The last update in the Jose Guerena case–5.2 on February 1, 2012–concluded, as have all the others, with many unanswered questions. What is known is that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik claimed that it could take an enormous amount of time to investigate this case, and it could be a very long time before any arrests were made. This article, for those that have not been following this case closely, is a brief review of developments through Update 3 to bring you up to speed as I continue reporting and analysis. I’ll also add a bit of new information in this article, but will save most of it for additional articles soon to be posted.
Jose and Vanessa Guerena and their two children
On May 5, 2011, a SWAT team comprised of elements of four local law enforcement agencies performed a raid on the home of Jose Guerena, a Marine combat veteran of two tours, in Tucson, AZ. Guerena, who worked long hours at a nearby Copper Mine, had arrived home only a few hours earlier and was sound asleep when the team arrived.
Briefly spotting what she recognized as armed men in their yard, Jose’s wife Vanessa, a native of Mexico who did not speak English well, told Jose, who leapt from bed wearing only boxer shorts. He hid Vanessa and his four year old son in a closet in a back bedroom, and picking up the weapon nearest at hand, an AR-15 with a scope, prepared to defend his home and family.
Smashing in the door, the officers unleashed a panicky fusillade of 71 bullets, striking Jose only 22 times. They ventilated not only Guerena’s home, but a substantial portion of the neighborhood, and over the course of more than an hour, let Jose bleed to death.
The police first claimed that they fired only in response to Guerena’s firing on them, but upon discovering that not only had Guerena’s weapon not been fired, he had not flicked off the safety, changed their story. Suddenly, Guerena became a “mid level drug gang” enforcer, a suspect in a murder, and the possessor or police uniforms and equipment, later revised to a single bullet resistant vest—likely his Marine issue—and a ball cap with a “border Patrol” logo. Not a single marijuana seed was found in his home, nor any evidence of wrong doing, though circa December 2011, the police are saying that a gun that might have been stolen years ago was found in his home.
A 54 second long video of the raid, recorded by the police on the scene, is available here. Update 1 contains a complete tactical analysis of the video, which I’ll not take the time to repeat here, but these facts are pertinent:
(1) Notice the “me too!” shooter near the end of the video. He comes from the left, slings his rifle behind his back, draws his handgun, runs to the door, sticks it between the heads of two fellow officers, and fires several rounds. Not only did he directly endanger his fellow officers, he could have had no idea what he was shooting at, and no idea where his bullets were going. This is the kind of stupidity and negligence that should cause any officer anywhere to be fired.
(2) This is, without a doubt, the most disorganized, incompetent SWAT action I have ever seen. I’ve seen a few.
(3) During an action the police would only later describe as being incredibly dangerous, the takedown of the home of a drug cartel hit man, they are playing music in their vehicle, which tends not to suggest they were taking things terribly seriously.
(4) The officer’s fire was uncontrolled and absolutely panic-stricken.
(5) Nearly 70% of the rounds fired by the officers–at very close range inside a home–missed Guerena. They even managed to shoot the door and door frame surrounding them as they frantically shot up the house. It’s a miracle they didn’t shoot each other–as far as we know (the door was open during the shooting and the outward edge was also hit several times).
Guerena Home Front Door
(6) No drugs, indeed, nothing at all illegal or remotely suspicious was found in Guerena’s home (the police later claimed a shotgun reported stolen years before was found, but this is suspicious at best–more in following articles). The bullet resistant vest mentioned by the police–probably his Marine issue–was found in his garage in a plastic storage bin. He was given the Border Patrol hat because he applied to be a Border Patrol agent. This was the extent of the “police uniforms” the police claimed to have found.
(7) Seconds after the end of the video, the police, in a panic, retreated and would not enter the house for an hour and 15 minutes. Guerena was not dead, but they denied him medical care, sending in two successive robots to poke and prod him, and actually got a doctor to declare him dead by phone. She never saw or examined Guerena.
(8) Jose’s wife, Vanessa, called 911 and begged for medical help for Jose immediately after he was shot. She pled:
Hurry up, he’s bleeding. I don’t know why they shoot him. They open the door and shoot him. Please get me an ambulance.
When she came to the open front door minutes later, the police grabbed her and would not allow her back inside despite her pleas to get her infant son who was still inside with his dying father.
(9) The police claimed they saw Guerena pointing a rifle at them, but this is highly unlikely. His home was dark–he slept during the day–and they rushed into the home out of bright morning sunlight. It’s probable they couldn’t see anything at all.
Immediately, the police started spinning, claiming that their SWAT team was one of the nation’s best. Rick Kastigar, the chief of investigations for the Pima Co. Sheriff’s Office was among the spinners. He claimed Jose was “the muscle” of a drug ring, “the individual that was directed to exact revenge. The police have never explained how Guerena managed such activity while working full time in a physically demanding job in a copper mine.
As early as 2011, even use of force experts had serious questions:
An independent expert, Chuck Drago, a former longtime SWAT officer for Fort Lauderdale, Fla., police who now does consulting on use of force and other law enforcement issues, said that the shooting itself appeared justified.
‘It’s a horrible, horrible tragedy, but if they walked in the door and somebody came at them with an assault rifle, that would be a justifiable response,” said Drago. “It doesn’t matter whether he’s innocent or not.’
But after examining elements of the search affidavit, Drago questioned whether the sheriff’s office truly had probable cause.
‘When you back up and look at why they’re there in the first place and whether the search warrant was proper, my mind starts struggling,’ Drago said. ‘There are a lot of things that don’t make a lot of sense.
Should you take the time to read the article at policeone.com, you’ll note that the comments, virtually all written by police officers, are of the “if anybody points a gun a police officers, they deserve to get killed,” theme. They ignore that it was the police that provoked the shooting and that it occurred inside Guerena’s home, a home the police spent hours frantically searching–after they killed Guerena and perforated the neighborhood–for any evidence of criminal activity. They found none.
Guerena’s AR-15
UPDATE 2: This update contained information relating to the dispersion of bullet holes in the Guerena home: floor to ceiling and outer wall to outer wall. Police fire fully penetrated the home, striking a 6’ brick backyard fence, and a neighbor’s home behind it. This was visible in a video posted on the Internet (since apparently taken down) showing some portions of the exterior of the home. It is also likely the police used improper, overly-penetrating full metal jacketed ammunition. This video of a local news report does have several stills that indicate the grotesquely excessive nature of the police fire.
Jose Guerena was standing near this wall
Back of Guerena Home
I wrote in part:
I’ve often said, particularly on those occasions when I narrowly escaped injury during my police days, that God protects cops and idiots. That was surely the case here. It is absolutely amazing that Mrs. Guerena and her child and neighbors were not injured or killed. It is equally surprising that the police did not shoot themselves. It would be interesting, by the way, for the local media to confirm that assumption by checking local hospital treatment records for the day of the shooting. While I have no concrete evidence that any officer was injured, I would not be at all surprised.
It is also now known that the SWAT team that raided the Guerena home is comprised of officers from at least four local Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs). As I mentioned in the initial analysis, this can save money, but potentially creates a great number of problems as those officers selected may be selected for reasons other than their tactical abilities. The administrators of many agencies can tend to work at cross-purposes, interfering with, rather than smoothing the path for, their officers. Mrs. Guerena’s attorneys will certainly want to have all of the records of the SWAT team members and their individual and group training. Remember that with four LEOs involved, there are four rather than one sets of deep pockets. This knowledge may affect the quality of the follow-up investigation, which according to Sheriff Dupnik will be done by representatives of the involved agencies. That is never a good procedure or sign.
What should have been visible in a professional operation? Because only a few rounds would have been fired—only if absolutely necessary—and there would have been no misses, the home—and the neighborhood—would show not the slightest external evidence that police gunfire occurred.
Many people—including those hapless officers–are lucky to be alive today. Hopefully, they realize that.
Of course, when you’re a member of one of the best SWAT teams around, recognizing error might be a bit difficult.
UPDATE 3: This update was primarily dedicated to the analysis of the affidavit for a search warrant used in this case. All police searches are governed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. An affidavit is a sworn document that provides, for a judge, all of the facts and observations that would make a reasonable police officer and a reasonable judge believe that specific crimes had been committed by specific people and specific evidence of, or fruits of, those crimes can be found at specific places. If an affidavit is convincing, a judge issues a warrant, which is the legal authority to search within the narrow limits written on the warrant.
If one is looking for four stolen semi-tractor tires, they cannot search anywhere such tires reasonably could not be found, such as in desk drawers, a microwave oven, etc.. Warrants should be very narrow and specific. There is no such thing as a “fishing expedition” warrant–at least there should not be under the Fourth Amendment–allowing the police to search just about anywhere for anything, particularly if “anything” isn’t clearly described and specified and if there is no probable cause to search in the first place.
After the warrant has been served, officers are required to immediately file a
“return,” which is a sworn document detailing each and every item they found and where they found it. Of course, in Guerena’s case, they found nothing.
Update 3 details the many, and absolutely stunning problems with the affidavit filed by a Detective Tisch of the Pima County SO. I wrote:
The affidavit is remarkably incomplete and lacking in genuine probable cause. That any judge would have issued a warrant based on this affidavit is amazing. During my police service, I would never have taken such a document to a judge. No judge with whom I ever worked would have issued a warrant, and my credibility would have been shot from that moment forward. Every judge–they talk with each other about such things–would have been most reluctant to take anything I said or wrote at face value.
Det. Tish is clearly attempting to paint those involved as drug traffickers, and to be completely fair, what he and his fellow officers have observed and documented seems suspicious, and could indeed appear to be indications of drug involvement. But what is lacking is any specific, current criminal activity. He clearly has suspicions—possibly reasonably so—of ongoing criminal activity, but not the slightest shred of evidence of it. He even admits that he has no evidence whatever of any drug activity by anyone involved! Yet he makes an incredible leap of logic and concludes that these people are operating ‘a mid-level drug trafficking organization in the Tucson area.’ He wants a warrant for not one, but four homes and any number of vehicles, not because he has laid out grounds to believe that those homes or vehicles are associated with specific crimes and the specific evidence of those crimes may be found there, but because he obviously hopes to find such evidence if he’s allowed to search. That’s why there were no associated arrest warrants. That’s a fishing expedition. That’s not the way search warrants are supposed to work.
What is particularly surprising is the assertion of the size of this “mid-level drug trafficking operation.” One would think that such a criminal organization would be dealing in bales of marijuana and hundreds of pounds of cocaine, heroin and other drugs, yet the officers did not observe anyone handling or anywhere near drugs, not so much as a single joint. They assert that Alejandro Guerena once drove to a Best Buy store, an appliance resale store and his home, and once drove to Phoenix, but make no assertion whatever that ties those locations and trips into any kind of criminal activity. By the evidence provided in this affidavit, I’m involved in a mid-sized drug operation because I’ve visited those kinds of places, and even once drove to Phoenix. If the Guerena extended family is truly a mid-level drug gang, the drug problem apparently isn’t nearly as bad as we’ve been led to believe.
Tisch’s evidence regarding Jose Guerena is essentially non-existant:
Det. Tish’s probable cause is particularly weak in relation to Jose. Let’s review the “evidence” against Jose listed in the affidavit:
(1) He was a passenger in a truck carrying plastic wrap in 2009.
(2) He was arrested in a drug related case sometime in the past, but all the charges were dropped. Remember that Det. Tisch didn’t explain this to the judge, despite the fact that the disposition information was available to him.
(3) He is related to some people who may or may not be involved in drugs in this investigation and has actually been seen at their homes and in their company, the company of his relatives by birth and marriage.
(4) He may or may not have allowed his brother to drive a Ford Raptor pickup truck which may have belonged to him or maybe to his brother–or not.
(5) He was once “a person of interest” in an unrelated drug investigation by another agency. Many people are at one time or another listed as “a person of interest” in police cases. In a great many of them, they’re found to have no criminal involvement and the police immediately lose “interest.” Det. Tisch provided no evidence of criminal complicity, nor was Jose apparently charged with or convicted of committing any crime.
(6) He lived in a modest home certainly within his means, worked full time in a physically demanding job, earned a solidly middle class salary and owned either three or six vehicles (Det. Tisch apparently has no real idea) of some value.
Where is the specific evidence, the probable cause, that would convince a reasonable police officer that specific illegal items or the evidence of specific crimes committed by Jose could be found at his residence on in his vehicles? There simply is none in this affidavit. The fishing expedition wish list of the first two pages of the affidavit serves only to clearly indicate that Det. Tisch could not for one moment connect Jose–or anyone else mentioned–with a specific crime or to demonstrate that any specific contraband or fruits of a crime could be found in any of their specific homes or vehicles. Perhaps there is additional information, information that would fulfill the very plain requirements of the Fourth Amendment, but if so, it doesn’t appear in this affidavit.
Another significant missing item is any mention of the danger Jose Guerena–drug gang enforcer after the fact–supposedly posed:
What is also striking is that there is no indication of the expectation of danger, not for any of the suspects listed, and certainly not for Jose. Det. Tisch does not state than any of those involved were recently seen (during the course of the six month investigation) carrying or using firearms, or that any special permissions would be required to deal with any such concerns. As dangerous as Jose has become in death–according to the Police–in life he apparently posed no danger worth mentioning by Det. Tisch or other officers. Indeed, drug dealers often carry firearms and are known to use them, but Det. Tisch made no such assertions in this affidavit.
Det. Tisch did not ask for any special conditions, such as service of the warrant at night or an extended time frame for service. He did not ask for a no-knock warrant, and no competent judge should issue one absent a specific and convincing request.
I do recommend you read Update 3 in its entirety. It has a link to a PDF of the incredibly faulty affidavit, and far more specific information explaining why no competent judge should have ever approved a warrant based upon it.
Which judge would have authorized a warrant based on essentially no credible information? Charles V. Harrington. This is Judge Harrington’s official biography:
And on May 9, 2011, four days after Jose was shot to death, Judge Harrington sealed the affidavit, warrant and the return. This is a screenshot of the PDF of that document.
On March 24, 2012, I sent this letter to Judge Harrington:
“The Honorable Judge Charles V. Harrington
Arizona Superior Court in Pima County
110 West Congress St.
Tucson, AZ 85701
Your Honor:
Please allow me to introduce myself. I am Mike McDaniel, and I have been writing about the Jose Guerena Case since shortly after Guerena’s death. My work on that case may be found here: https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/category/jose-guerena-case/
Of particular interest to me and my readers has been the affidavit in support of the search warrant which it appears you authorized. I am also quite interested in your order sealing the affidavit, warrant and return, dated May 09, 2011 (copy enclosed). My interest in this case is based in my nearly two decades of experience in law enforcement.
Would you, Sir, be kind enough to answer several questions? I’ll be sure to include your responses, in their entirety and without editing, in the article I’m writing about these and other issues. If you wish, you may certainly reply by mail, or if it is more convenient, please feel free to reply by e-mail. My e-mail address is in the letterhead. In any case, if you feel that you cannot answer these questions, would you be so kind as to let me know why not?
Questions:
(1) Do you now regret authorizing the warrant based on the affidavit you were given? Please explain.
(2) If you had the opportunity to review the same affidavit, would you authorize a warrant today?
(3) Why did you seal the affidavit, warrant and return? Were you asked to do this, and if so by whom? Why did they make this request? If you sealed it on your own initiative, could you please explain why?
(4) Would you be willing to make the signed affidavit, warrant and return available to me and/or the public? If not, why not, and if so, when and under what circumstances?
Thank you for your time and consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Yours,
Mike McDaniel
Stately McDaniel Manor
PJ Media Contributor”
I suspect it will not surprise readers to learn that Judge Harrington declined, through his representative, to comment.
It is not unheard of for judges to seal such documents, but it is rare. There are a few legitimate reasons for such concealment. If there is an ongoing investigation and releasing the information would compromise it, it is reasonable to seal those documents. In a civil case, documents may be sealed at the request and agreement of both parties. This is not a civil case.
Documents like this are also commonly sealed because they are embarrassing. The affidavit is surely embarrassing, not only to the police, but to the judge. The warrant, as a direct product of, and being directly reflective of the affidavit would also be embarrassing to the judge and the police. But the return has the potential to be most damaging. Even the public statements of the police indicate they found nothing at all in the Guerena home or in their vehicles. There are other indications of this I’ll address shortly. It is entirely possible that Judge Harrington sealed these routine documents to avoid embarrassing himself and the police.
In any case, we do not know why these documents were sealed, who asked that they be sealed (if anyone), or whether Judge Harrington took it upon himself to seal them. Of course, the police already have copies of the documents; they wrote them.
The Vanessa Guerena Interview:
About one hour after Jose was declared dead, the police conducted an intensive interrogation of Vanessa who initially did not know that Jose was dead. In fact, the three detectives that interrogated her tricked her, telling her she was not under arrest, but that she had to remain in the room with them and answer their questions until they were satisfied. This is, of course, absolutely false. Vanessa, a native of Mexico, had imperfect English, and they used this against her as well. When they forced her to remain in the room and tricked her in to answering their questions, they, in law and fact, arrested her. They also mirandized her, which is never necessary unless the police plan to ask her incriminating questions and use whatever she says against her in court.
I’ll be writing about her interrogation in more detail in the near future, but one particularly interesting fact is that the police repeatedly asked her if she and Jose had any “secret hiding places” in their home. There were, of course, none. Guerena’s home was an entirely unremarkable and modest home, and in any such home, it is exceedingly difficult to construct workable secret spaces. There just isn’t sufficient room.
The interview, with three detectives pressuring the young widow of a man their fellow officers murdered only two hours earlier, is wrenching to read. It is far from law enforcement’s finest hour.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
This update is already much lengthier than I initially thought it might be, so I’ll continue with a review of the final three initial updatest his coming week. Then I’ll get into all of the developments that that occurred since Update 5.2 was posted.
Thanks, and I hope to see you there!
Stately McDaniel Manor 
I am sick at heart when I read this.
It has reached a point in our society that only a citizen investigative reporter can get any action on a horrible mess like this
Another national disgrace in law enforcement
This is a cover up of evil deeds of men who destroyed a happy family .Guerena Was also a patriot. One wonders if this is all being blown off because he is of Latino background.
This is an unbelievable story about how a totally innocent person can be shot and killed by law enforcement and how officials cover and hide the facts. How is this possible in our country?
There is a saying in the Marine Corps, “Leave no man on the field of battle”. Jose Guerena has been left on the battlefield of lies and innuendo for more than 2 years. Ironically, Jose’s young widow may be the person that rescues her husband. She may follow through with her statement, “All I want is my husband’s name cleared.” Hopefully she will have a better judge for her case than Judge Harrington.
I look forward to your analysis of what has happened since January 2012.
“They also mirandized her, which is never necessary unless the police plan to ask her incriminating questions and use whatever she says against her in court.” If they Mirandized her, then her statement was admissible, as if she was told she could not leave, then Miranda was necessary for the statement to be admissible. If she was Mirandized then she was not “tricked” into making a statement.
It appears again, that you do not address the real issue, whether the Guerras knew that it was the police at the door. You do not address the facts that the police first announced to the whole neighborhood that they were police by using lights and sirens before then approached, on foot, the house. There is no way that Vanessa could not mistake the “armed men” for anything other than the police. They were wearing the standard olive drab uniform rough duty uniform of all local agencies, “Police” was emblazed on the front and back of the uniforms or external vests. They announced themselves as police before breaking down the door. The real question is why is Vanessa sticking with the “armed men” story. This is a big ugly fact that is the fundamental question that you are ignorning.
So far as the nature of their use of deadly force, it is a closed case. Bad tactics, bad marksmanship, bad training, insufficient but judicially approved warrant, and everything else, including Jose former service, his current employment or how many cars he owned are irrelevant.
The only issue is why Vanessa is claiming that she did not know they were police when the flashing red and blue lights, the sirens, the uniformed police, all clearly show that
the police were just that, the police. Why did she tell her husband they were something else? You need to ask that question.
Probably because Vanessa was at the BACK of the house where she could not see anything going on in the front. Because they were dressed like ninjas and throwing flash-bang grenades in her backyard. The insignias on the front of the uniforms are tiny….only the backs have larger lettering. Because she was a mother taking care of her 4 year old son never expecting the police, let alone a SWAT Team, to come to her house. She and her husband had never done anything that would warrant police coming to their house, let alone with such force.
Trying to make it look like Vanessa caused her husband to be killed because she didn’t know what was happening that morning is not only untrue but pathetic. Almost as pathetic as the officers who who have no fire discipline.
Dear Carol:
You’re quite correct. As I’ve written in previous updates, the vehicle flashing its lights and sounding its siren for only about 9 seconds was parked in front of the Guerena’s garage, out of the line of sight and sound of the front window, and the blinds of that window were shut. In bright morning daylight, overhead lights are virtually invisible, and there is no evidence the Guerena’s heard the siren. In fact, the Sgt. in charge of the raid noted in his recorded interview that he told the officer running the siren to quickly shut it off! And the officers did identify themselves, but outside the Guerea residence and very quietly; they can barely be heard by the camera only a short distance away even though their voices were reflected by the hard surfaces of the front of the Guerena home.
Some people simply refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
It is clear that Vanessa is not telling the truth. She looked outside and saw the police. That is a fact that you are ignoring. You can scream “ninja” all you want, but the fact is the police were clearly identifiable by any reasonable person. The question remains, the police were seen by Vanessa and she then told her husband there were armed men outside the house. Why? Did he realize at the last second they were police? Why did he fail to drop his weapon? Why did he then point the weapon at the police?
Then there is the question of why Jose was engaging “ninjas” with his safety off. Clearly he had at some point decided not to engage the “ninjas” invading his house. Did he
They were not dressed like “ninjas,” whatever that means, but in olive drab BDUs with “Police” emblazoned accross the chest and back. If she did as claimed, looked out, she would have seen uniformed police officers, not anonymous armed men. Nine seconds of sirens, or even less, would have been heard throughout the house and neighborhood. It would not have mattered if the police vehicle was in front of the garage or not. Sirens can be heard blocks away. It is, again, irrelevant if the sergeant in charge of the raid orded the siren turned off after 9 seconds. In any event, nine seconds is plenty of time for those in the house to realize that the police are outside. Flashing lights are visible in daylight. They are not virtually invisible. If you were a police officer you would know that sirens in police vehicles are designed and calibrated to make a loud noise audible for several city blocks. There is no chance that a police vehicle parked outside a residence sounded its siren for 9 seconds and those in the house did not hear it.
It is clear that Vanessa is not telling the truth. She looked outside and saw the police. That is a fact that you are ignoring. You can scream “ninja” all you want, but the fact is th
“It is clear that Vanessa is not telling the truth. ” – per your previous.
One thing I retained from my college logic class is that when a person uses adjectives like “clear” and “obvious”, they are usually obfuscating, and the facts will indicate that it is neither clear nor obvious.
” Why did she tell her husband they were something else? You need to ask that question.” – Federale
She had in-laws who were killed in a home-invasion style robber a month or so earlier than this event, and the murderers wore police apparel. That likely was on her mind when she saw people outside her window with guns and uniforms.
Regardless of whether this shoot was justified, i.e. the LEO’s thought their lives were in danger because Guerena pointed a rifle at them, the police had the opportunity to retreat. Even if he was firing in their direction, and trust me, the flash of a 5.56/.223 round in a dark room is impossible to miss, they had the opportunity to retreat and reassess. If a trained SWAT team intends a dynamic entry where live rounds could be fired, they normally evacuate surrounding buildings to ensure innocents are not injured. These officers did not do that, i.e. neighbors were at risk, and they did not even bother to safeguard the mother and children of Guerena. How are 71 rounds fired at one fixed, open target who is not moving remotely justified. The SWAT stack at that front door was comical – total amateur hour. That any “SWAT expert” could call this action “justifiable” is wrong at so many levels, from the US Constitution to LEO training, is an outrage. The local law enforcement departments have simply circled the wagons and defended their own, the citizens be damned.
The ultimate outrage was denying the victim medical aid until the bled out. That again, was more than simple negligence. It was murder. The victims infant son was not evacuated after the officers arrested his mother – he could have been dying as well. There is no reasonable explanation other than the officers did not want this man alive as a witness against them. They had full tactical control of the building and had a dozen different ways to access or evaluate it to ascertain the risk to them and/or health of the victim.
If Eric Holder gave a damn about civil rights, the FBI would be investigating this murder of a Hispanic, US Marine, American citizen, husband and father and not George Zimmerman. It happened on Holder’s watch. This is what happens when hard, doctrinaire leftists run law enforcement, including both Dupnik and Holder.
I’m ex-military and was involved in law enforcement before my military career. I’m no SWAT expert, but the facts in this case are as obvious as paint on a wall. A murder was committed by these law enforcement officers, and again, because of the denial of medical care, it’s not just due to simple incompetence. This citizen’s civil rights were denied when the detective submitted a perjurious affidavit to obtain the warrant.
I have little hope that justice will be done, until there’s a change of government at the Federal level. Arizona citizens, at the least, should be petitioning their Governor for an investigation at the state level. In the mean time, evidence will disappear and witnesses will melt away. Justice delayed is justice denied, and I’m not sure if it’ll ever be possible to see justice done for Guerena’s murder, though the statute of limitations for this crime never ends.
Scott,
Please do follow this case as Mike unfolds it. You will be beyond amazed. It is truly one of the most frightening stories of “man’s inhumanity to man”.
Many thanks, also, for pointing out something that I had totally never thought about regarding the 4 year old child left in the house. You are correct that he could have also been injured and left in the house. It is difficult to imagine the officers at the home being so cruel, however, that seems to be the case. Vanessa begged them to get Joel before he saw his Father, but they were too afraid to enter the house even to rescue a child.
After much research, thanks to your ‘tip’, it seems that they left the child in the house for much longer than anyone has previously indicated. The officer that grabbed the child, AFTER he came out of the front door on his own, was not at the Redwater house during the shooting. He was at the house on Oklahoma St. and was called over to Redwater after the shooting. Thus, the child was left in the house for a far longer time than initial reports indicate. I have not checked the milage between the 2 houses (I will), but they are a fair distance apart.
Hope you follow this case as it would be nice to have your input!
Dear Scott:
Thanks for your accurate and insightful comments. Federale has been making the same irrelevant points for years, and ignoring the evidence. Nothing new there. There is, of course, no evidence at all that Vanessa Guerena wanted her husband dead, or did anything to cause that to happen. All of the evidence indicates that Vanessa told the truth, and that neither she or Jose had any reason to believe that the police were there to serve a warrant.
And you’re also correct that we can expect no justice from the Obama/Holder DOJ.
Police are not required to retreat in the face of a threat. So, you are admitting that Vanessa did not see “ninjas” but police that she thought were imposters? If you answer yes, then the shooting was justifed. You are then saying that a person can resist a search or arrest warrant if they claim that they thought the police were imposters.
Of course, McDaniel presents no evidence that the Guerena’s had any evidence that the police were imposters. In any event, they were the police and they did have a warrant. The Guerenas had no evidence that the warrant was legally insufficient and had no legal basis to resist the warrant.
She certainly is responsible, because she told her husband, which is a new claim by you, that the “ninjas” were police imposters.
“Police are not required to retreat in the face of a threat.”
Never said “required” – you did. The police created the threat, then shot the man, then LEFT THE MAN to die without medical attention. The police initiated the actions, the police were holding the guns, and the police are responsible and should be held accountable for the results.
“McDaniel presents no evidence that the Guerena’s had any evidence that the police were imposters.”
Irrelevant.
There is no clear evidence – none whatsoever – that she knew that these men were police. EVEN IF SHE DID KNOW WHO THEY WERE, it would not justified the police action. They cannot come to my house, kick the door in, and launch a fusillade of bullets my direction because I’m holding a rifle in my defense.
“.. which is a new claim by you, that the “ninjas” were police imposters.”
Re-read the news accounts. The fact that her in-laws were killed a month earlier is on the public record.
“Federale”: I don’t know your agenda here. I don’t know if you are directly connected to the department(s) involved, or the officers involved. I doubt that you’re a lawyer or LEO. You don’t know the law, you don’t know the US Constitution, and your “facts” on the case are wrong or irrelevant.
When these officers face a jury, and they will, they will lose. I’d be damn scared if I was one of these officers, because justice will eventually be done. Governments change, and all it takes is a new prosecutor to open the case. If this had happened in Arpaio’s county, Holder’s justice department would have 200 FBI agents and a U.S. District Attorney investigating.
EVEN IF this was a regrettable accident, a horrible mistake, and the LEO’s operated in good faith, which I could support, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for letting the man bleed out for over an hour with no medical aid. Hell, combat medics go into war zone’s to retrieve the injured, armed or not. These officers had an absolute responsibility once the shooting stopped to ascertain the health of the suspect and ensure prompt medical attention. They did nothing “promptly” after the shooting. There is no justification for the police inaction that anyone NOT PERSONALLY INVOLVED with the case of the LEO’s would recognize, certainly not anyone in a jury. That’s a real problem for these guys, Sheriff Dupnik, the State AG, and Obama’s crew. Justice will eventually be served.
Of course this is a new claim. First we were told by McDaniel that Vanessa saw armed men, now we are told that she saw them as police imposters. What evidence did she present that the police were imposters. I think McDaniel is desperately reaching and going to Hollywood, specifically from the second Dirty Harry movie, Magnum Force, where the bad guys determine that Harry is not a cop because his gun is too big. Is that how Vanessa determined that the police, with lights and sirens, were imposters?
All the more interesting is why her relatives were singled out for an attack by police imposters. Was it random, or was it a drug gang raiding another drug gang for their drugs or cash. Pretty hard to believe the coincidences there. A family under investigation for drug dealing gets attacked by police imposters.
A) It’s not a “new” claim, only new information to you.
B) I’ve seen the layout of the house, the layout of the street, and the video of the dynamic entry. There is no way she could have seen the vehicle. It is likely that she couldn’t have heard the siren, which was on for about 3 seconds (check the tape). What she saw when she saw the officer dressed in black at the side of the house, and what she perceived, no one knows.
C) Her relatives could have been in a Mexican cartel, for all it matters. The cops could legitimately have been chasing “bad guys”. However, the warrant was bogus, falsified, there was no probable cause, and the Guerena’s were still citizens – THEY HAD RIGHTS, which were violated in the extreme, to the point of causing AND ensuring through denial of medical care, an innocent’s man death.
Again, I don’t know what your agenda is, but there no way this shoot is justified. The only reason these officer’s have not been prosecuted is that the county is totally controlled by the Democrat party, and so is Federal Justice. I don’t know what’s wrong with the Arizona AG, maybe he considers it outside his jurisdiction or it’s a political hot potato, but again, justice will come to these officers, and it won’t just be in civil court. There is no statute of limitations for murder.
Indeed!
At the incipience, if Vanessa and/or Jose truly believe it was unknown armed men or police impostors or ninjas, why did they NOT call 911 for help or attestation?
“At the incipience, if Vanessa and/or Jose truly believe it was unknown armed men or police impostors or ninjas, why did they NOT call 911 for help or attestation?”
Why? When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
If you had viewed the police SWAT video, you’d have seen that here was only 30 or 60 seconds between the time the SWAT van rolled up to the scene and the moment they were breaking down the door and volley-firing into civilians. If Jose Guerena had chosen to call police, he’d have died with a cell phone in his hand rather than an AR15.
Your argument is splurious. If I’d been in Guerena’s shoes, I’d have done exactly what he did, except my weapon would not have been set on “safe”.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” – US Constitution, 4th Amendment
The Sheriff had no probable cause to search Guerena’s house. His posse had no justification to break down his front door on a “no knock” warrant, and to then murder him in front of his wife and children. His LEO thugs were reckless during their police action in endangering Guerena’s wife, children, and the other local residents in that neighborhood, in who’s houses stray police rounds were found embedded.
The Sheriff violated Guerena’s right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. That consideration doubled when the fact of Guerena’s service to his country during two COMBAT tours is considered. Yes, all American’s are equal under the Constitution, but guys who put themselves in harms way for their country count deserve just a little bit consideration. Guerena demonstrated an honorable character throughout his life which should have been the first consideration of the Sheriff’s detective who perjured himself during the subpoena filing.
I support law enforcement. I just don’t trust law enforcement as I did 30 years ago.
No.
Vanessa could have called, while Jose was preparing his defense. Even if the warrant was faulty, you still don’t have the ‘right’ to resist….this includes veterans!
Regardless of how amateurish or inadequate the investigation may have been, the Guerenas’ response to the warrant was THE causation to this tragedy.
“Regardless of how amateurish or inadequate the investigation may have been, the Guerenas’ response to the warrant was THE causation to this tragedy”
Only so, in a police state. LOOK at the video and the evidence, and the detective’s perjury used to secure the original warrant.
Second, you’re maintaining that Jose Guerena’s decision to defend his family, in the 60 seconds he had to make that decision, and his wife’s choice to heed her husband’s warning and hide in the closet with here kids, is the reason he’s dead? HE NEVER FIRED A SHOT. HE NEVER MADE A HOSTILE ACT. HE WAS NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE TO SURRENDER. He had SURVIVABLE gunshot wounds!!! He laid dying for an hour and fifteen minutes without medical aid. He had no medical aid until he was pronounced dead. You can’t justify any of that. It was murder.
Buck, if you think this action was consistent with a citizen’s Constitutional rights, you are from a different America than I.
You’re wrong Scott.
Vanessa could have used her cell phone while ‘hiding’ with the children. How would she or Jose know they had only ’60 seconds’? Picking up a firearm while the police are executing a search warrant IS a “hostile act”……nothing good can come out of that, anywhere on the planet!
Had Jose NOT pick-up that rifle (his “chance to surrender”), do you believe he’d still be dead?
BTW Scott, remember you’re the one that doesn’t trust Law Enforcement anymore, not that it would influence your outlook! Hence, in my America, you still can not violently resist an illegal arrest or a faulty search warrant. Everything else you cited, from’E9′ to ’60 seconds’ is irrelevant & extraneous.
Mike thanks for the update. I have followed this and the Erik Scott case since the beginning. This kind of incident, happening more every day, has me in fear for my and my family from a wrong address SWAT raid in the middle of the night. I sleep “with one eye open” and a .40 cal S&W at my bedside.
The militarization of our LEOs and the results of affirmative action has destroyed the profession of “peace officer”. The hiring of returned combat vets has made it even worse. These vets need help with PTSD not put on the street to police citizen crime. I worked with LEO’s for well over 21 years as a FF/EMT (volunteer and paid-on-call) so I understand the mindset, and I served in the USCG before they became part of the Dept. of Fatherland Security so I have some insight that many do not have. Federale keeps making excuses for the players in this horrific attack; an effort we would call as cluster _k in the fire service. That he can rationalize/justify the out-of-control assault is, in and of itself, sad/sick. He might want to study pre-WWII Germany.
I can only assume Federale is a LEO or a FED. I no longer trust LEO’s on any level and I give them a wide berth wherever I go. Right or wrong, I look at them all as potential abusers/thugs and I would never call them for help. I never did trust any FEDS and I knew/met my share of them on a professional basis. Dupnik and his “team” belong in jail, they are nothing but bullies/thugs with badges.
I wouldn’t disparage all LEO’s, nor am I as concerned about the “militarization” of the civilian police. Officer’s need modern firepower to fight modern crooks, as does the average citizen.
Ultimately, like with the military, it’s about civilian command and control. We have the officers that the citizens hire and the politicians we elect. It’s on the citizens to control both.
I DO think that justice has become politicized. I think that there’s an inherent pro-government-bureaucracy attitude among many officers. I think the police unions are the poison that is destroying both the Federal government and police integrity. It happened in my own town, i.e. the national police unions injected a half million dollars into city council and mayoral elections where the normal electioneering budget was about $12,000. They blatantly tried to buy the local city government a few months before the next union contract negotiations. I refer to the officer’s in my town as “union thugs”, because that’s exactly what they are. They VOTED for their union to move against their own citizens, and they can’t “undo” that corruption.
No, I don’t trust law enforcement at any level. I’ve seen enough rail-road prosecutions and now as we’re learning, political prosecutions to realize that our rights, MY rights as a citizen can no longer be safely assumes. Yes, when an armed officer arrives at my door, I will not be opening the door to see if I can help him, as I’ve done all of my life, but I’ll be cowering behind it. No warrant, no entry. No probably cause, and I reply with bullets. I’ve made my decision.
I’m not alone. The guy who lives next to me is a retired E9 Marine. I have LEO’s in my own family, who are on the same page. WE DON’T TRUST the government to limit it’s authority and actions to those authorized by the US Constitution. We don’t trust the armed officers of the government to act with lawful restraint. There are a lot of good cops out there, and the returning vets make some of the best cops (not worried about PTSD in the least), but we just can’t know who the guy behind the badge is at the front door. Is he a Constitutional officer or a rogue, or sent by rogues?
Citizens need to be prepared to defend themselves, with bullets as a last resort, but with the ballot, legal action, and most importantly, resistance to tyranny when it shows up, whether it’s wearing a blue uniform, olive drab, desert cammo, or in an immaculate $2500 Brooks Bros suit.
No edit button = no grammatical corrections. Regrets.
“can no longer be safely assumes” = “… assumed”.
” No probably cause” = “..”..probable..”
re: “retired E9 Marine.” – Point is, he has his guns, I have mine, and we are both prepared to defend our rights. We both took oaths to defend and protect the US Constitution, and we have never recanted that obligation.
There is much truth in the fact that those at the top of an organization set the standard. When someone like Dupnik is spouting untruths about what has taken place within his department, his officers know that. They realize that he will go to any length to protect his turf when his officers perform badly. And so, he is head of a terribly dysfunctional organization. Because of this, innocent people die.
One question that I can find no answer: How could so many men and women, who were at the scene during the shooting of Jose and shortly thereafter, do absolutely nothing to help another human being? What could they have possibly been thinking to stand around while a small child and an injured man were in the house? That so many people, who are to “serve and protect”, had so little character or compassion is truly chilling.
Scott no offense but you had better get concerned about the militarization of and change in attitude of LEO’s.Think Watertown, MA. Post 9/11 they are being trained to look at all citizens as criminals who haven’t been caught and potential terrorists. They have all the firepower they need to do their jobs now, sorry I cannot agree that they they need even more,equipment such as APC’s, fully automatic weapons and other military grade hardware. Remember they’re supposed to de-escalate the tension, not ratchet up the violence. We don’t live in free fire zones as in combat scenario’s, we live in neighborhoods where children and older folks live. One of the main problems has become their willingness to shoot to kill first and ask questions later. It has become all too routine to hear, “I shot him/her because I feared for my safety”. Even if the citizen was unarmed! I’ve drawn my line in the sand and I am willing to pay with my life. I will NOT surrender my firearms to a LEO, nor will I meekly lie prone on the ground if they force their way into my home for whatever purpose and threaten me and my wife. There are, IMHO, things worse things than dying. Even my wife recognizes and agrees with that. The Founding Father’s warned us about a “standing army”, and that is what the myriad of LEO and FEDS have become. This will not end well.
Radley Balko’s latest book, “Rise of the Warrior Cop” is worth reading. The book is well documented so it isn’t just an attempt to hype emotions about the subject. The “rise” is truly amazing. The once loved policeman on the corner is no more. Almost all the statistics point directly to the “War on Drugs” as the turning point.
Newspapers no longer investigating, when a citizen is killed, has also contributed to the changes in police behavior. The drug bust and the federal dollars that it brings in seems to cancel out the death of an innocent. News outlets have been an epic failure when it comes to reporting these tragedies.
“Scott no offense but you had better get concerned about the militarization of and change in attitude of LEO’s.Think Watertown, MA.”
Understood. Let me clarify.
This Constitutional republic was designed to run from the bottom up. Regardless of the problems with my own city PD, I don’t generally have a problem with small, independent police departments and Sheriff’s, even if they happen have a mil-surplus MRAP in house and M16’s in their patrol units. They are run by their own Mayor’s, city council’s, and so forth, and generally remain responsive to their citizens.
I am quite concerned about the FEDERALIZATION and centralization of law enforcement, or out and out usurpation of local law enforcement authority by federal or state authorities. The Department of Homeland Security was a mistake to begin with, i.e. more centralization won’t help the FBI and CIA communicate (i.e. the 9/11 justification) when elected policy makers write law that prevents it (and in fact, those very policy makers run the Justice Department now). I don’t trust Obama or Holder at all. Justice is tainted, corrupt, and compromised. State AG’s are problematic as well (reference: Florida political prosecution of Zimmerman). However, local law enforcement is America’s best hope.
Ben Franklin put it best, i.e. “a republic … if you can keep it”. I think the founding fathers, contrary to what many today might think, were highly skeptical on the nature of man and nature of governments. I would think that they would be shocked American as made it this far, regardless of the corruption in government and elections that now exist. For one to suggest, as progressives are wont to do, that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution was designed to reserve the rights of states to form militias, versus guarantee a God-given personal right to bear arms, evidences either a certain naivete the founders did not possess, or perhaps more simply, a dissembling argument.
Best Regards.
Scott, thanks, points well taken and I get it. You and I are on the same page with the same concerns. The terrorist action in Boston has me concerned that a similar incident on a larger scale would trigger a national order for Martial Law which would be disastrous for all. This is where the uninformed don’t understand that state/local LEO’s would be the ones charged with disarming non-LEO citizens and “directing” the public to FEMA camps for “safekeeping”. Will those LEO’s follow the Constitution or their orders. I’m betting the large union LEO’s will follow their orders and the corrupt Holder run DOJ with FED LEO’s will back them up. Most think it can’t or won’t happen; they will be surprised when it does.
@ Carol interesting term, “warrior cop”, it fits. That is their mindset these days and sadly we are the other combatants in their “war” on drugs and terror.
I also took an oath many years ago to protect and defend the Constitution and I have not forgotten what that means. These are truly the times that try men’s souls.