4th Amendment Tested | Protecting Yourself From Home Invasion Can Get You Shot….60 Times

Iraq vet killed by regime at home


Roger Hedgecock|WorldNetDaily

Jose Guerena, a former (2002-2006) U.S. Marine, survived two combat tours in Iraq to return to his native Tucson, Az., to start a family.

On May 5, Jose was shot 60 times and killed in his home in front of his wife and their 4-year-old son by five armed men who broke into his home and only later identified themselves as a sheriffs’ SWAT unit serving a warrant for drugs.

No drugs were found.

The Guerena’s had no criminal record. Around 9 a.m., Vanessa Guerena had seen an armed man pointing his rifle at her through the window of her son’s bedroom. She yelled “Don’t shoot, I have a baby.” The Guerenas live in a neighborhood known for home invasion. Vanessa yelled to awaken her husband who had just gone to sleep after working a 12-hour night shift at the Asarco copper mine. Startled awake, Jose grabbed his AR-15, told his wife to hide with their son in the closet and ran to confront the men crashing through his front door.

The SWAT team fired 71 shots in seven seconds.

Deputies claimed that Guerena had fired first, then retracted that when they admitted that Guerena’s rifle was on safety and had not been fired. Vanessa says she never heard a police siren or any of the intruders identify themselves as police or sheriff. Pima County deputies say they had vehicles on site with sirens and lights on. Despite Vanessa’s pleading, Jose Guerena died in his home as deputies prevented medical help from reaching him for more than an hour after the shooting. The Guerena’s other son, a 5 year old, was at school when his dad was killed.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik claims guns, body armor and a picture of Jesus Malvede (the narco “saint”) were found under Jose’s bed, all said to be evidence of Jose’s involvement with a home invasion gang. Sheriff Dupnik now says he is withholding further comment pending conclusion of his criminal investigation.

Dupnik told the Arizona Daily Star, “I have to do what I think is right to protect the case to insure that it has the opportunity to progress where we think it should go.”

In plain language, the sheriff has a conclusion in mind and is busy fitting the facts to that conclusion. In the meantime, the sheriff will not unseal the search warrant or supporting court documents which would detail what and who the SWAT was searching for.

Clarence Dupnik has come to conclusions before and has not always been so shy about expressing those conclusions. He accused Pima County tea-party protesters of “bigotry” and called S.B. 1070, Arizona’s now famous attempt to enforce federal immigration law, “racist” and “disgusting.”

Read More Here

UPDATE: Death Squad Damage Control in Tucson


Pro Liberate

…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.- The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (emphasis added)

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land…. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.- Sections 3 and 8 of the “Declaration of Rights” from the Arizona State Constitution’s “Declaration of Rights”

People seeking to defend the manifestly indefensible often sabotage themselves by disclosing critical details that undermine their argument.

Mike Storie, the police union lawyer representing the SWAT operators who murdered Jose Guerena in his home on May 5, did this during his May 19 press conference in an attempt to assign all of the blame for Jose’s death on the victim and his terrorized wife.

As reported by the Arizona Star, Storie insisted that if the Guerena family had permitted the armed intruders into their home, those inside “probably … wouldn’t have been arrested.” This is because the “warrant was not directed at any particular person, and Guerena’s home was not mentioned, but it was targeting whoever might be inside the residence….”

That is to say that this was not a legitimate search warrant, under the requirements imposed by the Fourth Amendment (and expressly incorporated in Arizona law through the state constitution). The instrument used as supposed justification for the armed assault was akin to the “writs of assistance” used by British soldiers during the years leading up to the American colonial rebellion.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano summarizes, writs of assistance were “self-written search warrants” that “enabled [British] soldiers and government agents to enter any private building or dwelling and  search for whatever they had authorized themselves to search for.” In this way, occupation forces could invade any home or business they chose, confiscate any item they suspected might be contraband, and haul away in irons anybody who attracted their malevolent  attention.

Read More Here

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.