Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire SWAT kills Marine in his home

How do you know 1) that he pointed his gun at police, and 2), if he did, that he realized they were the police? Keep in mind that it's well documented that cops tend to agree on an exculpatory story in situations like this. Not because cops are evil, but because cops are human beings, and human beings want to stay out of prison. It's an odd quirk among our species.

Of course not , Mac .I'm betting a decent lawyer can convince a Tuscon jury that Jose never shouldered his rifle .It looks to be a situation where only the first two cops to shoot are claiming they could see him pointing a rifle at them.Jurors know that cops have been known to lie to save their ass - just like mere mortals.

The safety being engaged and the fact that he didn't fire is a BIG DEAL to folks who could be called as jurors in a civil trial .

The only place it's NOT a big deal is in a few closed minds here at the 'fire.

Your theories might make for some fun theoretical gossip down at the barber shop but it would be silly to think it would happen in a courtroom. 1,Where did you come up with this silly notion that a weapon had to be fully shouldered before it became a engagement sufficient for return fire? That's absurdly preposterous on it's face and easily dismissed as such. 2, Furthering your theory, if you think a argument could be successfully proffered by this lawyer that the Marine never shouldered his rifle is worthy of consideration, I guess you and this lawyer would then be willing to concede the Marine never felt threatened at all,right? Surely you can't now believe, as you have the past couple of days,that this Marine,while feeling threatened by home invaders who just knocked his front door off it's hinges,decided to fully confront his attackers by pointing his rifle at his feet rather than having it at the ready,can you? 3. If you saw the video, you then saw some officers, simultaneously and in sync, respond to some stimulus with all backing up to raise their rifles and begin shooting,all inside 4 seconds or less. Do you really believe this to be be some choreographed move they learn in some SWAT class like, Conspiracies & Cover-Ups To Lie Your Ass Off In Court,101? 4.You might want to make sure this decent lawyer you have in mind, before he starts planting these fantasies of yours in the minds of jurors,is certain a head cam vid doesn't render his comments appearing as silly as yours.

The safety issue is a red-herring and most likely inadmissible. Lastly, the perp not getting off a shot is probably the primary objective of all SWAT entries and that success is hardly a significant concern or hurdle for any competent lawyer to easily overcome.

Don't let the above discourage you from making up some more stuff,though. Although a little too easy to refute, it's still fun to do so. Try to make them a bit tougher for next time though,if you can.

G'nite curdog!

Well put

Obvious, at least to me, that you have had some exposure regarding these type of situations

And them staying in the "which lie will fly" mode as long as they did , lying about being shot at etc. ain't no hurdle for a whiz like you to overcome .

It's all moot because they will write the big check before it ever gets to discovery.

If it don't pan out like that,I'll be in better company being wrong [Tbear] than you will in being right[minidood].

FWIW I didn't rattle your chain.That Ol' Debbul , he done a marvel when he crammed ten gallons of ego in your five gallon mind.

when they are dressed in full assult gear with police written all over it,who the pluck did he think they were?
thou this human was in the marine corps (semper fi)
at one time.
he was into some BAD schit since to have swat show up.
mess with the bull,sometimes you get the horn
war hero or not..... RIP

Was there blue tape on his AR?

Well neighbor , we will never know who he thought they were ,now will we.They shot him down and let him bleed out so now we will never know .

BTW , "Semper Fi" to me means in this instance that I remain open to the possibility that these jack booted ,cowardly thugs killed an innocent man.It wouldn't be the first time it has happened .Marines can go bad - I've seen it.Cops can really screw up - I've seen that too.

After all the lying and damage control spin put out by the cops , I'll wait for the good folks of Tucson to render a judgement and I'll live with that.

Misplaced loyalty is a bitch to live with.I wouldn't be too quick to condemn.

Stupidity is even harder to live with; I'm really surprised you made it to 69 curmudgeon. God looks after children and fools. He must have angels pulling double shifts keeping your dumb ass out of trouble. Isaac handed you your ass on a platter, he totally destroyed the premise of all of your erroneous conclusions yet you plod forward spewing the same innuendo and outright lies. You're not just stupid, you're a fool.

That's awesome.

typical 'government can do no wrong', and 'if the cops show up, yer GUILTY', kool Aid drinking idiot.

Prezactly.

Absolutely not. My point was that based on the LE theory of escalation of force using deadly force as the first option, unless the officer(s) are in eminent danger, usually goes bad in the court system. If the rifle was pointed at the SWAT officers then they have ever right to use deadly force. If the Marine had the rifle pointed at the floor or port arms then pepper spray may have been an option. The SWAT officers are the only source that can substantiate the position of the rifle. With all the high tech tools available to SWAT teams why wasn't tear gas, pepper spray, or even a flash bang grenade used? With the family in the house tear gas can be dangerous, but less than 60-70 bullets being sprayed into the house. I suspect that the young marine was involved with illegal drug activities, but did that justify the death penalty? The issue of why the drug raid was conducted seems lost on many. No one was in eminent danger in the house so why not apprehend the marine as he left the house? Why subject the family to the use of possible lethal force? Many options were available to SWAT other than a raid where 60-70 shots were fired in a house with a wife & child? Its obvious that SWAT at least considered the use of lethal force before the raid. Why wasn't the robot at the site? Since it took an hour to have the robot clear the house it appears LE didn't plan for this option. Even if the SWAT officers & LE officials are cleared of any inappropriate actions there will be a wrongful death lawsuit & I am confident of a huge out of court settlement.I strongly support LE & believe they do a great job under very difficult circumstances. In this case I believe a series of mistakes was made & ultimately the city will pay. Based on many of the wrongful death law suites decided against LE, many were reviewed this past week in classes I attended, this is a slam dunk. It may well take several years for this to play out so don't expect any immediate closure.

Since Ted is a SCI and hunting pard,I'll refrain from pointing out the 7 glaring errors I found just from a quick reading.

That only works on cervids.

The majority of 'fire members just knew in their gut that the raid was a bad idea in the first place and that the conduct of it was terrible .You have validated those instincts with a few concise observations [kinda Krauthammer style].

Minidood will be along shortly . You can expect a well reasoned rebuttal of all the points you made.

OTOH he may just say;"You don't know sh1t,Tbear".

Pepper spraying a man holding a gun is not a good option for many reasons. Tear gas works good on your average, lone barricaded subject, something I'm sure they were trying to avoid, and bangs have their uses, usually when the room they enter is known to be or suspected of being occupied. In this case, tear gas and bangs on a former marine were likely a waste of time.

This turned out to be a cluster of epic proportions.

Does AOTI[anyone other than isaac] picture a courtroom where a lawyer has just brought up the points made by Tbear and Isaac rushes to the jury box railing and-froth coming off his lips and into the faces of the jurors- screams ;

"That sh1t don't matter.The safety being engaged is irrelevant.I know. I'm a lawyer."

Note to minidood : Sorry , I just can't find a spot for you in a "real world "based scenario .Brush up on your +1's and you might make it someday.

curdog...I know you're hung up on the safety issue and seeking some validation is of paramount importance but the safety's position at time of the engagement is as irrelevant as whether his rifle was operable or not. It would likely not be admissible for reasons other than it's relevance but I won't bore you with legal jargon.

Maybe by the end of the day some will think it relevant and you could get some sleep. You're fretting and getting frazzled over minutiae.

What a joke, especially when I remind myself taxpayers are supporting your doughnut eatin' azz.