if that's really possible.
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...."
What the HELL. And who the hell was the idiot judge who signed off on this? Or, just to cover it, what if the judge wasn't told exactly what was on the papers and he- being rushed- signed it; just what would he think of this?
This article brings up a good point: these people are claiming the deceased had 'part of a police uniform' in his possession: considering what all military gear the police are using, that could mean he had a BDU shirt or pants: "Oooooh, instant Police Uniform and Evidence of Wrongdoing, , so we were right to shoot him!"
I used to wonder about this from Cooper:
I have been criticized by referring to our federal masked men as "ninja,"
when in the view of the critic the traditional role of the ninja in Japan was to fight against oppression and tyranny. Let us note that almost no one ever resorts to force and violence unless he is convinced that his cause is right, but without going into that let us reflect upon the fact that a man who covers his face shows reason to be ashamed of what he is doing. A man who takes it upon himself to shed blood while concealing his identity is a revolting perversion of the warrior ethic.
It has long been my conviction that a masked man with a gun is a target. I see no reason to change that view.
I don't have much argument with it anymore. I can see someone who's been working undercover- and will again- who HAS, for some reason, to take part in a raid, wearing a mask, but everyone else? All the damned time? I'm rather tired of people who insist on hiding their faces while supposedly enforcing the law.
Some more over at Reason