Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Murdered Citizens, Dead Cops and Assassinated Judges: Judicial Support of Police Tyranny and the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Dead Tiger: The King of the Jungle adjudged by the twin Laws of the Jungle and of Unintended Consequences and found wanting.

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. -- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Just another day at work for America's militarized police:

A Tucson, Ariz., SWAT team defends shooting an Iraq War veteran 60 times during a drug raid, although it declines to say whether it found any drugs in the house and has had to retract its claim that the veteran shot first.

And the Pima County sheriff scolded the media for "questioning the legality" of the shooting.

Jose Guerena, 26, died the morning of May 5. He was asleep in his Tucson home after working a night shift at the Asarco copper mine when his wife, Vanessa, saw the armed SWAT team outside her youngest son's bedroom window.

"She saw a man pointing at her with a gun," said Reyna Ortiz, 29, a relative who is caring for Vanessa and her children. Ortiz said Vanessa Guerena yelled, "Don't shoot! I have a baby!"

Vanessa Guerena thought the gunman might be part of a home invasion -- especially because two members of her sister-in-law's family, Cynthia and Manny Orozco, were killed last year in their Tucson home, her lawyer, Chris Scileppi, said. She shouted for her husband in the next room, and he woke up and told his wife to hide in the closet with the child, Joel, 4.

Guerena grabbed his assault rifle and was pointing it at the SWAT team, which was trying to serve a narcotics search warrant as part of a multi-house drug crackdown, when the team broke down the door. At first the Pima County Sheriff's Office said that Guerena fired first, but on Wednesday officials backtracked and said he had not. "The safety was on and he could not fire," according to the sheriff's statement.

SWAT team members fired 71 times and hit Guerena 60 times, police said.

In a frantic 911 call, Vanessa Guerena begged for medical help for her husband. "He's on the floor!" she said, crying, to the 911 operator. "Can you please hurry up?"

Asked if law enforcement was inside or outside the house, she told the operator, according to a transcript of the call, that they were inside. "They were ... going to shoot me. And I put my kid in front of me."

A report by ABC News affiliate KGUN found that more than an hour had passed before the SWAT team let the paramedics work on Guerena. By then he was dead.

A spokesman for Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said he could not discuss whether any drugs had been found at the home or make any other comment. "We're waiting for the investigation to be complete," he said.

In a statement, the sheriff's office criticized the media, saying that while questions will inevitably be raised, "It is unacceptable and irresponsible to couch those questions with implications of secrecy and a coverup, not to mention questioning the legality of actions that could not have been taken without the approval of an impartial judge."

In recent days the increasingly out-of-control federalized paramilitary police mini-armies that currently rule over the cities, towns and hamlets of the United States have won important court victories in Indiana, New Mexico and in the Supreme Court, that validate their ability to engage in unrestricted criminality against innocent citizens under color of law. It doesn't take god-like perfect prognostication to understand that these decisions by the black-robed Mandarins who look out for the interests of the "Ruling Class" at the expense of the "Country Class" will lead to more murdered citizens, and, in short order, dead cops and assassinated judges.

In Indiana:

People have no right to resist if police officers illegally enter their home, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled in a decision that overturns centuries of common law.

The court issued its 3-2 ruling on Thursday, contending that allowing residents to resist officers who enter their homes without any right would increase the risk of violent confrontation. If police enter a home illegally, the courts are the proper place to protest it, Justice Steven David said.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

Justices Robert Rucker and Brent Dickson strongly dissented, saying the ruling runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, The Times of Munster reported.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said.

At least one Indiana sheriff has concluded that if in his opinion he "needs" to conduct random searches, he will.

In New Mexico:

The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that police can seize visible guns from vehicles without a warrant.

The ruling overturned district and appeals court decisions that said police had overstepped their authority in searching a vehicle after a lawful traffic stop.

At issue was a 2008 case in Hobbs. Police saw a handgun in the vehicle and then searched it.

They ran a background check and found that a passenger, Gregory Ketelson, had a prior felony conviction. Officers arrested him for being in unlawful possession of a gun.

Ketelson's lawyers argued that an officer does not have authority to enter a car and seize an object absent a search warrant consent or emergency circumstances.

In overturning the lower courts, the Supreme Court said the key issue was whether a police officer could remove a visible weapon from a vehicle to keep it away from those who had just been pulled over.

The court unanimously said: "... We are mindful of the grave need for officer safety in the midst of the dangers and uncertainties that are always inherent in traffic stops. ... It was constitutionally reasonable for the officer to remove the firearm from the vehicle. Therefore, the evidence should not have been suppressed."

The Artesia NM News reports:

The court also said that its decision “does not depend on any requirement of particularized suspicion that an occupant is inclined to use the firearm improperly.”

And nationally, the Supreme Court ruled

The police do not need a warrant to enter a home if they smell burning marijuana, knock loudly, announce themselves and hear what they think is the sound of evidence being destroyed, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in an 8-to-1 decision.

The issue as framed by the majority was a narrow one. It assumed there was good reason to think evidence was being destroyed, and asked only whether the conduct of the police had impermissibly caused the destruction.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said police officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches by kicking down a door after the occupants of an apartment react to hearing that officers are there by seeming to destroy evidence.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the majority had handed the police an important new tool.

“The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement in drug cases,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”

The case, Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1272, arose from a mistake. After seeing a drug deal in a parking lot, police officers in Lexington, Ky., rushed into an apartment complex looking for a suspect who had sold cocaine to an informant.

But the smell of burning marijuana led them to the wrong apartment. After knocking and announcing themselves, they heard sounds from inside the apartment that they said made them fear that evidence was being destroyed. They kicked the door in and found marijuana and cocaine but not the original suspect, who was in a different apartment.

Taken together these decisions will further embolden the paramilitary gangs that operate under color of law such as the one in Pima County, Arizona, that executed Jose Guerena on a blanket warrant for an entire neighborhood.

I have written before ("“Choose this day whom you will serve.”: An Open Letter to American Law Enforcement) of the dangers of federalized law enforcement -- to the people, the Republic and the cops themselves.

In addition, the Olofson case and other similar cases have convinced many that if we no longer possess the right to a fair trial, we at least retain the right to an unfair gunfight.

I have said this many times and it bears repeating:

If the law -- the entire police establishment at all levels of government, the high priesthood of attorneys and the courts who are supposed to restrain them within the limits set by the Founders' Constitution as well as the politicians who shape the legal battlefield -- no longer protects us then it no longer protects them either.

There is no advantage in being law abiding in an essentially lawless society where the rule of law has been supplanted by the rule of man, which is nothing more than the law of the jungle.

For in the jungle, even the biggest predators can be killed without consequence. The only thing that matters then is the successful completion of the deed by the creature who refuses to be eaten without resistance.

Are these black robed fools really stupid enough to think that the immutable, eternal Law of Unintended Consequences does not apply to THEM?

I'm afraid were are going to see that theory tested in a very bloody manner, with murdered citizens, dead cops and assassinated judges littering their self-made jungle's floor.


Anonymous said...

If a jungle they want, it is inevitably a jungle they will get.

There no doubt will be no shortage of players and they had better not whine too loud when the game does not favor their winning.

There is no more dangerous a man than one who has NOTHING left to lose.

Anonymous said...

My guess is, like the SWAT fiasco in Columbia, MO, nothing will come of this. If it is determined that this poor man was innocent, Pima County will buy off his widow and it will all go away. Sheriff Dupnick will have dodged another bullet.
As a former peace officer, I am ashamed of what passes for law enforcement nowadays. In my own pathetic little community, they are conducting "pedestian stings" to trap drivers who neglect to observe people stepping off the curbs using crosswalks. The police and the corrupt PTB have enough useful idiots to volunteer to "help" them. They do not, however run sobriety checkpoints because they would bust too many of the same PTB! It's only a matter of time before some patriot lights the fuse. Then the rest of us will get the ball rolling.

Anonymous said...

That Tucson judge that signed a search order to blanket an entire neighborhood should be promoted to # 1 on the hundred heads list.

TPaine said...

Well, given the way things are going right now, I have a very good chance of dying in a police shoot-out. Not because of anything I have done, but much worse, because I haven't done anything but will resist with extreme force any attempt to take away my rights to security in my onw home.

This guy's biggest mistake was in not having the safety off when he responded - he was going to die anyway, but he could have made it a little more costly to the SWAT thugs.

If you come to my home and force your way inside, I will shoot you, period. And as I am a 60+ senior with no criminal record and no reason to assault my humble abode, I am too innocent to bother with, and too old to care. As Anonymous says, there is nothing more dangerous than a man who has nothing left to lose.

Anonymous said...

They don't mind a having a jungle because they live in the clouds above it and control it from there. But they need fingers and hands to do their bidding or their will has no force and cannot be implemented.

Hate to say it but ...

Anonymous said...

The SWAT team and its commander need to go to prison for 30 years for murder.

Scott J said...


Thomas/PatriotofPast said...

Head Shots count for extra right?

Jimmy the Saint said...

"Are these black robed fools really stupid enough to think that the immutable, eternal Law of Unintended Consequences does not apply to THEM?

I'm afraid were are going to see that theory tested in a very bloody manner, with murdered citizens, dead cops and assassinated judges littering their self-made jungle's floor."

The number of murdered civilians will be at least an order of magnitude higher than the dead police, and many orders higher than dead judges. I would be very surprised if the number of dead judges exceeded zero, and the number of dead police exceeded 3 - and even then, it might well be blue-on-blue.

The simple fact of the matter is that average people just won't do anything, and even when folks fight the cops (as bikers are/were doing in Hemet, CA) they still don't accomplish much beyond property damage.

Anonymous said...

This business is getting out of hand and folks are going to get hurt. Sadly it doesn't have to happen if TPTB would at least respect the Constitution. If we don't act soon and decisivly in a political manner, this business will decend into chaos and we'll be forced to defend ourselves.

To Oathkeepers out there: Now is the time to clean up your ranks, if you don't, it's going to get messy for all of us. Do your sworn duty and clean up your messes while you still have the option to do so. Yeah, I know, it's not your fault. But YOU are in the middle of it and in a position to get things cleaned up. To be sure, the oathbreakers will throw the oathkeepers under the bus when the SHTF... Decide now if you are part of the solution or part of the problem.

Anonymous said...

I sent a little note to the thugs in Pima County.
"Why don't you'all send your thugs up here to Kentucky and kick my door down. I guarantee you I won't be the one shot 60 times. Shame on you and your officers. I hope you meet your judgement from the Lord."

Anonymous said...

What "will come of it" will be when they knock on the wrong door.

Pat H. said...

I can't really write a short response to this travesty.

Thank God Will Grigg has continued to keep up with this murder and keep us informed, I feel good about the fact I realized that this was wrong from the first.

There was no warrant. That's something that is already in evidence, well, by the fact that that alleged warrant has been "sealed".

The "blue street gang" that killed this former Marine, have a highly paid lawyer that is attempting to "salt the ground" by inuendo, lie, and variouos other tactics to trash the widow and her children.

The final question I have is, Okay Arizonan men, what are you going to do about this murder that the state is covering up? Will you have the balls to kill those that perpetrated it?

It's time boys and girls.

DukkButt said...

A retired lawyer I know once said a judge wouldn't make an unenforceable ruling, even if it was perfectly legal, because it would reduce respect for the judge and the law. These fools actually believe that it is their laws that keep order. Apparently, these folks don't realize that most people (maybe 97-98%) don't obey the law from fear of punishment, rather from their inner voice and/or belief system (Thou Shalt Not Steal). That is what keeps me from stealing from my neighbor, not fear of punishment by the law. When the law no longer matches the belief system, the law no longer has any effect on people's actions, except for trying not to get caught. That is the fundamental flaw that these sociopaths hiding behind the law don't understand.

Anonymous said...

As in a the Greek tragedy, hubris leads to nemesis.


Anonymous said...

A rally scheduled in Indianapolis tomorrow (5/25), some representatives making moves to stop this illegal decision by 3 IN supreme court robed twirps. The heartland is enraged.


Indiana Newton County Sheriff Don Hartman Sr. issued a retraction on his previous stupid statement:

Doesn't mention the woman reporter by name, probably doesn't want to face a lawsuit?

She stands by her interview:

And in case Donny needs to be reminded of his oath to the U.S. Constitution again:

Newton County Sheriff's Department
304 East Seymour Street
Kentland, IN  47951
Administrative: (219) 474-3331

Donald E. Hartman Sr., 64
Married to Theresa L Hartman 61
6372 W 1125 S
Kentland, IN 47951 (219) 474-6736
202 E Ray St
Kentland, IN 47951 (219) 474-6667

Christian Patriot III said...

Thanks for touching on the subject, Mike. This whole thing boils my blood to vapor. I'm out here trying to establish good relationships with my LEOs and our neighborhood watch group and there is inane bullshit like this going on. This is the definition of tyranny - a few brain damaged imbeciles have "decided" to "rule" the constitution is in error where it is THAT DOCUMENT from which they derive their personal SHRED of authority. THEY CAN NOT OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION. Impeachment is the only peaceful recourse. Any congress critters got the stones?

Christian Patriot III said...

I posted this comment a while back on Doug Ross's blog. It fits well here as well.

I think it goes without saying that the jig is up. We know it, they know it. There are no limits they will honor in twisting our constitution like wringing out a dirty wash cloth. They are repulsed by what it contains and it is anathema to their core traits and values.

So, it should be clear: liberals, socialists, most democrats both covertly and, increasingly, overtly reject the U.S. Constitution. It is wholly unfit for them. Yet they demand the benefits and protections it offers. They are in effect foreign invaders demanding that we simply hand over our country and our heritage to their sole discretion and purview.

It must be said - this doctrine of theirs is an act of aggression, treason and open war fare against the true Republic which we hold so dear. Will we not defend it now? Will we wait till they take it a step further and mandate more inane pedestrian nonsense? Will we tolerate the color of law being used to pervert the rule of law to the extent that our freedom to self determination in so thoroughly infringed that we bear no distinguishable difference to the once feared Soviet Union?

I desire the shedding of blood no more than the next peace loving, law abiding, God fearing American. Unfortunately, men and women of this description are on the decline and our enemies are multiplying both in numbers and in threats to freedom. What shall we do? Sit idly by and await destruction?

Doc Ellis 124 said...

no need to post


I shared this on freedomtorch.com and tweeted this via facebook to linkin.com and myspace.

Thank you for this essay

Doc Ellis 124

no need to post

Anonymous said...

End the War on Drugs and No-knock warrants!

rustynail said...

Notice that this is the jurisdiction of the same Clarence Dupnik shot off his mouth about Arizona and gun owners in the wake of the shooting that injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

You citizens of Pima County, AZ, have gotten what you voted for. I suggest you consider this at the next election for Sheriff.

Reg T said...

In the case of removing a firearm from a vehicle, the court's decision is bullshit. I've been out of law enforcement since 1995, but we were trained to remove the suspects from the vehicle, which renders the presence of any weapons in the vehicle as moot. If the person we have stopped is away from the vehicle - and on a felony stop he will be "proned out" on the ground well away from the vehicle - a gun in the vehicle is of no danger to anyone.

The Ballad of Carl Drega, by Vin Suprinowicz, needs to be read, along with Unintended Consequences by John Ross. As Mike has spoken about, I think it is getting time for Clinton RsOE to be in effect.

tools4u2nv said...

When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty! - American Confederacy (C.S.A)

Anonymous said...

David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

Translation: If you defend your Fourth Amendment rights, it will only get you hurt (our worse yet, get one of our enforcers injured!) and we are gonna bust ya anyhow, whether you have done wrong or not.

Welcome to the Catch-22 world of modern juriprudence; if this is law, anarchism must be preferrable!

We must surely accept the challenge of rolling back this perversion of justice or find ourselves reverting to the Law of Nature--he who is most bloody and ruthless wins.

May it please God to save our beleagured Republic from these black-robed usurpers.


idahobob said...

Remember the example of Harold Krassny!


Mark Matis said...

For Christian Patriot III:
Do you REALLY think that "Weepy" has the guts to even START an impeachment of The One? And even if he was forced to by whatever honorable men there may be in the House, they can only impeach. Removal requires 67 votes in the Senate. With McCain, Snowe, Graham, Collins, Lugar, Murkowski et al, they would be lucky to get 30!

Mark Matis said...

And for those of you still "working with local Law Enforcement", just what do you think THEY will do if you are forced to defend yourself against FedPig and survive the initial contact:

1. Stand alongside of you to protect you from further criminal actions by FedGov?

2. Stand out of the way to let you defend yourself against the follow-onslaught?

3. Arrest you, and then turn you over to FedPig when they claim jurisdiction?

I think I know the answer to that. But continue to live in your dream world, if you insist...

Anonymous said...

"That Tucson judge that signed a search order to blanket an entire neighborhood should be promoted to # 1 on the hundred heads list."

One hundred heads in Ireland may have done the job, but I fear that in a country of 300+ million a mere hundred heads won't even qualify as a good start should such a path be forced upon us.

Anonymous said...

They're not going to be satisfied till it's all out rebellion, are they?

God. It's like they subscribe to some bizarro-world form of logic that has no link to reality.

Dingo's Dad said...

And now, on to the next outrage:


U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy & TSA Threaten to Shut Down Texas Aviation if state's "TSA anti-grope" bill passes


Anonymous said...

It's simple....team up and lock and load. That's what it is coming to.

Remember. The guy with a badge IS NOT your friend. He is NOT YOUR FRIEND.


Anonymous said...

"If a jungle they want, it is inevitably a jungle they will get."

I seriously doubt that "they" want a jungle. Just as we know Gen. Gage did not want or expect to start a war on April 19, 1775. But he and his superiors had completely misread the mood, intentions, and capabilities of the men they assumed would grumble about another abuse then go on about their lives.

The problem is that TPTB have no understanding of what they may set off with the next overzealous SWAT raid. Further, they have no understanding of, respect for, or fear of what a fed up Amercian people might do in response.

The progressive erosion of the federal government's respect for the American people has been going on since at least the Wilson Administration, and I use the word "progressive" deliberately. Yet We and previous generations have done little or no effective pushback whatsoever. Why should we expect them to respect us now? Gen. Gage had no respect for the colonial forces until waking one morning to the sight of colonial artillery emplacements threatening his troopships in Boston harbor.

Is there anything we can do, short of outright combat, to restore the federal government's respect for the American people?

Window War, anyone?

Mickey Collins said...

Mark Matis left out:

4. Murder you, spit on your grave, and call you a 'cop killer'.

J. Croft said...

Only two peaceable defenses remain: get rid of the oath traitors locally via recall election as the GIs of Athens TN in 1946 did, or you make a big sacrifice and move to a place where you're name's on nothing, and you tell NOBODY where you live.

As for myself I've had nothing to lose for awhile now. The enemy's various hydra heads have stolen everything from me.

Anonymous said...

The AZ Supreme Court ruled last week that the 4th Amendment trumps any consideration of [Indiana's cited} escalation of violence potential.

They said in their opinion (found here http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/23/pdf2011/CR100315PR.pdf)

"We are mindful that:
[P]olice officers have an incredibly difficult and dangerous task and are placed in life threatening situations on a regular basis. It would perhaps reduce the danger inherent in the
job if we allowed the police to do whatever they felt necessary, whenever they needed to do it, in
whatever manner required, in every situation in which they must act. However, there is a Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution which necessarily forecloses this possibility."

Now the question is, will anyone investigate the Tuscon incident, or will Pima County be allowed to remain as a stain on law and justice in AZ? Our AG, Tom Horne, is not a fan of Pima County's liberal nonsense, especially the Raza ethnic-studies classes, teaching racism and hatred to kids. I hope he decides to go after Dupnick's office for this cold-blooded murder and attempted cover-up.

BTW, Maricopa Cty Sheriff Arpaio just arrested a number of his own officers, and fired a bunch more. It appears he is cleaning up corruption in his office (or is covering his ass; remains to be seen) The battle for the rule of law in AZ is far from over.