Talk:Jose Guerena shooting

Biased Article

Background: I have no connections to this case one way or the other; I just found out about while trying to find out how SWAT/Intelligence/etc. usually beat a dead man switch.

The section titled "Incident" is incredibly biased. Examples:

"The Sheriff's Department initially lied, claiming that Guerena had fired on officers." The first part of this is extraneous. The SD may not have known it was lying. As this case is still pending in court (as best I can tell), I don't think this is a proper sentence. (Innocent until proven guilty, etc. and they were already proven innocent.)

"(Later reports are he bled to death in about 4 minutes)" What reports?

"Police did report that one AR-15, one .38 handgun, body armor, and a US Border Patrol cap were confiscated, though none of these items are illegal to own." Don't need a comment here.

"According to an indictment unsealed Friday in Pima County Superior Court," Well this is just incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.65.26 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

--

I moved up the above because, like the writer above, know nothing about this case. But it's immediately obvious that it is written in an entirely biased manner. The most telling part for me is the intro, which formulates the raid as entirely unjustified and Guerena's actions entirely justified. There is obviously more to this story than what is being put out here. 108.207.5.136 (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

--

Good suggestions. I've made changes based on your recommendations as follows:

1. I've removed the "lied" allegation, because it is not known if the police intentionally misrepresented Guerena's actions to justify the shooting. However, I believe it is important to include that the police's initial statement that Guerena fired first is inaccurate. That the police changed their account after an investigation concluded that their initial statements were incorrect casts doubt on their corrected account (that Guerena pointed his rifle at them). Also I removed the speculation that the police had poor aim.

2. I've removed the parenthetical comment regarding bleeding to death in 4 minutes, as a quick Google search did not find any such reports.

3. I'm going to leave this comment. I don't think it is biased to note that the items the police reported finding in the house and which they seized were in fact not illegal to possess. However, I must note that I may be biased in this decision because I may have been the author of the comment in question.

4. The sentence regarding the unsealed indictment appears to have been removed previously.

The original complaint suggests that these are just examples of bias within the article, and there may be more. Further identification of biased statements would continue to benefit the article - keep 'em coming. This article has been hard to keep impartial with passionate parties contributing on both sides, but now that things have slowed down we can clean it up a bit. Fx6893 (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can there be more info about why his house was raided in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.107.220 (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed material

Someone removed the questions an anonIP put here per above template but left my response. Since the anonIP left me a message, I thought I'd explain here:

Questions asked by WP:reliable sources - in either opinion pieces or by quoting other sources - can be introduced, if done in appropriate encyclopedic fashion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of times shot

I've made the change to reflect the latest news. Jose Guerena was shot 22 times, not 60 as erroneously reported earlier: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_d92dd346-f13a-5332-8981-cefd04d9fd54.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.252.228 (talk) 09:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Warrants Released

Some of the warrants have been released, though there is some level of censorship to protect the confidential informant. Here they are in PDF format: http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned%20Document0582_000.pdf So, question... if I post information from these warrants, is that considered original research? Thanks for answering, I'm not well versed in the limitations of OR, as I'm relatively new to wiki editing. Thanks again. Zenmastervex (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing policy states that such primary sources should be used only with due care. Chances are that the information most pertinent to this article in the warrants has been mentioned in secondary sources, which we would prefer to use. Nevard (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed and Changed

I removed a line that said this: "They later changed their story to say that once the SWAT team had broken open the front door, one member's negligent discharge put a bullet into the doorway, causing other members of the team to believe that Guerena had shot at them.." Basically, this line implys that an officer fired a negligent shot, which caused the others to start shooting. This is untrue, even based on the source listed. What actually happened is the officers started shooting first, and several of the rounds his various parts of the door and doorjamb. This did indeed lead to officer stating they saw splinters, but the rounds that caused this were not negligently fired. Instead, I added a new line with the same reference stating the splinters were caused by gunfire from the SWAT team. No source anywhere I can find directly states the SWAT team fired shots negligently. Zenmastervex (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good edit. I suppose the original editor meant that the officer had aimed negligently, but it read as if the officer had fired indiscriminately. I've further added and referenced info on the SWAT officers' belief that they were under fire. Fx6893 (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No "flash-bangs" were used . This is in error. SWAT team Was negligent. They changed their story from: m" shot at" to, later: "reacted to shot from oewn member". 60 shots is negligent...I insist this line be replaced.68.231.184.217 (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. All you have to do is read the source to show that flash-bangs were used. There is even a crime scene photo of a deployed cartridge in the rear of the home - it is the first photo at the top of the article. I will reinsert the line and source - if you any evidence to support your belief that flash-bangs were not used please let us know. Fx6893 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)