Jose Guerena Shot 60 times by Swat in his Home

[DaveTN]

I kinda figured there was a reason the main stream media wasn’t pursuing this case. No one wants to get on this guys bandwagon.

If anything someone that wanted to make an argument for the use of SWAT would use this case. I would have had a handgun and a bullet proof vest going up against an AR.

[bigwakes]

I understand there was a warrant. What I don't understand is giving the guy 19 seconds to come to the door before kicking it in and killing him. It takes me 60 seconds to even realize it was the door bell that I heard and another 30-40 to make my way to the door. I don't care what the details were this was excessive. Can anyone give me one reason to not let someone come to the door? I understand they sounded a siren that in my opinion sounds nothing like a police siren. Who is going to hear a siren and within 20 seconds be spread eagle on the floor waiting for the door to be kicked in. There is not one person on this site that can say they would have reacted in any way different than Guerena.

[Guest UberDuper]

I don't recall seeing anything in there that said his house was paid off. Also all these cars registered to him valued at over $100k they spell out quite clearly that at least one $38k vehicle was bought, paid for and used by his brother.

This guy was without a doubt related to and hanging out with some bad folks. I assume that's how he ended up being arrested and subsequently released with dropped charges in the past. Other then that, he's guilty of being in the car with his brother one time when he was transporting drug packing materials.

There's nothing I see in that warrant that suggests this guy was anything more then the brother of a drug runner. Aside from a box of plastic wrap moved from his garage to a truck all their surveillance never turned up any other activity at his home.

I get that searching his home was good police work. What I don't get is how they came to the conclusion that a swat team was required.

[TNRobocop]

Gee first off I am sure that the police do not care that you think the SWAT team is not needed. SWAT units are usually better equipped and trained for dealing with armed drug dealers.

Second of all it did say that the house was paid off. Reading is fundamental.

Third the warrant stated that the dealers were storing drugs at the unoccupied houses.

Overall your opinion is uninformed, whiny about police tactics, and you can't read what is said in a search warrant, which a judge signed.

Go back to an Arizona board and leave your sandy mangina out of Tennessee.

[Guest UberDuper]

Cool post, tough guy.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Maybe the guy was an evil SOB. Dunno. It said he was previously arrested. Didn't say he was previously convicted.

It said the guy had "too much money" and "too much stuff." If having too much stuff was the problem then maybe the case should have been referred to the IRS? The IRS is expert at relievinig people of "too much stuff". IRS is also pretty good at putting people in jail for having "too much stuff."

All the raids they performed on this warrant, yielded no arrests. Just one dead guy. Not even any contraband siezed from the dead guy's house.

Maybe was an evil SOB. The authorities claimed Randy Weaver was an evil SOB to justify what they did to him. Sometimes that is called "blaming the victim." Maybe Weaver was an evil SOB but he walked on all the charges except one technicality, and the Feds had to pay restitution to avoid losing big time in a nasty public civil suit.

So maybe this guy deserved it. Is a botched raid on a bad guy more justifiable than a botched raid on a good guy?

[gregintenn]

If the police kick down my door, I'm dropping my gun. If they're wrong, we'll take it up later.

Really? What if the turn out to not really be police. If someone kicks my door in, someone is very likely to be shot. That is a very dumb thing to do in most any situation. Why not wait until the guy comes out of the house? How do you know who else is in the house? I may get kicked off the board for cop bashing, but there's no rationalization for the actions taken in the video.

[mikegideon]

Really? What if the turn out to not really be police. If someone kicks my door in, someone is very likely to be shot. That is a very dumb thing to do in most any situation. Why not wait until the guy comes out of the house? How do you know who else is in the house? I may get kicked off the board for cop bashing, but there's no rationalization for the actions taken in the video.

He knew it was the cops. So would I

[1gewehr]

He knew it was the cops. So would I

REALLY? How? You wake up to shouts of "POLICE! GET ON THE FLOOR!", and guys in black with guns running up your hall in poor light if not darkness. How can you immediately tell if they really are police? You have 1 second to decide. Choosing wrong could end with you and possibly your family dead.

Again, I maintain that this is a failure of the police. Wrong tactic, wrong time. This is NOT a job for the SWAT team.

[DaveTN]

REALLY? How? You wake up to shouts of "POLICE! GET ON THE FLOOR!", and guys in black with guns running up your hall in poor light if not darkness. How can you immediately tell if they really are police? You have 1 second to decide.

Why…. You think maybe the Police Cadets would be better suited for a guy coming down the hall armed with a .223 semi auto rifle, yelling “I’ve got something for you guys�

Could you tell if they were really the Police? No. If they knocked on the door and showed you ID you still couldn’t be sure they were the police. So you make choices.

Choosing wrong could end with you and possibly your family dead.

Exactly.

Again, I maintain that this is a failure of the police. Wrong tactic, wrong time. This is NOT a job for the SWAT team.

When would you send SWAT, when you have cops down?

[GhstFace38]

I didn't see this posted yet:

http://www.kvoa.com/news/newly-relea...-jose-guerena/

Search Warrant:

http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20...nt0582_000.pdf

Sheriff Interview:

http://www.kgun9.com/story/14831062/...edirected=true

[Guest 6.8 AR]

REALLY? How? You wake up to shouts of "POLICE! GET ON THE FLOOR!", and guys in black with guns running up your hall in poor light if not darkness. How can you immediately tell if they really are police? You have 1 second to decide. Choosing wrong could end with you and possibly your family dead.

Again, I maintain that this is a failure of the police. Wrong tactic, wrong time. This is NOT a job for the SWAT team.

That's the way I see it, too.

I wonder what they did before the SWAT team was created? I think it was another form of diligence, not police state tactics.

[Guest GunTroll]

What ever happened to

"this is the police. Your house is surrounded.Come out with your hands up. If you don't come out peacefully will will be forced to come to you".

But then again I still think grabbing him at the mailbox would have worked too. Perhaps I have a perpetual case of sand in my mangina but I'm of the mindset to minimize risk for all parties involved. Why chance sending in SWAT into this mans house when you might even think he may own "assault rifles". Is it to show that the SWAT officers have bigger nads than the suspect? If it is know that he has children and a wife, why put them at risk?? Are their lives potentially collateral damage all in the name of an arrest of a known person that hangs out with bad guys? My risk assessment meter says NO they are not.

And you pro LE or current LEO's I haven't read a post yet bashing the SWAT LEO's or the regular LEO's. Rather the plan itself or the folks in charge. No way anyone (LEO or not) can say this plan worked unless dead is as good as apprehended. If thats the new standard, we are screwed!

[Dolomite_supafly]

That's the way I see it, too.

I wonder what they did before the SWAT team was created? I think it was another form of diligence, not police state tactics.

Before SWAT the country wasn't like it is today. People respected LE and feared them but in a different way. Today the only fear is of being caught and bad guys will fight it out to make sure they don't go to jail. Back when we were young you never heard of raids and in most cases word of mouth brought the bad guy to turn himself in out of shame for his family.

As I said before I do not agree that SWAT should be used in a case like this. Especially since there was tons of documentation into how he operated on a daily basis. But I suspect if a regular officer had attempted to do the same thing it would have been an officer dead that day. What I will say is the officers were definitely not at fault.

We are all acting like Jose was an innocent in all of this. He was not, he and his widow are the ones to blame for what happened in that house. The children are innocent in all of this but the rest of the family are not. The brother, father as well as numerous other relatives were also involved. Jose and his widow made choices, dozens of them, to get them to where they are now. They could have, at any point, used the word "NO" when asked to be involved in illegal activities and that choice would have meant Jose would be breathing today.

It is unfortunate that someone lost their life but SWAT being there to execute the warrant isn't the reason why he died, maybe the cause of his death but not the reason. He died because he was involved in a criminal activity. Had he just said "NO" he would be alive today.

Dolomite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree with you, Dolomite. That's why I used the term, "another form of diligence".

It's obvious he was involved in a crime. And "Just say NO" would have been a better choice,

and he did make his own bed.

Sometimes we in society make choices that we later regret. Sometimes, all too often, the

government makes choices and leads by terrible examples, to the point that they, and we,

regret. There are lots of things, that if you take the time to analyze, were wrong decisions,

like utilizing police state, militaristic style tactics against a civilian populace. And then there are

politicians and political ideology that gets in the way. There ain't no magic bullet is there?

As it turns out, this guy probably was a bad guy. I just don't want it to happen to someone

else who wasn't. But it happens.

[gregintenn]

This was quite a few years ago, and I only saw it reported once on one newscast. A group of LEO raided a house in North Nashville, breaking through the back and front doors. I forget how many were shot (several), but there was no one home. They met in the middle and commenced shooting one another. I stand by my statement that other than creating an intimidation factor for the general public, this is a poor way to handle serving a warrant.

[DaveTN]

What would you guys suggest?

If you were in a meeting with the Sheriff or Chief ofPolice, let’s hear how you would deal with gang bangn’ thugs and drug dealers.

And then let’s hear how you would handle suspected armed home invaders and those that have made open threats to cops.

Crying and hand wringing over dead thugs that were going to kill cops just won’t get anyone’s ear; you need to have specific plans.

[gregintenn]

What would you guys suggest?

How about a little surveillance? Find out when and where he goes. When he steps out of the house headed to the car, grab him. Block him in at the ATM. Just catch him out in the open by himself anywhere. Kicking in doors is not the way to deal with it. It looks cool on the movies, but sadly, I believe that a growing portion of us are becomming more and more detatched from real life.

[mikegideon]

How about a little surveillance? Find out when and where he goes. When he steps out of the house headed to the car, grab him. Block him in at the ATM. Just catch him out in the open by himself anywhere. Kicking in doors is not the way to deal with it. It looks cool on the movies, but sadly, I believe that a growing portion of us are becomming more and more detatched from real life.

We are allowing ourselves to be ruled.

[Guest GunTroll]

What would you guys suggest?

I believe there are many post already covering that one.

If you were in a meeting with the Sheriff or Chief ofPolice, let’s hear how you would deal with gang bangn’ thugs and drug dealers.

Arrest them without setting up a scenario that involves high risk. See above red answer.

And then let’s hear how you would handle suspected armed home invaders and those that have made open threats to cops.

Not real sure what you are asking. I don't make it a habit to threating cops so maybe this question isn't for me to answer.

Crying and hand wringing over dead thugs that were going to kill cops just won’t get anyone’s ear; you need to have specific plans.

See first red sentence.

Its the principle of it that some of us don't understand. This "thugs" death could have been avoided. This "thugs" rights to live could have been helped. By that I mean, why back him into a corner? To see what reaction you'll get?

I assume your attitude would be very different if a LEO died from this botched warrant serving. But alas all is good. A "thug" is dead. No harm done.

[vontar]

What would you guys suggest?

If you were in a meeting with the Sheriff or Chief ofPolice, let’s hear how you would deal with gang bangn’ thugs and drug dealers.

And then let’s hear how you would handle suspected armed home invaders and those that have made open threats to cops.

Crying and hand wringing over dead thugs that were going to kill cops just won’t get anyone’s ear; you need to have specific plans.

If the police suspect the need for New for High powered SWAT like this, they could have followed him home from work as others have suggested. They could have maybe done a traffic stop and got him with out him being inside his home. Another way setup surveillance on the home and learn the patterns of those that live there. Then go in and toss the place while no one is at home. Low risk operation.

There are better ways then to rush in when they suspect an armed person when they could wait a few hours, if time is not an issue. Notice I am not talking about hostage situations.

[strickj]

lol

Do yall' even hear yourselves? How is an arrest in a driveway any different then in a home, in regards to criminals\thugs posing as cops?

I mean, seriously. Think about that. It makes absolutely no difference. The cop could still be a criminal\thug.

[vontar]

So far I haven't heard anything illegal was found at Jose Guerena's place.

If that was directed at me, I was talking about options other then using a SWAT team to break into a home (unknown situation) when they could maybe defused the situation outside if time was not an issue. Surprise the person (suspect) outside their home.

When a crime has been commented, police work should start with interviews, evidence. When they have enough for a warrant if time is not an issue they should put the place under surveillance so they know what situation they are putting they agents into plus they could limit risk as much as possible for all involved. They could even go so far as to maybe detain the person away from the home turning the search if they feel there is a risk, which they seemed to have felt there was high level of risk for a highly armed swat team in this case.

Not the other way around, suspect a crime, get a warrant, toss place look for evidence.

(I wish I was a skilled writer)

[Mr. Brooks]

Say the police did try to apprehend this guy on the street, then in the following high speed chase or gunfight some innocents got killed.

The same people who are saying that the police should have grabbed him from the street now would be asking why they didn't take him at home in a controlled situation.

I guess its easy to critique after you know the outcome.

[Dolomite_supafly]

So far I haven't heard anything illegal was found at Jose Guerena's place.

If that was directed at me, I was talking about options other then using a SWAT team to break into a home (unknown situation) when they could maybe defused the situation outside if time was not an issue. Surprise the person (suspect) outside their home.

When a crime has been commented, police work should start with interviews, evidence. When they have enough for a warrant if time is not an issue they should put the place under surveillance so they know what situation they are putting they agents into plus they could limit risk as much as possible for all involved. They could even go so far as to maybe detain the person away from the home turning the search if they feel there is a risk, which they seemed to have felt there was high level of risk for a highly armed swat team in this case.

Not the other way around, suspect a crime, get a warrant, toss place look for evidence.

(I wish I was a skilled writer)

Did you read the warrant?

They had months of surveillance leading up to the raid. The wife was not supposed to be there based on that surveillance. Also, Jose had previously been arrested on weapons and drug charges. Based on the timeframe of those charges he was probably out on bond and the charges were probably still pending. I would even venture a guess that he hadn't even been to trial on them so he probably hadn't been found innocent or guilty yet. Remember it takes months and sometimes years before someone goes to trial, especially if they have been released on bond. Generally part of the bond agreement is the criminal must waive the right to a speedy trial which slows the process to a snails pace for most.

People keep saying to do a traffic stop. People need to realize there are several reasons why traffic stops are not used. One reason why a traffic stop may not work is this. Criminals tail themselves all the time. The reason is it is unlikely two seperate vehicles will be pulled over at the same time. If Jose had been pulled over and he had a tail the tail would have called associates to have any evidence moved or destroyed during the time it took to complete the traffic stop and then move to the residence. Another reason is imagine if this same situation had played out on a busy street. All those rounds would have went somewhere. There would have been a lot more people involved and possibly injured. Traffic stops are not always the answer. The biggest reason for the raid being conducted that way was so there was no chance, hopefully, of evidence being destroyed.

I believe there was some evidence that was at the scene that the wife destroyed in the 7 minutes it took her to come out because she probably didn't want to go to jail for something her husband was into. The officers did not immediately enter after the shooting. They backed out to regroup because they were unsure who else was present in the home. Between the time the team backed out and when she came out of the residence it was 7 minutes. It was during this time that the wife remained in the residence. 7 minutes is a long time and definitely enough time to destroy evidence.

I'll try to find it again but there is a 28 minute audio tape of the situation. It lays out things a lot clearer than the 1 minute youtube video.

The officers didn't want to shoot Jose. Jose didn't want to be shot. In the end the person who was responsible for all of this was Jose.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda doesn't mean squat because it was Jose who pointed a firearm at officers. The officers had a legal right to be there as well as enter his home. The officers also had a legal right to defend themselves. Jose on the other hand had no legal right to defend himself from the officers. Even if the search or subsequent arrest was wrong Jose had no legal right to resist. He has to accept it then fight it later in court.

Dolomite

And just to reiterate I have been accused of being a basher in the past. I guess I am but what I bash are idiots whether they wear a uniform or not. There are rules and laws for a reason and when we start bending them to accomodate the criminals we have all lost.