Cop freed by judge,unbelievable.***Graphic Video in OP***

Arsemageddon

He pretended to have a gun. And refused to comply with officers. That's aggressive behavior.

It's also unlawful behavior.

Your interpretation of him 'pretending to have a gun' can only be based on what is in the video. All I see is a young fella trying to act like a gangsta in front of his mate with one hands down his pants. Giving lip to a copper isn't clever but its not illegal, the first amendment grants the right of free speech. He didn't verbally threaten the cop which is illegal.

The cops thought he had a gun based on an erroneous 911 call. The shooter cop then utterly misinterpreted his stance and actions.

Utah has among the weakest gun control legislation of any state and an open carry gun policy and yet you think 'pretending to have a gun' is illegal?

I'm relying on a lot more than the video my friend. I've read all the articles on this case... have you?

I've read quite a few, when I googled 'Dillon Taylor Shooting' just now I got 3.95 million results. fair play to ya for reading all those. Care to provide a link to some of the most pertinent articles?

I didn't comment on this thread until I took the time to fully inform myself of the facts surrounding this incident.

From your posts I'd say you had your mind made up at the start

Arsemageddon

tom_k wrote: »

If my understanding is correct the 120,000 figure represents only Federal police officers and excludes local PDs and sheriffs etc.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo08.pdf

The total number of state and local sworn personnel who have general powers of arrest is well over 765,000. These are 2008 figures so current numbers are possibly higher.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf

The number of law enforcement officers has fallen to 626,942 according to the FBI figures for 2013. The 120,000 or so federal law enforcement officers are added to this figure to give a total of about 745,000

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-74

ThinkProgress

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Your interpretation of him 'pretending to have a gun' can only be based on what is in the video. All I see is a young fella trying to act like a gangsta in front of his mate with one hands down his pants. Giving lip to a copper isn't clever but its not illegal, the first amendment grants the right of free speech. He didn't verbally threaten the cop which is illegal.

The cops thought he had a gun based on an erroneous 911 call. The shooter cop then utterly misinterpreted his stance and actions.

Utah has among the weakest gun control legislation of any state and an open carry gun policy and yet you think 'pretending to have a gun' is illegal?



I've read quite a few, when I googled 'Dillon Taylor Shooting' just now I got 3.95 million results. fair play to ya for reading all those. Care to provide a link to some of the most pertinent articles?



From your posts I'd say you had your mind made up at the start

He pretended to have a gun in the convenience store, that's why the cops were called.

And he did so again when the cops came. That's against the law!

The 911 call was not erroneous. It was accurate. Everybody believed he had a gun, because that's what he wanted everyone to believe.

At no point did he try to show people he was pretending. He was a sick man who wanted to die!

I'd say your mind seems pretty well made up. You're ignoring facts and you've clearly not even researched the full story!

K.Flyer

end of the road wrote: »

[...] no evidence he was depressed or suicidal.

Man killed by police said he'd die before spending lots of time in jail.

Robert Taylor, Dillon Taylor's uncle who lives in Pocatello, Idaho, issued a statement Tuesday.
"Last night's shooting was a tragic event for all the parties involved. My nephew was a troubled young man with a history of depression, alcohol abuse and run-ins with law enforcement," he said. "Law enforcement has a difficult job, and it appears Dillon's actions may have contributed to his death.
"While I'm disturbed by the use of deadly force while other non-lethal tools are available to law enforcement, it's difficult for anyone to judge the actions taken by police in a split-second, life-or-death situation. I hope everyone will withhold judgment about Dillon and the police officers' actions until a full investigation is completed."

end of the road wrote: »

he complied with the officers when he realized who they were which at first he didn't know or see them.

Oh, so he didn't see the two cop cars with flashing lights pulling up in front of him, didn't see his brother and friend put their hands up, and he didn't see the cop who was clearly on his right hand side pointing a gun at him.
If he had not walked away and just stood and put his hands up, as his brother and friend did, he would be still alive and there would be no more about it. END OF.

Shield

This is what we all dread could happen as a result of having to carry a gun.

From my perspective, the officer already had his weapon aimed at the deceased. He appeared to have his hands inside his trousers, maybe to keep them from falling, maybe to tighten his belt, "maybe" a list of other innocent reasons.

My biggest argument is no sign of a gun. Let's say he had produced a gun from his trousers. The officer had his weapon aimed and ready to fire, so he had a huge advantage. Would I perceive a threat just because a suspect has his hands down his trousers at that distance, in that light, after hearing a report of 'men flashing gun'? Yes, I would.

However, I highly doubt I would feel enough of a threat to my life to shoot him now, and ask questions later. Especially given the fact that there was a colleague of mine to my right. The rules for us opening fire are that the threat to life must be "imminent", and the use of the last line of our defence is "absolutely necessary". I think I'd be comfortable enough with my finger on the trigger, ready to shoot, if I saw any sign of a gun. He already had his left hand out and it was empty. It's hard to see if the right hand was out.

The bit I'm hung up on is duty of care. If we shoot someone, and the threat is removed - or in this case, no threat found - we have a duty to provide immediate first aid, and we're required to do everything in our power to minimise the obvious life-threatening result of our actions. I see none of that here. I see him handcuffing Dillon, who was probably in his last seconds of life, searching him, and leaving him to die.

No attempt to try and stop the bleeding - except nonchalantly opening one gauze pad. No attempt at CPR or AV. Just leaving him in handcuffs to die. They're beside a 7-11! Have a colleague run in, grab a pack of nappies, and stop. the. bleeding. He may have been justified in shooting if he genuinely perceived a threat to his life, but he in in no way justified for watching the man bleed to death. This is just inexcusable IMO.

I have huge sympathy for the family, who must know by now that this video is in the public domain, and probably had to watch it during the trial.

We can all speculate whether Dillon could have had a chance if immediate and adequate first aid had been administered.

Sadly, and wrongly, he was denied that chance.

ThinkProgress

Shield wrote: »

This is what we all dread could happen as a result of having to carry a gun.

From my perspective, the officer already had his weapon aimed at the deceased. He appeared to have his hands inside his trousers, maybe to keep them from falling, maybe to tighten his belt, "maybe" a list of other innocent reasons.

My biggest argument is no sign of a gun. Let's say he had produced a gun from his trousers. The officer had his weapon aimed and ready to fire, so he had a huge advantage. Would I perceive a threat just because a suspect has his hands down his trousers at that distance, in that light, after hearing a report of 'men flashing gun'? Yes, I would.

However, I highly doubt I would feel enough of a threat to my life to shoot him now, and ask questions later. Especially given the fact that there was a colleague of mine to my right. The rules for us opening fire are that the threat to life must be "imminent", and the use of the last line of our defence is "absolutely necessary". I think I'd be comfortable enough with my finger on the trigger, ready to shoot, if I saw any sign of a gun. He already had his left hand out and it was empty. It's hard to see if the right hand was out.

The bit I'm hung up on is duty of care. If we shoot someone, and the threat is removed - or in this case, no threat found - we have a duty to provide immediate first aid, and we're required to do everything in our power to minimise the obvious life-threatening result of our actions. I see none of that here. I see him handcuffing Dillon, who was probably in his last seconds of life, searching him, and leaving him to die.

No attempt to try and stop the bleeding - except nonchalantly opening one gauze pad. No attempt at CPR or AV. Just leaving him in handcuffs to die. They're beside a 7-11! Have a colleague run in, grab a pack of nappies, and stop. the. bleeding. He may have been justified in shooting if he genuinely perceived a threat to his life, but he in in no way justified for watching the man bleed to death. This is just inexcusable IMO.

I have huge sympathy for the family, who must know by now that this video is in the public domain, and probably had to watch it during the trial.

We can all speculate whether Dillon could have had a chance if immediate and adequate first aid had been administered.

Sadly, and wrongly, he was denied that chance.

In the first segment of your post, you suggest there wasn't an imminent threat.

But in the second part you cast doubt on your own assessment of the situation by saying the officer may have been justified in opening fire if he perceived an imminent threat... So which one is it?

You seem confused? If the situation was clear cut like some people on here think, people simply wouldn't be debating this!

You talk about the innocent reasons that he might have had his hands down his pants.

But do you acknowledge that there was also a possibility from this officers perspective, that he might have been trying to conceal a weapon? (Considering that's what the 911 call was for)

Some people seem to be assessing this incident with the benefit of hindsight. But this officer didn't have that luxury.

He wasn't assessing the situation from a completely neutral perspective like some people watching this video...

It's very easy to see the victims actions as being innocent when you're removed from that moment.

But remember, these officers were called to the scene because a 911 call reported a young man concealing a weapon down his pants....

So that fact is undoubtably going to influence how these officers react when they see his hands down his pants. And the fact he is being non compliant with their requests!

I don't think it's possible for those officers to assess this situation in the same way many of you guys are - considering the information they had at that time!

They're reacting to a credible threat. And responding to what they believe is a potential armed robbery. Not just some innocent 21 year old trying to keep his pants from falling down! lol

Hagar7

Shield wrote: »

This is what we all dread could happen as a result of having to carry a gun.

From my perspective, the officer already had his weapon aimed at the deceased. He appeared to have his hands inside his trousers, maybe to keep them from falling, maybe to tighten his belt, "maybe" a list of other innocent reasons.

My biggest argument is no sign of a gun. Let's say he had produced a gun from his trousers. The officer had his weapon aimed and ready to fire, so he had a huge advantage. Would I perceive a threat just because a suspect has his hands down his trousers at that distance, in that light, after hearing a report of 'men flashing gun'? Yes, I would.

However, I highly doubt I would feel enough of a threat to my life to shoot him now, and ask questions later. Especially given the fact that there was a colleague of mine to my right. The rules for us opening fire are that the threat to life must be "imminent", and the use of the last line of our defence is "absolutely necessary". I think I'd be comfortable enough with my finger on the trigger, ready to shoot, if I saw any sign of a gun. He already had his left hand out and it was empty. It's hard to see if the right hand was out.

The bit I'm hung up on is duty of care. If we shoot someone, and the threat is removed - or in this case, no threat found - we have a duty to provide immediate first aid, and we're required to do everything in our power to minimise the obvious life-threatening result of our actions. I see none of that here. I see him handcuffing Dillon, who was probably in his last seconds of life, searching him, and leaving him to die.

No attempt to try and stop the bleeding - except nonchalantly opening one gauze pad. No attempt at CPR or AV. Just leaving him in handcuffs to die. They're beside a 7-11! Have a colleague run in, grab a pack of nappies, and stop. the. bleeding. He may have been justified in shooting if he genuinely perceived a threat to his life, but he in in no way justified for watching the man bleed to death. This is just inexcusable IMO.

I have huge sympathy for the family, who must know by now that this video is in the public domain, and probably had to watch it during the trial.

We can all speculate whether Dillon could have had a chance if immediate and adequate first aid had been administered.

Sadly, and wrongly, he was denied that chance.

Excellent post,that's it in a nutshell.

Ush1

Just for some balance on these issues with trigger happy police, see this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSELcrJ7Kw

It's actually used now in training for police officers, that was a random stop for speeding by a 22 year old officer.

I haven't watched the video in the op but this might give people some context of how dangerous what they actually do is and how something very mundane on the face of it can become lethal.

end of the road

ThinkProgress wrote: »

In the first segment of your post, you suggest there wasn't an imminent threat.

But in the second part you cast doubt on your own assessment of the situation by saying the officer may have been justified in opening fire if he perceived an imminent threat... So which one is it?

You seem confused? If the situation was clear cut like some people on here think, people simply wouldn't be debating this!

You talk about the innocent reasons that he might have had his hands down his pants.

But do you acknowledge that there was also a possibility from this officers perspective, that he might have been trying to conceal a weapon? (Considering that's what the 911 call was for)

Some people seem to be assessing this incident with the benefit of hindsight. But this officer didn't have that luxury.

He wasn't assessing the situation from a completely neutral perspective like some people watching this video...

It's very easy to see the victims actions as being innocent when you're removed from that moment.

But remember, these officers were called to the scene because a 911 call reported a young man concealing a weapon down his pants....

So that fact is undoubtably going to influence how these officers react when they see his hands down his pants. And the fact he is being non compliant with their requests!

I don't think it's possible for those officers to assess this situation in the same way many of you guys are - considering the information they had at that time!

They're reacting to a credible threat. And responding to what they believe is a potential armed robbery. Not just some innocent 21 year old trying to keep his pants from falling down! lol

he was compliant with their requests

ThinkProgress

end of the road wrote: »

he was compliant with their requests

And you said earlier that he didn't see them or hear them. So how could he be compliant? lol

Make your mind up dude.

You also suggested this gem:

end of the road wrote: »

he didn't know what he was doing and didn't know who they were. they could have stolen police uniforms and being pretending.

^^Remember this?

Seems you'll make almost any excuse you can think of to defend the criminal and paint the cop in a bad light.

You have your agenda. Don't let the facts get in the way of that narrative!

darkpagandeath

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And you said earlier that he didn't see them or hear them. So how could he be compliant? lol

Make your mind up dude.

You also suggested this gem:



^^Remember this?

Seems you'll make almost any excuse you can think of to defend the criminal and paint the cop in a bad light.

You have your agenda. Don't let the facts get in the way of that narrative!

I thinks it in relation to any kind of Authority whether it be Police or Government. The person afoul of the law/authority is always in the right.

ThinkProgress

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I thinks it in relation to any kind of Authority whether it be Police or Government. The person afoul of the law/authority is always in the right.

But that's not actually true. You must prove you were wronged by said authority...

And a judge rightly threw this case out, because there was no wrong doing on the part of the cops here. They simply did their jobs the way they were trained.

darkpagandeath

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But that's not actually true. You must prove you were wronged by said authority...

And a judge rightly threw this case out, because there was no wrong doing on the part of the cops here. They simply did their jobs the way they were trained.

In relation to what you Quoted.

ThinkProgress

darkpagandeath wrote: »

In relation to what you Quoted.

??


Can you elaborate, please?

Wompa1

K.Flyer wrote: »

If the cops were so hell bent on killing him, as some people would like to think, why didn't they just shoot him in the back?


Also worth taking a look at...
Dillon Taylor Shooting, Frame by Frame

If they kill somebody there is an autoposy. Families can also request a private autoposy which could easily show the entry wound through the back....

I don't think the cop WANTED to shoot him, per se. But I think the cop wasn't thinking about every possibility and it's disturbing that the gut instinct is to go for the gun.

The three guys in the car didn't actually do anything wrong. They matched a description but from what I can find online, it was not them that performed the robbery in question. So this is a guy that didn't do anything wrong, wearing headphones getting shouted at by God knows who.

I'm living over here. Many businesses pool money together for private security. Some dress in crazy bright yellow shirts and it's obvious that they are security guards. Others dress in dark clothes and wear vests over their uniform. I need to get very close to them to know if they are security or cops. They don't carry guns but can carry pepper spray, batons and stun guns.

About 2 months ago, I was in my apartment complex and some guy yelled at me from less than 10 feet away. I just responded. Yeah...because it was some stranger and I didn't care to engage. This person started to shout again. So I got up and walked over a bit. It was a police officer responding to a call about something that happened in the parking lot. I wasn't as close as the guy was in this video but I wasn't that much further away.

Who knows what the dead guy was thinking. "Naw Fool" doesn't mean he though the guy was legitimately a cop. The cop car would have been covered by their SUV. This young guy might be dead because he was wearing headphones!

NachoBusiness

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So a criminal who also breaks probation. Sounds like a real angel eh?

I never said he was an angel. I am just responding to bullsh1t that was posted describing him as a 'wanted armed robber'.

He was far from that and people describing him as such are just doing it in an attempt to excuse an unarmed man being shot point blank in the chest.

Doesn't matter if he didn't have a gun. Pretending to have a concealed weapon is a criminal offence. And you can be shot for doing so - which he clearly did.

You're confused. He pretended to have a gun years before, not that day.

Depressed young man. Suicidal by most accounts!

Murder is not a treatment for depression.

ThinkProgress

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I never said he was an angel. I am just responding to bullsh1t that was posted describing him as a 'wanted armed robber'.

He was far from that and people describing him as such are just doing it in an attempt to excuse an unarmed man being shot point blank in the chest.



You're confused. He pretended to have a gun years before, not that day.



Murder is not a treatment for depression.

But he only became unarmed AFTER they shot him. Before that, he was pretending to have a gun... BIG mistake on his part.

The cops believed him and they treated the situation with the seriousness that they felt it warranted.

I'm NOT confused. The 911 call reported that he was concealing a gun in his pants. Everybody believed he had a real gun.

They had no reason to think he was faking it.

The cops did their job. The judge said they did nothing wrong because he agreed how they could have perceived a genuine gun threat.

Arsemageddon

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He pretended to have a gun in the convenience store, that's why the cops were called.

Taylor pretended to have a gun when he robbed a convenience shop when he was 17 - 3 years previous to the day he was shot. He was tried and convicted of this charge (felony robbery) and obstruction of justice and had served time for them. At the time of his shooting there was a bench warrant for his arrest for breaching the terms of his parole.

The 911 call didn't come from the shop the 3 lads are leaving at the start of the video

And he did so again when the cops came. That's against the law!

Can you quote exactly what law this he broke?

The 911 call was not erroneous. It was accurate. Everybody believed he had a gun, because that's what he wanted everyone to believe.

The 911 caller said there was three fellas flashing a gun. The description was clearly of Taylor and his two companions. The fact that neither Taylor or his companions had a gun means the 911 caller was completely wrong. There's a partial transcript of the 911 call in the link below
http://www.sltrib.com/specialreports/1638186-155/taylor-police-cruz-gun-officer-shooting

At no point did he try to show people he was pretending. He was a sick man who wanted to die!

You know this how exactly? Based on a couple of melodramatic facebook posts? Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim you have repeatedly made?

I'd say your mind seems pretty well made up.

From what I've read about the case so far I think that Taylor and his mates had a couple of beers, and were just having a bit of craic with a friend of thiers who was in a car. Some gobshyte saw them and based on the way they were dressed and the way they were messing around assumed they had a gun. They then called 911.

The two coppers who responded were just told there were 3 lads walking around flashing a gun and looking for trouble. When they pulled up in their squad car Taylor tried to split off away from his friends because he knew there was a bench warrant out for him and he would be in trouble. Taylor would have had no idea why the cops had arrived on the scene.

The cops saw him walk and assumed he had the non-existent gun and followed him. Though Taylor had headphones on him I doubt he was listening to music. There was too little time for him to put in the headphones and start a tune.

When he turned around after being called by the copper Taylor acted all gangsta. Maybe he was a little bit drunk, maybe he was trying to impress his mates, I don't know and neither do you. Worth repeating here that Taylor had no idea why the cops were challenging him and as he had nothing illegal on his person he could have no real understanding of the gravity of the situation.

The copper who shot him was way too jumpy. He totally misread the situation and his verbal commands were not clear. He shot an unarmed kid from a distance of a couple of meters.

I accept that the cop believed that he was in danger, I understand the legal basis for him not being charged with an offence in this instance. Unlike some other posters I don't think this was an execution.

The cop who shot Taylor is clearly too high strung for the job. He failed to control the situation and he over reacted. He shot and killed an unarmed man who was not a threat to him.

You're ignoring facts and you've clearly not even researched the full story!

This from the fella who claims that Taylor and his mates had just tried to rob the shop they were walking out of? Good man yourself!

mynamejeff

end of the road wrote: »

refused to obey is no excuse. he was walking away, therefore no threat

your understanding of the incident and attitude to the world is fairly difficult to understand.

the fact that some one who you suspect has a firearm is moving away from you makes him no threat ?

look if you hate the police for what ever reason thats your own little view but why do you feel the need to sprout total nonsense on every topic that is anti police ?

ThinkProgress

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Taylor pretended to have a gun when he robbed a convenience shop when he was 17 - 3 years previous to the day he was shot. He was tried and convicted of this charge (felony robbery) and obstruction of justice and had served time for them. At the time of his shooting there was a bench warrant for his arrest for breaching the terms of his parole.

The 911 call didn't come from the shop the 3 lads are leaving at the start of the video



Can you quote exactly what law this he broke?



The 911 caller said there was three fellas flashing a gun. The description was clearly of Taylor and his two companions. The fact that neither Taylor or his companions had a gun means the 911 caller was completely wrong. There's a partial transcript of the 911 call in the link below
http://www.sltrib.com/specialreports/1638186-155/taylor-police-cruz-gun-officer-shooting



You know this how exactly? Based on a couple of melodramatic facebook posts? Do you have any actual evidence to support this claim you have repeatedly made?



From what I've read about the case so far I think that Taylor and his mates had a couple of beers, and were just having a bit of craic with a friend of thiers who was in a car. Some gobshyte saw them and based on the way they were dressed and the way they were messing around assumed they had a gun. They then called 911.

The two coppers who responded were just told there were 3 lads walking around flashing a gun and looking for trouble. When they pulled up in their squad car Taylor tried to split off away from his friends because he knew there was a bench warrant out for him and he would be in trouble. Taylor would have had no idea why the cops had arrived on the scene.

The cops saw him walk and assumed he had the non-existent gun and followed him. Though Taylor had headphones on him I doubt he was listening to music. There was too little time for him to put in the headphones and start a tune.

When he turned around after being called by the copper Taylor acted all gangsta. Maybe he was a little bit drunk, maybe he was trying to impress his mates, I don't know and neither do you. Worth repeating here that Taylor had no idea why the cops were challenging him and as he had nothing illegal on his person he could have no real understanding of the gravity of the situation.

The copper who shot him was way too jumpy. He totally misread the situation and his verbal commands were not clear. He shot an unarmed kid from a distance of a couple of meters.

I accept that the cop believed that he was in danger, I understand the legal basis for him not being charged with an offence in this instance. Unlike some other posters I don't think this was an execution.

Source: Salt Lake County District Attorney: (who ruled on this case)

"Utah's use-of-force law says police are justified in using deadly force when the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.

That law puts the focus on the officer's beliefs at the time of the shooting, rather than the objective facts that come to light after the fact, Gill said this week. Gill said Officer Bron Cruz reasonably believed Taylor had a gun because a 911 caller reported that a group of three men near 2100 South State had flashed a gun, and the caller's description of their clothing and appearance closely matched that of Taylor, his brother and his cousin, who were crossing State Street when Cruz arrived."

^^The cops did their jobs correctly.

Who is Officer Bron Cruz?

"Cruz had been a patrol officer with the department for four years. Taylor is the only person Cruz has shot while on duty. There is no history of complaints against Cruz. He has an exemplary record during his time with the force"

^^Good cop, with an exemplary record.

"Police in Utah have fired on 90 people since 2010, striking 73 and killing 43, according to compiled media reports and police records obtained by the district attorney's office. In six of 90 cases, including that of Taylor, the subjects were unarmed."

"Prosecutors found five of those six shootings to be justified; one ruling has not been released."

^^No record in that police department of crazy psycho cops who are jumpy or trigger happy - quite the opposite actually!


You say he acted all "gangsta" when the cops came, well "gangstas" are quite famous for shooting people and waving unlicensed fire-arms around. :rolleyes:

So the law doesn't require him to actually have a firearm. It's enough for him to act threatening and pretend to have one. (and most significantly disobey their orders)

This guy was no angel. In fact he had an impressive criminal record for someone his age.

And remember, the cops came with sirens on. They would have been heard and seen by this gang on approach. There is very little doubt in my mind that these guys disposed of the gun they had.

This guy was a criminal. He's no loss to society... his neighborhood is probably slightly safer with him being in a wooden box!

Amazes me how far people will reach when attempting to defend someone like this guy.

I wonder would you guys do the same if one of those cops was killed? hmmm I wonder!?

This is a very clear cut case. I genuinely don't see why people are so confused by the facts in this case... unless there is deliberate motive to ignore the truth.

That agenda is something I find more worrying than any of this violence and gun crime!

Wompa1

mynamejeff wrote: »

your understanding of the incident and attitude to the world is fairly difficult to understand.

the fact that some one who you suspect has a firearm is moving away from you makes him no threat ?

look if you hate the police for what ever reason thats your own little view but why do you feel the need to sprout total nonsense on every topic that is anti police ?

He was wearing headphones and didn't have a gun....

He was un-armed and shot multiple times. He turned around and lifted his shirt. Which one might do if they wanted to show that they were not carrying a gun...

mynamejeff

Wompa1 wrote: »

He was wearing headphones and didn't have a gun....

He was un-armed and shot multiple times. He turned around and lifted his shirt. Which one might do if they wanted to show that they were not carrying a gun...

haven't you been read the rest of the thread ?
or do you think the cop knew he was unarmed ?

ThinkProgress

Wompa1 wrote: »

He was wearing headphones and didn't have a gun....

The 911 caller reported him having a gun in his waistband... He put his hands down his pants when the officers followed him. And he refused to obey their instructions even though he clearly acknowledged their presence.

Very reasonable reactions by the cops. Nothing out of the ordinary in their response!

And a judge completely agreed.

cson

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The 911 caller reported him having a gun in his waistband... He put his hands down his pants when the officers followed him. And he refused to obey their instructions even though he clearly acknowledged their presence.

Very reasonable reactions by the cops. Nothing out of the ordinary in their response!

And a judge completely agreed.

Tell you what isn't reasonable; the way he carries on after he's clearly ascertained the kid hasn't got a weapon. It'd take, what 30 secs to determine if he had a weapon? He's still handcuffed and searching him for almost the entirety of that clip.

I'm actually sad I've watched that, its horrific.

darkpagandeath

cson wrote: »

Tell you what isn't reasonable; the way he carries on after he's clearly ascertained the kid hasn't got a weapon. It'd take, what 30 secs to determine if he had a weapon? He's still handcuffed and searching him for almost the entirety of that clip.

I'm actually sad I've watched that, its horrific.

How do you search for a weapon if you have been shot ?

end of the road

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But he only became unarmed AFTER they shot him. Before that, he was pretending to have a gun... BIG mistake on his part.

The cops believed him and they treated the situation with the seriousness that they felt it warranted.

I'm NOT confused. The 911 call reported that he was concealing a gun in his pants. Everybody believed he had a real gun.

They had no reason to think he was faking it.

The cops did their job. The judge said they did nothing wrong because he agreed how they could have perceived a genuine gun threat.

he was unarmed before and after they shot him. he was not pretending he had a gun, thats just made up by you. the cops shot because they knew they would get away with it. the cops didn't do their job. the judge sided with them because judges are byassed in favour of cops in america.

Wompa1

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The 911 caller reported him having a gun in his waistband... He put his hands down his pants when the officers followed him. And he refused to obey their instructions even though he clearly acknowledged their presence.

Very reasonable reactions by the cops. Nothing out of the ordinary in their response!

And a judge completely agreed.

Depends...one report says the cops followed them because they met the description for a burglary.

The other call was for a person 'flashing' a gun..which, funny enough is perfectly legal for a gun owner in the state of Texas...He also did not have the gun and was not the person described to the cops.

The law agreed with the law. OJ Simspons was innocent in the eyes of 12 jurors...doesn't mean it was right.

darkpagandeath

end of the road wrote: »

he was unarmed before and after they shot him. he was not pretending he had a gun, thats just made up by you. the cops shot because they knew they would get away with it. the cops didn't do their job. the judge sided with them because judges are byassed in favour of cops in america.

I thought the judge decided on the laws in place ?

end of the road

ThinkProgress wrote: »

So the law doesn't require him to actually have a firearm. It's enough for him to act threatening and pretend to have one.

but he didn't pretend to have one

ThinkProgress wrote: »

(and most significantly disobey their orders)

disobeying is no excuse for butchery. this isn't isis

ThinkProgress wrote: »

This guy was no angel. In fact he had an impressive criminal record for someone his age.

none of that matters.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

remember, the cops came with sirens on. They would have been heard and seen by this gang on approach.

not this chap who only saw them and heard them when it was nearly to late.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

There is very little doubt in my mind that these guys disposed of the gun they had.

no, there is lots of doubt that you have no evidence to prove they had a gun. and there is no evidence a gun was disposed of by them.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

This guy was a criminal. He's no loss to society... his neighborhood is probably slightly safer with him being in a wooden box!

doesn't matter whether he was a criminal. doesn't matter whether he is or isn't a loss to society. he was innocent here and was murdered. the cop is a danger to society is extremely trigger happy and needs to be driven out of the force for the greater good.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Amazes me how far people will reach when attempting to defend someone like this guy.

this is not iraq or isis.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I wonder would you guys do the same if one of those cops was killed? hmmm I wonder!?

part of the job. what they signed up for.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

This is a very clear cut case.

yes, the chap was murdered.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I genuinely don't see why people are so confused by the facts in this case... unless there is deliberate motive to ignore the truth.

we aren't.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

That agenda is something I find more worrying than any of this violence and gun crime!

i agree. its called extremism. allowing the authorities to do what they like and defending them at all costs

ThinkProgress

Wompa1 wrote: »

Depends...one report says the cops followed them because they met the description for a burglary.

The other call was for a person 'flashing' a gun..which, funny enough is perfectly legal for a gun owner in the state of Texas...He also did not have the gun and was not the person described to the cops.

The law agreed with the law. OJ Simspons was innocent in the eyes of 12 jurors...doesn't mean it was right.

The law is the only genuine truth we have. Everything else is merely supposition.

This did not happen in the state of texas. It occurred in the state of utah. There is a requirement for a permit. Even with that permit, you must have your weapon holstered in public areas.

end of the road

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The 911 caller reported him having a gun in his waistband... He put his hands down his pants when the officers followed him. And he refused to obey their instructions even though he clearly acknowledged their presence.

Very reasonable reactions by the cops. Nothing out of the ordinary in their response!

And a judge completely agreed.

he obeyed their instructions when he heard them.

Overheal

Wompa1 wrote: »

If they kill somebody there is an autoposy. Families can also request a private autoposy which could easily show the entry wound through the back....

there was at least one case, just over a year ago, in Florida, where police officers attempted to order the mortuary to cremate a dead suspect before the family had any right of say, or any autopsy was performed.


edit: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635864/He-murdered-officers-Son-accuses-Key-West-police-smothering-retiree-father-routine-traffic-stop-trying-cover-crime.html

ThinkProgress

end of the road wrote: »

but he didn't pretend to have one



disobeying is no excuse for butchery. this isn't isis



none of that matters.



not this chap who only saw them and heard them when it was nearly to late.



no, there is lots of doubt that you have no evidence to prove they had a gun. and there is no evidence a gun was disposed of by them.



doesn't matter whether he was a criminal. doesn't matter whether he is or isn't a loss to society. he was innocent here and was murdered. the cop is a danger to society is extremely trigger happy and needs to be driven out of the force for the greater good.



this is not iraq or isis.



part of the job. what they signed up for.



yes, the chap was murdered.



we aren't.



i agree. its called extremism. allowing the authorities to do what they like and defending them at all costs

Yes, you are!

This comment proves you'll defend the criminal against the cops whatever way you need to. Even if your argument makes no sense:

end of the road wrote: »

he didn't know what he was doing and didn't know who they were. they could have stolen police uniforms and being pretending.

^^Just gonna keep showing you how biased you are against the cops! You'll use any excuse necessary!

ThinkProgress

end of the road wrote: »

he obeyed their instructions when he heard them.

Nope, he didn't... he continued walking away and muttered "na fool".

But you just keep on ignoring those facts! lol

cson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

How do you search for a weapon if you have been shot ?

There's circa 7 mins between him being shot and the EMTs arriving. In that time the officer, after clearly finding out the kid isn't carrying anything remotely threatening within ~1 min, does the sum of sweet **** all to save his life.

darkpagandeath

cson wrote: »

There's circa 7 mins between him being shot and the EMTs arriving. In that time the officer, after clearly finding out the kid isn't carrying anything remotely threatening within ~1 min, does the sum of sweet **** all to save his life.

I was thinking from the point of view the officer being shot. How would he search the suspect ?

Overheal

cson wrote: »

There's circa 7 mins between him being shot and the EMTs arriving. In that time the officer, after clearly finding out the kid isn't carrying anything remotely threatening within ~1 min, does the sum of sweet **** all to save his life.

There is little the cop can do I think the cop has a sense here of knowing this went horribly bad, but at least he's, you know, not planting evidence on the suspect; that still happens on a regular enough basis.

Bloodborne pathogens training is pretty standard - hell, I had to take a training module on BBP and I sold computers for a living. A cop and an EMT alike will be well familiar with BBP. The cop can't do a whole lot to interact with that much blood, for one; for another, there isn't much to do - I'm not a medical expert and I wasn't at the scene. Assuming the cop had some first response training, I don't think theres a lot for him to do in that situation. It's not exactly a case of CPR, or doing any of a number of bogus animations your see yourself do while playing Far cry to heal your wounds after being mauled by a bear and shot by angry militia.

ThinkProgress

Overheal wrote: »

There is little the cop can do I think the cop has a sense here of knowing this went horribly bad, but at least he's, you know, not planting evidence on the suspect; that still happens on a regular enough basis.

Exactly. He knows he's almost certainly fatally wounded him. (that's precisely what you do when you think someone is trying to draw their weapon)

I think he's very surprised that there's no weapon, considering all the actions of this kid suggested otherwise. (just as the judge agreed)

He doesn't look like some gun wielding maniac. Just a scared cop who thought he was facing an armed felon who was about to take his gun out!

He reacted the way almost anyone would with the information he had in that moment.

He doesn't deserve to be called a murderer. It's hugely unfair on him.

Shield

ThinkProgress wrote: »

You seem confused?

Not at all. I've read my post back a few times, and I stand by everything I said.

-Shield.

Overheal

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Exactly. He knows he's almost certainly fatally wounded him. (that's precisely what you do when you think someone is trying to draw their weapon)

I think he's very surprised that there's no weapon, considering all the actions of this kid suggested otherwise. (just as the judge agreed)

He doesn't look like some gun wielding maniac. Just a scared cop who thought he was facing an armed felon who was about to take his gun out!

He reacted the way almost anyone would with the information he had in that moment.

He doesn't deserve to be called a murderer. It's hugely unfair on him.

I just wish cops would actually wait to verify an actual weapon. I'm no firearms expert, either, but you already have the suspect on overwatch with your handgun; the odds of him being able to quickdraw a handgun and shoot you are statistically low. Granted, if he had a gun, a hipshot could always come from striaght through his hoodie pocket.

Theboinkmaster

Question - when there are 2 cops pointing guns at the lad yelling instructions at him, why don't they wait to see IF he has a gun? Why not wait that split second from the time he starts to remove his hands to when you can see if he's holding a gun or his hands are empty?

From the time you'd see he had a gun to when he could raise it both cops would have shot him several times. So why not wait that split second?

Because many US cops are lazy racist pigs and it's easier just to shoot first and ask questions later.

I love the keyboard warriors on this thread acting all though defending the cops. So it's OK to live in a country whereby if you happen to be unlucky and someone calls 911 with a similar description to you saying you have a gun, to be shot multiple times despite not carrying anything :rolleyes:

I don't care what that lad did in the past, I don't care what the 911 caller said - he was murdered.

And then despite lying face down in a pool of his own blood, he is handcuffed and searched and left to die with what 5-7mins of no medical help? You just can't defend that!

darkpagandeath

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Question - when there are 2 cops pointing guns at the lad yelling instructions at him, why don't they wait to see IF he has a gun? Why not wait that split second from the time he starts to remove his hands to when you can see if he's holding a gun or his hands are empty?

From the time you'd see he had a gun to when he could raise it both cops would have shot him several times. So why not wait that split second?

Because many US cops are lazy racist pigs and it's easier just to shoot first and ask questions later.

I love the keyboard warriors on this thread acting all though defending the cops. So it's OK to live in a country whereby if you happen to be unlucky and someone calls 911 with a similar description to you saying you have a gun, to be shot multiple times despite not carrying anything :rolleyes:

I don't care what that lad did in the past, I don't care what the 911 caller said - he was murdered.

And then despite lying face down in a pool of his own blood, he is handcuffed and searched and left to die with what 5-7mins of no medical help? You just can't defend that!

Err the guy looks white ?

end of the road

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Exactly. He knows he's almost certainly fatally wounded him. (that's precisely what you do when you think someone is trying to draw their weapon)

I think he's very surprised that there's no weapon, considering all the actions of this kid suggested otherwise. (just as the judge agreed)

He doesn't look like some gun wielding maniac. Just a scared cop who thought he was facing an armed felon who was about to take his gun out!

He reacted the way almost anyone would with the information he had in that moment.

He doesn't deserve to be called a murderer. It's hugely unfair on him.

he does deserve to be called exactly what he is. its very fair on him.

Arsemageddon

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Source: Salt Lake County District Attorney: (who
ruled on this case)

"Utah's use-of-force law says police are justified in using deadly force when the officer reasonably believes that the use of
deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.

That law puts the focus on the officer's beliefs at the time of the shooting, rather than the objective facts that come to light after the fact, Gill said this week. Gill said Officer Bron Cruz reasonably believed Taylor had a gun because a 911 caller reported that a group of three men near 2100 South State had flashed a gun, and the caller's description of their clothing and appearance closely matched that of Taylor, his brother and his cousin, who were crossing State Street when Cruz arrived."

You have repeatedly stated that Taylor's actions were illegal. You still haven't produced anything to back up this claim.

The text quoted above is about the legality of the cop shooting Taylor. I have already stated that what the cop did was not illegal.

What I'm disagreeing with is you placing the blame solely on the victim.

Who is Officer Bron Cruz?

"Cruz had been a patrol officer with the department for four years. Taylor is the only person Cruz has shot while on duty. There is no history of complaints against Cruz. He has an exemplary record during his time with the force"

^^Good cop, with an exemplary
record.

....exemplary up to the point where he shot an unarmed man. I don't think Cruz is a bad man and I don't think he set out to kill Taylor or anyone else and I don't think he is legally guilty of homicide. That said he made a colossal fvck up.

"Police in Utah have fired on 90 people since 2010, striking 73 and killing 43, according to compiled media reports and police records obtained by the district attorney's office. In six of 90 cases, including that of Taylor, the subjects were unarmed."

"Prosecutors found five of those six shootings to be justified; one ruling has not been released."

^^No record in that
police department of crazy psycho cops who are jumpy or trigger happy - quite the opposite actually!

I never claimed they were trigger happy. We are discussing a single specific case. What happened in the other cases is not relevant.

You say he acted all "gangsta" when the cops came, well "gangstas" are quite famous for shooting people and waving unlicensed fire-arms around.

All kinds of eejits replicate the behaviour they see on TV, that in itself is not illegal. I don't know why this hasn't sunk in yet but it is the most pertinent fact in this case - neither Taylor or his companions were carrying weapons.

So the law doesn't require him to actually have a firearm. It's enough for him to act threatening and pretend to have one. (and most significantly disobey their orders)

I've already stated that what the cop did was not illegal. This does not mean what Taylor did was illegal. It's not like flipping a coin.

This guy was no angel. In fact he had an impressive criminal record for someone his age.

That's not really relevant to the shooting, the two coppers that arrived on the scene did not know who Taylor was and knew nothing about his past.

And remember, the cops came with sirens on. They would have been heard and seen by this gang on approach. .

There is no sound on the video. You can not state this as a fact.

Cops in the US generally don't roll up on people they suspect are armed and dangerous with the sirens on. Doing that tends to give away the element of surprise.

There is very little doubt in my mind that these guys disposed of the gun they had

Now your just making stuff up. No gun was found. They were clearly taken by surprise outside the shop. Do you really think the coppers are that stupid that they didn't search the area for a gun after one of their colleagues shot and killed an unarmed man? It's the first thing they do.

This guy was a criminal. He's no loss to society... his neighborhood is probably slightly safer with him being in a wooden box!

Amazes me how far people will reach when attempting to defend someone like this guy.

He was 20 years old, and he had done some stupid sh1t in the past. 20 year old lads are stupid and they do stupid sh1t. A lot of lads who are wild when they are younger get a bit more cop on when they get older. Everyone has the capacity to change, that's why they try and rehabilitate people in prison.

This is just more victim blaming by you.

I wonder would you guys do the same if one of those cops was killed? hmmm I wonder!?

This is a very clear cut case. I genuinelydon't see why people are so confused by the facts in this case... unless there is deliberate motive to ignore the truth.

That agenda is something I find more worrying than any of this violence and gun crime!

Police are not above the law. In a functioning democracy they are accountable. If police do the right thing they get praised, if they do the wrong thing they get criticised - that's the way it should be. That doesn't mean I have a hatred of police.

I think Taylor's death was pointless because when he was killed he wasn't a genuine threat to anyone. It was all based on a misunderstanding that escalated out of control.

mulbot

Ush1 wrote: »

Just for some balance on these issues with trigger happy police, see this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOSELcrJ7Kw

It's actually used now in training for police officers, that was a random stop for speeding by a 22 year old officer.

I haven't watched the video in the op but this might give people some context of how dangerous what they actually do is and how something very mundane on the face of it can become lethal.

And a counterbalance to show how extreme police have become-WARNING**graphic**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9DGKYCpoGU

mulbot

The latest,this time from a teenagers pool party, disgusting behaviour by cops (once again) showing the thug,scumbag attitude rampant in American police forces

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8fJgR6fjKo

Any decent person watching this cannot under any circumstances defend these scumbag cops-sickening behaviour

mynamejeff

A judge who has access to all the evidence ,ie body cam of all cops there ,CCTV, eye witness statements, history's of all persons involved, forensics and ballistic reports. makes an informed decision.

A couple of keyboard warriors half a world away living in a different culture watch a couple of minutes of shakey body cam footage and decide that they must express an opinion and outrage.


what a great world we live in.

ThinkProgress

Shield wrote: »

Not at all. I've read my post back a few times, and I stand by everything I said.

-Shield.

Then I'M confused, because you've clearly contradicted yourself in that post. But you have posited no explanation for the two conflicting statements?

end of the road wrote: »

he does deserve to be called exactly what he is. its very fair on him.

The officer does NOT deserve to be called a murder. He did his job exactly how he was trained to do it.

A well respected judge agreed that he did nothing wrong, based on many experts assessment of the situation.

He does NOT deserve to be called a murderer just because you have some kind of irrational fear/hatred for law enforcement.

Everybody keeps repeating that he had no gun on him, like that makes everything else irrelevant - BUT THE LAW SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!

The law says the other aspects of this incident are more important than the lack of a gun...

He was a low life criminal who f*cked up and stupidly caused his own death.

Another happy ending! One more piece of scum in a box!

John_Rambo

It's a tragic situation. A horrible video of a handcuffed human slowly dying with no family around. Anyone that watches that video and applauses the outcome is drastically immature or has frontal lobe issues.

end of the road

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Then I'M confused, because you've clearly contradicted yourself in that post. But you have posited no explanation for the two conflicting statements?

he hasn't contradicted himself.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The officer does NOT deserve to be called a murder. He did his job exactly how he was trained to do it.

he does deserve to be called a murderer. he didn't do his job

ThinkProgress wrote: »

A well respected judge agreed that he did nothing wrong, based on many experts assessment of the situation.

a well respected judge is debatible. he could possibly be a byassed judge

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He does NOT deserve to be called a murderer

he does.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

just because you have some kind of irrational fear/hatred for law enforcement.

i don't have fear or hatred of law enforcement, just those who don't do their jobs properly.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Everybody keeps repeating that he had no gun on him, like that makes everything else irrelevant - BUT THE LAW SAYS YOU'RE WRONG!

he had no gun on him. so it makes everything else irrelevant. the law does not say were wrong. it says were right.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The law says the other aspects of this incident are more important than the lack of a gun...

no it doesn't

ThinkProgress wrote: »

He was a low life criminal who f*cked up and stupidly caused his own death.

he was a young innocent man who did something years ago and who didn't cause his own death, but was brutaly murdered.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Another happy ending! One more piece of scum in a box!

not another happy ending at all. a young innocent man who made mistakes taken long before his time.