Skip to main content

View Diary: High school soccer game cancelled after man shows up with a holstered pistol (320 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, that is so very unlike bullying someone (11+ / 0-)

    Because "calling in a threat" on someone who has done nothing wrong is in no way illegal or immoral and is entirely appropriate for liberals to do, as evidenced by all the people who rec'd the above comment.

    I suggest we extend the principle to homosexuals and priests, who might be molesting children (they're scarey, you never know what they intend). Young black men are a definite threat call-in, and those Mexican-looking types might be here illegally, so call in a threat for them too. And I saw a Muslim at the farmer's market once. It was unnerving. He was leaving. Didn't threaten to blow up anyone. But I was shaken and so were my grandkids.

    Fear strangers and assume the worst, it's the liberal way!

    •  Guns kill (10+ / 0-)

      just having them floating around in public is a hazard. Anyone who needs to endanger those around them surely deserves extra scrutiny, even if they are white.

    •  Yes by all means (14+ / 0-)

      Let's wait until after the strange guy walking around with a gun shoots a few people to be sure he means harm. Great idea.

      My mom tells me that two guys with assault rifles walked through the farmers' market in my hometown last Saturday and about a hundred people called 911. Proving that people in Wisconsin, generally, still have common sense and look out for each other.

      If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century. --PBO

      by kismet on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 01:16:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How do you tell a Muslim? (9+ / 0-)

      Or a gay, or a priest who's not wearing a collar?

      I can pretty much tell a gun if I see one. Somebody's sexual orientation or religion isn't quite so obvious. And not so obviously a threat.

    •  Because judging someone (16+ / 0-)

      by their skin color or sexual orientation is so similar to not being thrilled to see someone carrying a gun. Yes, dislike of an elevated risk of people being shot is equivalent to racism or homophobia. I guess it's good news; white male gun owners have apparently achieved the oppression and victimhood that they have been itching for all these years.

    •  Let's not call the hospital when the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Minnesota Deb, Miggles

      plague-bearer walks by, either. Let's wait until he's infected half the town.

      How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

      by athenap on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 01:46:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  blam blam blam! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, Minnesota Deb, Miggles

      You're being deliberately obtuse.  Try shooting someone with a Muslim- see, the analogy fails.

    •  You just made me go read that comment (8+ / 0-)

      and recommend it.

      Yours, however, strays remarkably close to the Hide Rate line for the disgusting false equivalence.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 02:19:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe we're all getting too old and set in our (5+ / 0-)

        ways these days but I don't see how your claim is valid.

        What is truly disgusting is that someone here is advocating committing a crime against another American that exercises their rights.  Each State has it's own standards for making false 911 calls, many have deemed it a felony.

        What's the difference when there's a Gay Pride Parade?  Should 911 be called by bigots whom don't believe we should be able to peacefully assemble???

        What's the difference if there's a civil rights march?

        NOTHING!

        Those that uprated that posting should be ashamed.

        What happens when they do call the police and innocent law-abiding armed citizens get killed?  IS THIS WHAT DK has come to???

        I certainly hope not!

        Please revisit your bias here and see if this is what you want DK to represent and condone.

        Do you want this to become commonplace is this nation as well???

        Arizona SWAT Team Defends Shooting Iraq Vet 60 Times

        Think please:

        Militarization of Police

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 02:02:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have no idea what you are talking about. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eyesbright, Karl Rover

          Bias?

          I simply suggested that comparing a guy bullying folk by wearing a gun, with homosexuals and priests being potential pedophiles was a disgusting false equivalence.

          I'm sorry you failed to understand that.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 02:16:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't apologize for your bigotry, recognize it (3+ / 0-)

            and stop with the bullshit that someone walking down the street exercising a right is bullying or is inherently some kind of threat.

            You're smarter than that and playing this morally indignant card is insulting.

            So, if a gay person walks in a protest march, should the police be called?  Or a priest? Or a black person?

            Should we falsely call the police when others exercise rights we don't agree with?

            That's the point that was being made and YOU KNOW IT.

            Disingenuous tripe coming from someone I once had great respect for.

            Good evening!

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 07:23:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Guerena would be alive ... (0+ / 0-)

          if he hadn't grabbed a gun and aimed it at the SWAT team. So in his case, he would have been safer if he did not own a gun.

          •  Armed intruders break into his home and (0+ / 0-)

            it's his fault???

            Sad day on DK when we blame the victim.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 05:44:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Armed law officers. With a warrant. n/t (0+ / 0-)
              •  IN the wrong house...it still makes their actions (0+ / 0-)

                illegal and not his fault, period.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 01:29:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It makes it tragic, not illegal. (0+ / 0-)

                  Like anyone else, law enforcement can and does make honest mistakes. Since they evidently had good faith to believe they were executing the search warrant on the correct premises, and the resident pointed a gun at them, the officers were probably cleared for firing upon him. No doubt the municipality, country or state responsible would have paid out a significant sum to settle any civil action, but it is highly doubtful any criminal charges were filed or brought against those officers directly responsible for his tragic death. And its probable those officers deeply regret killing him.

                  There is a good lesson to be learned here, but it's a certainty gun activists will overlook and ignore it, instead choosing to spin this as you have done.

                  •  Wrong they broke into the wrong house and killed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    43north

                    an innocent man.  They had not legal authority whatsoever to enter this man's home and/or summarily execute him.

                    The goddamn constitution is very clear, see the 4th Amendment!

                    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.
                    Then see this current Federal Code:

                    18 USC § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

                    Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
                    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
                    When they broke into the wrong house, they were, at that moment acting under Color Of Law, not the actual authorities they were granted by their limited search warrant.

                    They are criminally liable and should be prosecuted for it.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Wed Oct 02, 2013 at 11:59:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just plain wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                      Police didn't break into the wrong house. Members of his family were operating a lucrative drug ring; a number have now been convicted and are serving sentences. As I had surmised, officers were cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the DA, and the civil suit I had predicted was settled by Pima county. As reported:

                      He was holding an AR-15 rifle when he was shot.

                      A spokeswoman for the Pima County Sheriff’s Department disagreed with the decision to settle, but hinted a prolonged trial could wind up costing taxpayers even more.

                      “The Pima County Sheriff’s Department strongly believes the events of May 5, 2011, were unfortunate and tragic, but the officers performed that day in accordance with their training and nationally recognized standards,” Deputy Tracy Suitt wrote.

                      “However, legal advisers and insurers recognize the unpredictable resolution of disputes at trial regarding police conduct and even well-accepted police tactics. As a result, well-established business and insurance principles call for compromise and the resolution of disputed cases to mitigate risk and avoid the expense of a trial.”

                      While there were some disturbing aspects to police conduct and policy in what appears was a legitimate raid on Guerena's house, you are either woefully ignorant of this case or you are making deliberate misrepresentations. And you are greatly misinformed on the law; even had the warrant been served on the wrong house and wrong person as you falsely stipulated, the law protects police from criminal prosecutions when such mistakes are made in good faith.
                      •  "Good faith" is a license to arbitrary kill (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        43north

                        We know the police obfuscated, lied and hid their criminal behaviors in this raid until they could get their story straight.

                        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                        The Pima County Sheriff's Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks.

                        And when you "put it together," to borrow his own terminology, Storie's comments thus far lead to a pretty astonishing conclusion: After violently breaking into Guerena's home, the police found exactly the evidence they were looking for -- yet none of that evidence merited an arrest. Storie is either shamelessly posturing, or he actually believes that the police are justified in violently forcing their way into a private home with their guns drawn, even if they have no expectation that they'll find any evidence of a crime.

                        So, the narrative you present is woefully inaccurate.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 07:35:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You seem to have a real problem (0+ / 0-)

                          conceding where you have been shown wrong. It was your narrative that was false. I posted a news report that contained a number of pertinent facts showing your errors and omissions. But there you go with that transference thing again.

                          As already stated, there are elements to this I find disturbing. However, they did have a valid search warrant, and if you listen to the five-minute audio tape of the bust, you quickly realize Guerena had to have known it was the police and could easily have taken a different course of action to avoid this whole tragedy. He shares responsibility for what happened, and for endangering his wife and child, as well. They could well have been killed or seriously injured by his stupidity.  

                          •  "HIS stupidity"...Stop Blaming The Victim! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north

                            The police lied, claiming he yelled at them and fired shots.  WE KNOW his firearm HAD THE SAFETY LOCK still on and it was never fired!

                            Besides this whitewashing of the facts you're pushing here ignores his personal history:

                            http://news.yahoo.com/...

                            If you're not actually a criminal and you wake up to the sound of armed men breaking into your home, your first thought isn't likely to be that you're being visited by the police. There may also have been something else on Guerena's mind: Last year, two of Vanessa Guerena's relatives were murdered by armed intruders.

                            The intruders also shot the couple's children.

                            So, if armed intruders broke into my sister's house killing her, her husband and their children.  I really don't think I'd look kindly at unknown and unidentified police doing the same thing, I'd think they were criminals.  Which clearly they are in this case.

                            Had the police actually identified themselves and approached this in a peaceful manner this wouldn't have happened.  Don't blame me for reacting in an instinctual way when you don't do your job right.

                            As for your "I find disturbing", get over your moral platitudes and pseudo attempts to psycho analyze me.

                            You're implications are a bannable offense but I won't push this to the admins, you're just trying to push buttons that I've learned to control a very long time ago.  Insults rarely get to me, honest.

                            My understandings of the specifics of Guerena's involvement in any drug ring was incidental because he may have been related to people whom engaged in such activities.  

                            So, can we search Bush & Cheney's children's home for evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity?

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 09:16:30 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Still not admitting your errors and ommissions (0+ / 0-)
                            As for your "I find disturbing", get over your moral platitudes and pseudo attempts to psycho analyze me.

                            You're implications are a bannable offense but I won't push this to the admins, you're just trying to push buttons that I've learned to control a very long time ago.  Insults rarely get to me, honest.

                            What!? Do you have a reading comprehension problem, too? What I have referred to as finding "disturbing" in both my first and second posts here is the police conduct and procedures. How is that a moral platitude? How does that have anything to do with you?

                            According to the police, they did identify themselves, and the audio seemed to confirm this. If the suspect was pointing an assault weapon at them when they broke in, as seems to be the case, police aren't going to wait first to find out if the suspect will fire, or the safety is on, or if the weapon is loaded. That's where I think the victim was stupid. And I'm not "blaming" the victim, although I do think there is some shared responsibility for this tragedy if that was true.

                            If the victim hadn't owned a weapon, it seems probable he wouldn't have been shot at all.

                            It is known that members of his family were involved in a very lucrative drug ring. All the facts aren't known in this case, and may never be. Perhaps the victim was completely innocent and the judge shouldn't have issued a warrant without more evidence. Perhaps he was involved to some degree. I don't know, but I do know that presenting just one side of the story, omitting facts and making misrepresentations as you had done here is wrong.

                          •  Okay, fair enough. I was mistaken on the (0+ / 0-)

                            search warrant part, I keep seeing a newspaper headline saying they had a search warrant for another house, not his.   Second, the only side that was presented was the police's side in the media.  Had you read the link to the Huffington Post article, all the neighbors didn't hear a thing, only gunshots, no sirens, no "police, open up!" , nothing.

                            The police lied.  Once they cross that line, I don't care what any "audio tape" may or may not reveal.  We don't know if it's complete or even if its from this incident.  Their credibility ended when they chose this path.  Besides, dead men tell no lies.

                            As for our zero tolerance policy on the fake drug war, it has to end, period.  I could give a fly rats ass if someone wants to do drugs until their heads explode, that's their choice, but when the hurt others while on said, I'm game for putting their asses in jail until hell freezes over.

                            As for you walking back your position of psychoanalysis, great, I appreciate this but please explain this then:

                            But there you go with that transference thing again.

                            trans·fer·ence  (trns-fûrns, trnsfr-ns)
                            n.
                            1.
                            a. The act or process of transferring.
                            b. The fact of being transferred.
                            2. In psychoanalysis, the process by which emotions and desires originally associated with one person, such as a parent or sibling, are unconsciously shifted to another person, especially to the analyst.
                            I was mistaken on your "disturbing" point, apologies, I read this posting too fast and missed the context. And the combination with the above defined term gave me a completely different impression.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Oct 03, 2013 at 09:40:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure, glad to clear things up. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            The only thing concerning you in the last post was my finding fault for providing erroneous and incomplete information. I am greatly appalled that the U.S. has been steadily turning itself into a police state, particularly since 9/11. While cognizant that the police have a difficult job, and conceding the need to provide them some legal protections for mistakes made absent malice, I have a big problem with the lack of accountability, police abuses, and faulty police procedures, the latter which too often seems more about protecting the police than the citizens they are entrusted to serve and protect. While experience shows that many police officers are conscientious and compassionate folk, the bad apples and policies greatly harm the reputations and image of all. However, I do believe the best recourse for us involves remaining objective and credible.

                            At any rate, I found myself cast here into the unwanted and uncomfortable position of playing devil's advocate and pointing out the possibilities. And the more I researched this, the more disturbing it became. (To be honest, I hadn't clicked on your link, but I did wind up reading a HuffPo article, as well as quite a few others that were highly critical of how law enforcement handled this.) Since the civil suit has been settled out of court, the whole truth about this affair will likely never be uncovered. That's a real shame, because even if procedures were followed, I suspect the civil trial would have shown how that still enabled and entailed police misconduct--or perhaps more accurately, what should rightly be construed as police misconduct--and a bright light needed to be shone on some very dark places. I would like to see a federal inquiry into this event from the perspective of the victim's rights being protected.

                            The police did have a search warrant for both the house of Jose and that of his brother, who happened to live next door. But police confused the two. His brother was suspected of murder in his criminal enterprise, which helps explain how LE took the heavy-handed approach they did. Granted, this is the AZ police we're talking about, and there are certainly legitimate grounds for making valid criticisms on how it's been mismanaged throughout, but I still suspect this is a complicated case that qualifies as a tragedy, and that we must exercise caution not to jump to too hasty conclusions or start making baseless accusations.

                            The transference thing from before had to do with the fact that it was you who had painted a false narrative through inaccuracies and omissions. My objective wasn't to establish a narrative; it was to correct those misconceptions, supply some of the omissions and allow the accused a voice in illustrating other possibilities. In short, I was hoping to encourage fairness and a more broad-minded approach.

                            I am very much interested in analyzing motivations behind people's actions and ideologies and view that as a good and even necessary tool to understanding, but I also categorize transference as a devious tactic. This is something I see displayed too often in discussions with conservatives, where one is left aghast by being unjustly accused of that very same thing the accuser is doing. It's a deliberate, cunning, dishonest, preemptive ploy that attempts to effectively, if disingenuously, counter critical observation. But I think transference also frequently stems unwittingly from attributing to others one's own shortcomings, i.e., their own unseemly thought or willingness to resort to disreputable behavior; subconsciously "This is how I would think or act, therefore that is what they must be doing." However, it hasn't been so much psychoanalysis by me as it's been pointing out the unsavory tactic you've been engaging in--here by falsely accusing me of constructing a narrative, when the shoe was actually on the other foot. It doesn't win me many friends, but I will and do call people on their BS.

                    •  Salient point missing (0+ / 0-)

                      from the Pima County narrative:

                      "...whereupon the deceased, one Jose Guerena, did with malice aforethought, fire upon the Drug Enforcement Officers, and the Pima County SWAT team using a military-style AR-15 Assault Weapon.
                      The sort of weapon Sheriff Dupnik has gone on-record as abhorring."
                      If we give them another couple of months, Pima County can add that narrative to the story as well.

                      When I was first hired, there was a requirement for the use of deadly physical force by officers.  You needed to face this situation, to fire your gun:  
                      Fired-upon, stabbing or attempted stabbing, or infliction of excessive blunt force trauma.

                      Firearm, knife, hatchet, hammer, baseball bat, iron pipe, or motor vehicle.  
                      Asking about a chainsaw, "uh, it's not a knife" would get you slapped for stupidity.
                      There were two other instances:  Arson, or attempted arson, and Kidnapping or attempted kidnapping.
                      Rape, if the malefactor quietly surrendered, was not cause for use of deadly physical force.  
                      Further endangering the rape victim, or taking a rape victim hostage?  Lethal force authorized.

                      "Fleeing Felon" was still the law, but seriously frowned-upon.
                      The "Felon" wasn't adjudicated a felon.
                      That person was merely accosted in what may become an adjudication of a felony offense.
                      As said by my instructors: "Who knows if that TV you're witnessing being removed is working, or junk.  Felony Theft or misdemeanor petty larceny.  You don't know, but the law is clear.  Avoid this concept of shooting a fleeing felon like the plague."

                      We seem to have decided "Zero Tolerance" and "Immediate/Total Compliance" applies everywhere to everything.
                      I could have immigrated to East Germany if I idolized this concept to any great degree.

                      If the flimsy concept of a family member being known or convicted of a crime, is sufficient cause to gun down other relatives?

                      Explain how William H. (Billy) Bulger has lived without lethal intervention by the Feds, Massachusetts State Police SWAT, or some county or local PD.

                      Guerena was murdered, for having a clean record, a legitimate job, and an AR-15.  
                      Oh, and he was possibly a nutjob Veteran, waiting to go all John Rambo on Law Enforcement.

                      Best to be proactive.  Fuck "due process" - that's so last century.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site