourign Invaders, anyone.
Did the guy even fire his gun?
.
While I agree with how the S.W.A.T team acted, the guy did had a gun pointed in their general direction, what if it was robbers instead of the S.W.A.T team? You would rather be armed and prepared to receive them, or would you accept your fate, while they rob you, have their ways with your wife, and probably kill her or your kid for fun?thelonewolf266 said:And this is why I don't understand all the people on all the threads about guns that think being able to legally own a gun is a good idea.If it was illegal to own a gun they would never have had to shoot him because they thought he was a threat.That said I don't know why they didn't let paramedics in that clearly was a horrible thing to do.Though I doubt his chances of survival would be high if he had been shot 60 times.
Once again proof that more guns does not make a country safer.
Stun him...with what? He was at the end of a long, dark hallway and armed with a rifle. Besides, SWAT doesn't generally carry non-lethal weaponry. Also, not only do tazers have ridiculously shitty range, they don't work half the time because the prog doesn't reach the skin or a malfunction, or...well..there are a ton of reasons that tazers are never a good choice.emeraldrafael said:SWAT are definitely int he wrong here, regardless of if he was armed or not. You're tellingm e you couldnt have stunned him? And you wouldnt let him see Paramedics? What was he going to do, gut one and use the guy's intestines as a garrote? Oh well, another fatherless young child, another young man's life gone, and another screw up that could have been handled better if five seconds would have been taken to just say hi, whats up.
Yeah, I don't blame them for shooting. But, if the article is accurate, their handling of the situation after that is terrible. I hope to see some demotions.GreatTeacherCAW said:He was waving a AR-15 at police offers. Of course he was shot 60 times. It is also extremely unsurprising that this took place in Tucson, Arizona. NOTHING GOOD ever happens in Arizona, especially Tucson. Tucson makes you not believe in God.
Keep in mind that SWAT was almost certainly armed with automatic weapons (sub-machine guns), and that there was more than one officer involved in the shooting. And automatic weapons can burn through ammo pretty fast.rednose1 said:While I am trying hard not to prematurely judge them, I still find it absurd that they couldnt stun him, or fire less than SEVENTY rounds. The fact that they are now keeping everything on the hush-hush also seems suspicious. If you've done nothing wrong, wouldn't you be completely open to prove it when people start asking questions?
From the article, I would assume the situation was thus:Zakarath said:What a mess... I can see where the police are coming from; if they encounter someone pointing an assault rifle at them, especially in a hostile environment, they're pretty justified in shooting... but shouldn't that guy have been aware that it was the police? Something doesn't add up.
On the issue of medical attention, they really should have gotten him seen to sooner, but it's pretty much a moot point after what he was hit with.
SWAT aren't the same as Riot. SWAT generally use all lethal weaponry for their operations with the exception of tear gas and flashbangs for entry.jumjalalabash said:Am I wrong for assuming SWAT generally used non-lethal weapons? Also you think that the police doing such a large operation to so many homes they would do a bit of research or something first.
Like I said, this could have all be avoided if the SWAT just said hey, sup? But yeah, I get that not all non lethal weapons stay non lethal, but there were still weapons that they could have used, techniques or something. I mean, this was Pot trafficing, this wasnt a hostage situation, this wasnt a school shooting, this wasnt any of that.Kopikatsu said:Stun him...with what? He was at the end of a long, dark hallway and armed with a rifle. Besides, SWAT doesn't generally carry non-lethal weaponry. Also, not only do tazers have ridiculously shitty range, they don't work half the time because the prog doesn't reach the skin or a malfunction, or...well..there are a ton of reasons that tazers are never a good choice.emeraldrafael said:SWAT are definitely int he wrong here, regardless of if he was armed or not. You're tellingm e you couldnt have stunned him? And you wouldnt let him see Paramedics? What was he going to do, gut one and use the guy's intestines as a garrote? Oh well, another fatherless young child, another young man's life gone, and another screw up that could have been handled better if five seconds would have been taken to just say hi, whats up.
I'd agree that they should have let the paramedics in, though...but more importantly, the man survived for just over an hour after being shot sixty times. The hell? I know that bullet wounds aren't nearly as lethal as portrayed in the media, but SIXTY TIMES?
Edit: I focused a bit too much on tazers, but as a Police Officer Trainee, non-lethal weapons very often...aren't.
Well there's a few possibilities.Zakarath said:What a mess... I can see where the police are coming from; if they encounter someone pointing an assault rifle at them, especially in a hostile environment, they're pretty justified in shooting... but shouldn't that guy have been aware that it was the police? Something doesn't add up.
On the issue of medical attention, they really should have gotten him seen to sooner, but it's pretty much a moot point after what he was hit with.