SWAT team shoots Marine vet. 22 Times

Thank you for that, however, there are some things that do not add up with what has been said after the event, one of the officers had said, he'd been in a crouched position awaiting the unit with his rifle, apparently loaded by the time of the entry, during which the officer had told us that the victim had said 'I've got something for you'. I don't think so, that just doesn't add up.

Even with all the bullshit being thrown about with the investigation, thing being hidden, documents being locked up and meetings behind closed doors, this is yet another horse shit scenario in which has no reason to be kept from public eyes and kept from being spoken of in court to officially do something about it.

Again, what of the family? You can just walts in there, shoot shit through the home, leave and speak of it as a matter of personal defense on search warrant, by a SWAT team. And yet, nothing is done for the family. I hope to God that these kids and this woman is compensated, I hope nothing but the best for them and that their lives be cleared of this bullshit that has occured.

The reason they shot so much wasn't because one guy was standing there for 5 minutes spraying, there were like 4 SWAT guys there, they all shot a little overly and it added up to 22 or so.

It was an honest accident on all parts. The solution is a stern warning to the officer of the SWAT team + a temporary suspension, monetary compensation to the family harmed, and probably making the SWAT team putting their guns on semi from now on.

Kara, the guy got hit 22 times, there was a total of 70+ shots fired by the SWAT team. Take note that only one of the SWAT team members had a weapon other than a handgun, and it was an AR-15. They weren't just using Uzi's here, they literally had to pull their collective triggers over 70 times. If I am not mistaken, the link I give stated that the team consisted of 5 members. So that is over 10 bullets fired per member, that is more than one mag. each man spent killing this one guy.

Even mathematically this is disgusting. This would mean that they all, in one moment fired every last fucking bullet they had at the poor guy. What say them about this? What the hell went through their heads at that time. Were they scared of being shot, and in response, act like total pussies and give everything you have at him? Bullshit.

Does it matter how many times he was shot at? Lethal force was justified in this situation.

Lethal force, maybe. An entire F-ing clip from an AR-15 and multiple handguns, no.

Self-control, disciplined, conduct. Its what separates our boys from common goons.

It's six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Either way the guy is dead because of his own actions that prompted an appropriate police response.

EDIT: @Demon
Well I don't think that's an issue with the way they acted, just how they executed the action. It's not something that is reprehensible, and given what pedro said about them not being full time SWAT officers I think it's more than understandable.

No it wasn't, you're completely overlooking everything here. Has it not been clear to you that there are regulations to this, and that ALL officers are required to be fit for carrying this out? There is no shoot to kill in this circumstance. Even in the article provided by Pedro, the only one I've seen during the discussion about justification, it had said that an officer shot first, not the victim. Whether this is true or not, I am using this in this statement regardless.

One more thing, I am seeing a resemblance between you and something gross about nature. Nobody likes Calcification, it isn't good for them and it is disgusting.

Right now, I do not like Kalalification, it's description seems similar, and just as harmful to the body as Calcification.

You don't have to shoot first to be subject to a lethal force response from the cops. Pulling a gun on them is sufficient.

And what are you, 5?

If a cop sees a redneck by a Ford pickup truck waving his Remington shotgun in the air, that doesn't give him the right to gun the man down with his sidearm. Innocent until proven guilty is a phrase that was completely ignored in this raid.

Hello, anybody in there?

Provide something useful to this conversation, quit being a douche. You're out of line, Moderator. Quit this harrassing behaviour before you completely ruin the goddamned thread again.

I need not say anything about this quote that is already known by every last person viewing this.

Lets calm this debate down guys, no need to escalate this into a flame war.

The lack of a response to either my or pedro's posts and your insistence on ad hominem seem to indicate that you don't actually have an argument.

@Soviet
Brandishing a firearm is different than 'pulling a gun on the cops.' Especially a fucking assault rifle.

Sorry, I simply have zero-tolerance for sub-standard performance when it comes to jobs with heavy risks. I get equally as upset when surgeons leave shit in peoples bodys.

What was the man doing? Unless the man in question was proven to be directly aiming his weapon at the SWAT team, he was by the standard you've stated "Brandishing a firearm".

That's fine, but then it's not a problem with the police response, just their conduct during the response. And I think malpractice is quite a bit different than this. On the one hand you've injured someone who shouldn't have been injured. On the other you've put more holes in a corpse.

@Soviet
"When five SWAT members broke through the front door Guerena was crouched down pointing the gun at them,"

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_d7d979d4-f4fb-5603-af76-0bef206f8301.html

Kali, there's a difference here. The problem is that they cannot specify if that corpse was legally supposed to be a corpse, its like if a surgeon was doing surgery with a pizza cutter.

Emphasis on the words "high risk". Preferably you'd want to fire off the least amount of shoots in an urban area as possible.