Pulling a Gun and Running from the Sheriff While Hispanic?

MortFurd said:
4) Shop owner is involved in shady business with the local drug runners and claims the police destroyed evidence to hide the fact that his cameras didn't work anyway.

We can make up possibilities all day. What really happened is probably something else entirely.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that's what happened nor even surmising it. I was responding to a claim that it made no logical sense by pointing out at least one possibility that would make logical, if nefarious, sense.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
The shop owner/manager. He was describing what happened as if he was an eyewitness.
Click to expand...

Ok, but maybe I'm seeing something odd. Just another odd thing...

The owner witnessed the killing. He saw it happen. He is also a personal friend and employer of the victim. This means he will have easy access to the family and they will personally embrace him. Now...

The owner seems to have told them that their son was killed while running from the police. He seems to have not told them that their son was put on his knees with hands up and then killed by a cop with 7 shots right into the back. Because that's what he told reporters.

Why does the family get in front of a microphone and say that their son was killed while running instead of saying he was killed with many shots to the back while on his knees with hands up?

I have not yet been able to make good sense out of that.
 
William Parcher said:
Ok, but maybe I'm seeing something odd. Just another odd thing...

The owner witnessed the killing. He saw it happen. He is also a personal friend and employer of the victim. This means he will have easy access to the family and they will personally embrace him. Now...

The owner seems to have told them that their son was killed while running from the police. He seems to have not told them that their son was put on his knees with hands up and then killed by a cop with 7 shots right into the back. Because that's what he told reporters.
Click to expand...

I got the impression that the guy ran down the alley and dropped to his knees and put his hands up. Your description of him being put on his knees before he was killed sounds like the cops forced him to his knees and killed him execution style. I don't think that's what happened if for no other reason than because the cops would've killed this eyewitness as well. If the cops didn't know there was an eyewitness at the time, they were aware of it as soon as the guy appeared on camera. The owner/manager would've committed suicide the way Jeffrey Epstein did by now if he was an eyewitness to on duty Sheriff's deputies executing an innocent man.

Why does the family get in front of a microphone and say that their son was killed while running instead of saying he was killed with many shots to the back while on his knees with hands up?
Click to expand...

I thought a sister did say that in an interview. I can't find that video anymore so I might be conflating the interview with the sister and the interview with the owner/manager that I've seen.

As far as I know the sheriff dept hasn't mentioned the prior week's shooting and narcotics at the same location. That's weird to me because that incident explains why the deputies might've been patrolling the area that night and why they might've been hypervigilant when they saw Guardado.

I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that law enforcement has been very very vague about what exactly happened that prompted the shooting. If Guardado had a gun and pointed it at the deputies, the deputies would have been negligent to NOT shoot him. But they haven't said anything that would explain why he was shot.
 
William Parcher said:
Ok, but maybe I'm seeing something odd. Just another odd thing...

The owner witnessed the killing. He saw it happen. He is also a personal friend and employer of the victim. This means he will have easy access to the family and they will personally embrace him. Now...

The owner seems to have told them that their son was killed while running from the police. He seems to have not told them that their son was put on his knees with hands up and then killed by a cop with 7 shots right into the back. Because that's what he told reporters.

Why does the family get in front of a microphone and say that their son was killed while running instead of saying he was killed with many shots to the back while on his knees with hands up?

I have not yet been able to make good sense out of that.
Click to expand...

Its probably a simple matter of language, the difference between using the word "running" as a verb or an adjective.

"Running from Police" may not literally mean the physical act of running, but more "fleeing from Police"; attempting to escape. When a wanted felon is described as "on the run from Police" that doesn't mean he/she is actually physically running 24/7/365. When the Police try to stop a driver and rather than stop, he attempts to escape, that driver is often said to be "running from the Police" even though he is actually driving.

In this case, they may simply be describing that the man was in the "state" of running (fleeing) rather that the "act" of running (sprinting) before he was put on his knees and shot. The statements are consistent if you understand the nuances of language.
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Ok, but maybe I'm seeing something odd. Just another odd thing...

The owner witnessed the killing. He saw it happen. He is also a personal friend and employer of the victim. This means he will have easy access to the family and they will personally embrace him. Now...

The owner seems to have told them that their son was killed while running from the police. He seems to have not told them that their son was put on his knees with hands up and then killed by a cop with 7 shots right into the back. Because that's what he told reporters.

Why does the family get in front of a microphone and say that their son was killed while running instead of saying he was killed with many shots to the back while on his knees with hands up?

I have not yet been able to make good sense out of that.
Click to expand...


We don't know with any degree of certainty who told the parents what, or when they were told.

You're assuming that disparate elements are connected in ways which you have no reason to assume.

That may be why you are having trouble making sense out of it.
 
The Owner said:
Andres ran down the driveway, got on his knees and put his hands behind his head. Then a Cop shot him in the back 7 times.
Click to expand...

I can't say he said they put him on his knees. He didn't say that. The owner says he voluntarily got down on his knees. I have to change that part of my narrative. Sorry.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I got the impression that the guy ran down the alley and dropped to his knees and put his hands up. Your description of him being put on his knees before he was killed sounds like the cops forced him to his knees and killed him execution style. I don't think that's what happened if for no other reason than because the cops would've killed this eyewitness as well. If the cops didn't know there was an eyewitness at the time, they were aware of it as soon as the guy appeared on camera. The owner/manager would've committed suicide the way Jeffrey Epstein did by now if he was an eyewitness to on duty Sheriff's deputies executing an innocent man.
Click to expand...
It's not part of my narrative any more. Sorry you had to write that because if I had gone back to examine the owner statement then this wouldn't have happened.



I thought a sister did say that in an interview. I can't find that video anymore so I might be conflating the interview with the sister and the interview with the owner/manager that I've seen.
Click to expand...
I put up a news quote recently upthread where the family only says "running away" but it makes no mention of what family member said it (I think).

It's still odd to me because if the owner said anything at all to the family about "got on his knees with hands behind head and then shot 7 times in the back", I would think that that would immediately impress upon them that something much worse happened that shooting him while "running away." Then when they speak into a microphone the message is more about an execution-style killing than a running away killing. The oddness is that they don't mention it or even imply it.



I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that law enforcement has been very very vague about what exactly happened that prompted the shooting. If Guardado had a gun and pointed it at the deputies, the deputies would have been negligent to NOT shoot him. But they haven't said anything that would explain why he was shot.
Click to expand...
I think the cops said that he showed the gun, but no mention of it being pointed. I think they were describing a "flashing of a gun". You show the gun (with intent of it being seen), but you don't point it. It can be just pulling it out and showing it with barrel pointed straight down at the ground, or lifting a shirt to show a gun in the waistband. It happens in a flash and I think that where "flash" comes from. It's all done to make an immediate statement of enormous gravity. "I will shoot you if you keep doing whatever you are doing and you do KNOW what thing you are doing that I am talking about."
 
But to have a gun flash on cops who are flying their flags (marked vehicle) and you know it is rather extraordinary, to say the least. If it happened like that, I might look to see if the flasher had mental illness. Tamir Rice, the boy who was pointing the ultra-realistic toy gun at all sorts of people walking past him, had mental illness and it was cited in reports.
 
How do you think the security company would give the videos to the cops? "Here's my hard drive", Or "Lemmee download a copy of the videos from that location"? If the latter, the security co has a copy too, the cops can't edit or claim "no footage".
 
CaptainHowdy said:
The plot thickens. I wonder why there's a security hold on releasing the results of his autopsy?
Click to expand...

Internal investigations have privacy protections. They can't "defame" the cop until the personnel problem is handled. A good case will free them of that restraint. "Officer Masa, (dough in Spanish) the autopsy results don't agree with your story. It's insubordination to lie to your boss" ?

In this clomate, the higher ups would rather throw Officer Masa to the wolves than get caught in a coverup. What with the security company have a copy of the video.

Maybe?
 
William Parcher said:
But to have a gun flash on cops who are flying their flags (marked vehicle) and you know it is rather extraordinary, to say the least. If it happened like that, I might look to see if the flasher had mental illness. Tamir Rice, the boy who was pointing the ultra-realistic toy gun at all sorts of people walking past him, had mental illness and it was cited in reports.
Click to expand...

This is pure conjecture on my part but, the owner/manager said that he saw Guardado talking to two girls when the Sheriff pulled up. I wonder if he was trying to impress the girls by showing them a gun? As somebody else upthread noted, if he was holding a gun in his hand when he spotted the cops he would turn and run with the gun still in his hand. He didn't necessarily point the gun at anybody.

Yet another question I have is, what happened to those girls? They should've been detained at the scene, especially considering what immediately transpired.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
The plot thickens. I wonder why there's a security hold on releasing the results of his autopsy?
Click to expand...
My first guess is that it was up to 6 shots in the back, and Compton is going to burn, and they are delaying for a plan. Santa Ana is already locking in a curfew because of this. You need the curfew for when the results are released, and you need the curfew even before that because delaying the release is something to protest and riot about.
 
casebro said:
How do you think the security company would give the videos to the cops? "Here's my hard drive", Or "Lemmee download a copy of the videos from that location"? If the latter, the security co has a copy too, the cops can't edit or claim "no footage".
Click to expand...

I think the cops would want the hard drive so they could look at everything on it and not just the relevant video. If it looked bad for them they could 'accidentally' destroy the hard drive. I hope there's a cloud backup that could prevent that from happening.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
This is pure conjecture on my part but, the owner/manager said that he saw Guardado talking to two girls when the Sheriff pulled up. I wonder if he was trying to impress the girls by showing them a gun? As somebody else upthread noted, if he was holding a gun in his hand when he spotted the cops he would turn and run with the gun still in his hand. He didn't necessarily point the gun at anybody.

Yet another question I have is, what happened to those girls? They should've been detained at the scene, especially considering what immediately transpired.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But he'd be a liar if he said the illegal gun and its illegal extended magazine was his "security guard gun" and that he is a security guard. What he was showing them was a "gangster gun" and isn't it looking badass. Tell me ladies, is this not totally badass?
 
Yes, in the hypothetical tale that he was showing his gun to impress girls and he hypothetically told them it was his "security guard gun" (where did you get that quote from?), he would, hypothetically, be a liar.

:rolleyes:
 
Ha, are we just running with the hot new fiction that gangsters show guns to girls to try and impress them, now?
 
Checkmite said:
Ha, are we just running with the hot new fiction that gangsters show guns to girls to try and impress them, now?
Click to expand...

Some find it easier to search desperately for - or just make up - reasons to accept the fantastical story provided by cops trying to get away with murder rather than just accepting that the cops are probably lying about what happened.
 
William Parcher said:
Maybe. But he'd be a liar if he said the illegal gun and its illegal extended magazine was his "security guard gun" and that he is a security guard. What he was showing them was a "gangster gun" and isn't it looking badass. Tell me ladies, is this not totally badass?
Click to expand...

Women love a bad boy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom