It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shocking new video shows unarmed Utah man was listening to headphones when killed by police

page: 7
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: charolais
It's interesting that the first thing the other officer asks the main officer is if his camera was on. Then when he says yes, the other officer reassures him that he saw the man reaching. The fact that the officers talk like this shows some of the premeditation and the instant "covering their bases" attitude, as opposed to trying to help the man.


THIS

Whether the shoot was right or wrong, the interaction of the two cops is damning. The first concern was in covering their ass.




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
(cop) "GET YOUR HANDS OUT!"

(citizen who has commited no crime) begins to 'get his hands out'

(cop's gun) BANG!

(innocent citizen dies)




If that's what you saw in the video, you need your eyes and ears checked.


That's pretty much what I saw and heard as well. I never saw a gun. Cops today are cowards.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
(cop) "GET YOUR HANDS OUT!"

(citizen who has commited no crime) begins to 'get his hands out'

(cop's gun) BANG!

(innocent citizen dies)




If that's what you saw in the video, you need your eyes and ears checked.


That's pretty much what I saw and heard as well. I never saw a gun. Cops today are cowards.


Don't forget that the actions of a few cops that make headlines in no way represents all cops.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: charolais
It's interesting that the first thing the other officer asks the main officer is if his camera was on. Then when he says yes, the other officer reassures him that he saw the man reaching. The fact that the officers talk like this shows some of the premeditation and the instant "covering their bases" attitude, as opposed to trying to help the man.


THIS

Whether the shoot was right or wrong, the interaction of the two cops is damning. The first concern was in covering their ass.


Exactly! I am surprised that I was the first to pick up on this, but I am glad that someone else agrees



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
the fact is, for you or anyone else to IN ANY WAY defend the actions of this cop indicate to me a psychological disorder.


So being a rational person who sees things for what they are is a psychological disorder? Avoiding the bias inspired by misleading video titles and bleeding-heart "news" articles and "justiceforwhoever" hashtags is a psychological disorder?

Apparently, the individuals who viewed all the evidence and cleared the cop of wrongdoing have the same psychological disorder.


You ought to be a cop.

In red China.

Look at all those irrational persons!

revolution-news.com...

#454



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheWhiteKnight

Even people under dictatorship have more freedom than we do.

Obviously more balls as well......
edit on 4-6-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
NLBS muddied the waters here by posting Taylor's criminal background.

Keep in mind the 25k warrant is a moot point. The cop did not know the man he shot was Taylor.

The cop didn't know a damn thing about this person. The cop barked orders, the cop shot Taylor.

Soooo many dead people "matched the description of a suspect".

This is all wrong, it happens too often, boot-lickers cannot see why things are escalating. But here is a really good reason on video. There are too many of these videos to count. I assume there is many more to come.


They did drive up with what looked like a purpose, I wonder if and why they were called to the scene?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I'm on the fence on this one. Does anyone know the law as far as showing your hands?

He kept his hands in his waistband the whole time.

He didn't pull a gun. Does a gun have to be visible?

Did the guy have enough time to hear him?

Could he understand english and comprehend the cop?

He looked like a deer in the headlights, he probably would have been shot removing his hands anyway.

Scary Video there!


Well, a cop has a gun on you, and you continue walking (backwards) with one hand behind your back the whole time. Not smart - sorry. Stop moving immediately and show your hands. Far be it from me to support policemen since I find them to be over the top a lot of the time, but you have to remember, cops get killed all the time. They ARE and should be prepared that maybe anyone they deal with could shoot them at any time. This is a daily job for them and they have to protect themselves.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: thebtheb

They don't get killed all the time, not even in the top ten in deaths per year.

And whe they do die, it is more often to heart attacks and auto accidents.

We should not live in a do what I say or I'll shoot society with cops.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

How is he supposed to breathe when he's face down in a puddle of his own blood? I doubt he said "Nah fool", couldve been his friends due to the fact he had headphones in his ears.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ





Do you guys feel the officers life was in immediate danger?



No.

Only in America...does this question get asked constantly.


edit on 4-6-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: Mandroid7

The idiot certainly heard the commands clearly enough to say "nah, fool!" when the officer told him to show his hands. He also kept walking backwards with his hands near his waist even after he turned around to see an officer with his weapon drawn..


Jesus...

No...He had ear buds in..When he saw the cop shouting at him with the gun...

He responded " s'all cool " and took his hands out of his waistband as instructed and also lifted his shirt to show the officer there was no gun in the waistband.

The officer over-reacted.

There is also part of the footage where it looks like the store owner? says..do you want more bandages and the officer says..nah, I can't find the hole and then complains..."I can't find what he was reaching for" and continues to rifle through the subject's pockets.

that bit there was gross...the cop was definetly looking to cover his ass...at the expense of trying to save the dying boys life.
edit on 4-6-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Could someone please clarify for me, how a district attorney can rule on anything. They're prosecutors for the state or the US, not district judges, correct? The story states that District attorney Sim Gill ruled that the shooting was justified. How is that even possible?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Welcome to the United States of Insanity...
edit on 4-6-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
What a horrible way to die, Cop couldn't even be decent enough to keep this guys face out of a pool of his own blood.

Not to mention all the other crap.

Disgusting that human life has such little value to a "peace" officer.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder
Could someone please clarify for me, how a district attorney can rule on anything. They're prosecutors for the state or the US, not district judges, correct? The story states that District attorney Sim Gill ruled that the shooting was justified. How is that even possible?


Ah, that. DAs CAN, in effect, act as judge and jury. All they have to do is nol pros the thing, which this guy is obviously going to do.

You see, it's one of those tenets of American jurisprudence that you can't compel a prosecutor to prosecute, no matter what the evidence looks like, they can simple decline and rule that it won't be pursued. So, regardless of what happened, all he's got to do is just nol pros the thing, tout fini.

This happens a LOT. Basically, you should also ask yourself "Why does anyone CARE what IA thinks, outside the police department?" Think of the countless times you've heard that everyone is breathlessly awaiting the thump of IA's rubberstamp, and when they proclaim that a particular police officer's actions were just fine, that's the end of it. Why does that even matter? THEY're not a court, either. But what happens is that the DA is very heavily incentivized NOT to prosecute LEOs, no matter what. The IA whitewash gives the DA justification to nol pros the thing.

So when you hear that this or that LEO has been found to be justified in their action by IA and no further action will be taken, what they're really saying is that the prosecutor is using the IA report as a way to avoid doing an investigation and prosecution of the LEO.

IA doesn't HAVE any power to proclaim innocence or guilt. It's an internal disciplinary thing. Why YOU have to care is that it's the prosecutor's excuse to np the thing.

eta: about the only time you'll see the DA ignore IA is if he is afraid he's going to either lose an upcoming re-election or screw his party over by nol prossing a particular incident. If the heat really turns on, they'll do it. Of course, nothing says they have to do a good job, and you'll see this as well from time to time.
edit on 4-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
Ok, thank's Bedlam for the judge, jury, prosecutor explanation, yikes. Which would mean that no criminal charges would be filed against the officer, no matter. Would that be a definitive decision with no other recourse or could charges still be pursued by a federal prosecutor in a federal court, if they so decided? The victim's family could still retain an attorney and pursue a civil case against the officer and state though, yes?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: mtnshredder
a reply to: Bedlam
The victim's family could still retain an attorney and pursue a civil case against the officer and state though, yes?


Right. That's about the only recourse, unless they can stir the locals up enough to either shame or intimidate the prosecutor into acting against his other interests, which include keeping the police/police unions all happy.

eta: I have heard, although I have not taken the time to go find out, that the county I'm in at the moment has NEVER prosecuted a LEO for any reason at all, ever, despite the somewhat NOPDish reputation of Bakersfield PD and KCSO. This is the norm in a lot of jurisdictions. It just won't ever happen. Period. The really shady organizations' relationships with the local judiciary boggle the mind, though, and NOPD and Rampart division of LAPD are a couple of the more entertaining ones.
edit on 4-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

"Taylor's shooting was justified not because he posed an actual threat, but because (Officer) Cruz reasonably perceived a threat."


At what point will we be allowed to view any and all police as a perceived threat and protect ourselves accordingly just as they would and will do to any one of us?

This individual committed no crime, made no threats, and made no threatening movements. And yet he was determined enough of a perceived threat to execute.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

No. I disagree. Suspect with the headphones was never a threat. Just look at him in the video. Cops do not have the luxury of hindsight is 20/20. Cops are tasked with making crucial/quick decisions. They are held to a higher standard because of the training. Just by being a cop you have the advantage.

This should be used as a training video at the academy.

This is not a good example of a cop doing the right thing.

Edit: Maybe the cop did not mean to pull the trigger. Maybe his adrenalin got the best of him. Unfortunately you can not say you did not mean to pull the trigger. That admits to murder or at least manslaughter 1.

edit on 4-6-2015 by BlastedCaddy because: merica thats why.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join