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

So it is now to the point that police can shoot someone because they think the person has a gun and will be shooting at them?

I would suggest then that departments hire only proven psychics as officers to function as the mind police.

Why was he after the kid anyways?

Without knowing more it's hard for me to say either way if the shooting was good. Hands in his waist, not stopping, but what happened after the shooting I think is the worst.

So why was the kid being stopped?

police received a report about three men who were seen near a 7-Eleven, possibly flashing a gun, reported NBC affiliate KSL. The men — Taylor, along with his brother and cousin — are seen on Cruz's body-cam video in the parking lot when Cruz pulls in. Taylor's brother and cousin stop and put up their hands; Taylor keeps walking, head down.

Cruz can be heard on the video yelling, "Get your hands up now," to which Taylor responds, "No, fool." He then raises his shirt and pulls his hands from his waistband. In response, Cruz fires off two shots, hitting Taylor in the chest and stomach, KSL said.

While no weapon was found on Taylor, Salt Lake County District Attorney Sim Gill said in a news conference Tuesday that based on all the evidence from the incident, he had decided Cruz was justified in his actions.

"I believe that the camera was extremely helpful to enlighten the community on what the officers actually saw at the scene and the decision-making process the officer went through," he said, according to KSL.

Link

"enlighten the community" to the fact that the shooting was unnecessary? Or to what to expect from their police force?

So what many of you are saying is a cop should have his gun out at anytime and pull the trigger at any point the cop deems the person is not complying with their orders 100%.

Questions:

1. Why did the cop have his gun out, it sure didn't look like the guy was acting like he did something wrong.

2. What happened to the, you don'tr shoot unless you see a weapon or the person attacks you... etc Turning around grabbing your shirt and raising it is not a weapon nor an attack. Maybe the guy was showing the cop his bare skin that nothing was hidden there.

STATUTORY STANDARDS FOR USING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE

The law authorizes law enforcement officers to use deadly physical force only when they reasonably believe it is necessary to:

1. defend themselves or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or

2. make an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom they reasonably believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and, where feasible, they have given warning of their intent to use deadly physical force (CGS § 53a-22 (c)).

The law defines “deadly physical force” as physical force that can be reasonably expected to cause death or serious physical injury (CGS § 53a-3(5)). It defines “serious physical injury” as physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ (CGS § 53a-3(4)).

The law specifies that a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which, if true, would constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not make the use of physical force justifiable to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody (CGS § 53a-22(a)).

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR USING DEADLY FORCE

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)). Thus, our statutory standards for using deadly force seem to parallel the federal constitutional standards.

The Court has said that the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of “precise definition” or “mechanical application.” “[T]he reasonableness of a particular use of force must be viewed from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight….” Moreover, “allowance must be made for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” The question is whether the officers' actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them “(Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396, 397 (1989)).

The keywords are in IMMINENT and REASONABLE...and these cannot be judged in hindsight.

In this one case. the officer was called to the location where it was reported that 3 men were and one is possibly armed. Both officers drew their weapons, telling the 3 men to 'show their hands'. The one man continued walking away, turned around...seeing the officer with his weapon out..disregarded the officer's verbal commands...and reached into his waistline. It is reasonable to to believe that under the stressful situation, and the sudden movement of the man's hands to a place a weapon is commonly held that the officer felt his life, his partner's and others were in imminent threat. When making the decision if this is a lawful or unlawful shooting, you CANNOT base your answer on if a weapon was found or not. it must be based solely on what knowledge the officer had of the situation and the actions of the man in question. The entire situation changes if the man simply did not move towards his waistband and raised his hands. If the officer fired then, he is wrong.

originally posted by: Useurbrain
When making the decision if this is a lawful or unlawful shooting, you CANNOT base your answer on if a weapon was found or not. it must be based solely on what knowledge the officer had of the situation and the actions of the man in question. The entire situation changes if the man simply did not move towards his waistband and raised his hands. If the officer fired then, he is wrong.

The problem is the vast majority of Americans have never had a cop scream orders at them, or had a gun drawn on them, nor has any Americans other than harden criminals had experience/training in how to respond to a cop. A moment of confusion happens where the person doesn't know what to do no matter how mach the cop screams commands. In this case the guy grab his shirt and lifted it up, nothing more or less. An act in his confused state to show the cop he had nothing on him cost him his life.

Its like the case where the kid had an air soft pistol and was playing around with it on a picnic bench. Cops pulled up and had their guns on him in seconds, and fired when the kid did nothing but freeze in about 3 seconds of aiming on him.

I have had a lot of military training and if I fired on everyone in Afghanistan that I had a hint of threat from I would have been court marshaled on war crimes.

I can tell you that if a cop killed my 12 year old son because he didn't instantly follow orders and my son wasn't doing anything wrong that cop would most likely not live long either.

originally posted by: FraggleRock

"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.

Spot on.
The cops continue to escalate this state of affairs Nation wide. They continue to treat us like an occupying army. One day we will start returning the favor and treating THEM like an occupying army.

If you are reading this you are the resistance.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

And this is why body cams are needed.

By the book this is going to go down as a good shoot, he didn't show his hands or listen so of course he needs to be shot.

Think the book needs a re-write.

You are correct, by the book it was a good kill.
Which means the failure is at the Book Level.

An innocent man was killed. That can't be disputed.
The responsibility lies with the one holding the gun.
He could have approached this situation a thousands different ways and chose murder instead.

originally posted by: Answer
Innocent people don't tend to change direction and walk away as soon as a police car pulls up.

Was he an innocent person?
What was his crime?
When your holding and pointing a gun, Personal Responsibility starts with you.

How come in so many of these shootings, one factor that people seem to miss is the common denominator.
What would have happened had the police not showed up? Ask that question in every shooting we have been shown to ascertain if the outcome was better or worse if they had showed up or not.

Who would have died if they had not showed up and would this person still be alive?

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: EternalSolace
There are no words to describe how much human trash this garbage behind a badge is...

Normally, I try my best to understand the circumstances behind an officer's actions, but this in inexcusable.

This is nothing short of pre-meditated murder.

Like I said... try Mexico. The police are incredible there... you can drive drunk through checkpoints while only giving a pack of cigarettes. I live there for 3 years and the police there do not shoot anyone. I promise you. ... Try it! Its cheap. I lived like a king with little money.


gl with that.

We don't live in Mexico. We live in a country where even law enforcement should be held accountable for their actions.

But you would rather have policemen like those in other countries... I think you should go try that... You really should.

No matter how you slice it, the responsibility lies with the cop.

What would have happened if the police had not showed up?
There is your common denominator

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So what many of you are saying is a cop should have his gun out at anytime and pull the trigger at any point the cop deems the person is not complying with their orders 100%.

Questions:

1. Why did the cop have his gun out, it sure didn't look like the guy was acting like he did something wrong.

2. What happened to the, you don'tr shoot unless you see a weapon or the person attacks you... etc Turning around grabbing your shirt and raising it is not a weapon nor an attack. Maybe the guy was showing the cop his bare skin that nothing was hidden there.

Answer #1
Someone called in a description and location of the kids saying they flashed a gun.
Seeing as the latest teen-age prank over the last few years is "Swatting" people...Falsely calling the police and reporting someone has a gun and is dangerous etc. and then watching the cops swarm them or their house, I believe a better policy should be in place that avoids innocent folks getting shot.

The dispatcher in this scenario acknowledged that the caller deserved higher scrutiny...they didn't get the callers name, location, details...nothing. Likely a disposable cell phone like they sell at convenience stores or a spoofed number.

Answer #2
He had headphones on...He might of heard or not heard the officer...I don't care to be honest, because the officer is supposed to be the responsible one. People will flee and do all types of things. None of it warrants execution. He had no weapon. The cop shot before he knew that the kid was a threat. The Cop is supposed to be the professional. His entire career is centered around dealing with these scenarios.

I watched the video several times and listened carefully and saw the kid lift his shirt to show the officer he had no weapon.

I also heard him say " s'all cool " before he did so. His tone reflects those words. His actions reflect those words. "s'all cool" and lifts the front of his shirt to show the cop he has no weapon.

I was surprised that the Police are claiming he said "Yah Fool!" and quickly reached into his waistband? For a non-existent gun? The media seem to be aping that inaccurate claim.

Did the cop want to gun down an innocent kid? No. But the cop was also horribly trained and over-reactive.

Understand many 911 calls are BS.

Two cars...opposite directions boxing the kids in...no one approaches, but stays behind car doors at most...everyone told to get on the ground, hands behind head.

Jumping out of the car weapon drawn chasing down a kid while screaming at him...???

Horribly...Horribly trained cop IMO.

a reply to: jacobe001

Baltimore is an example currently of "what would happen if the cops didn't show up".

Hate the cops for being there and hate the cops for not being there. It's just hate for the cops admit it.

I have no problem with it. I hate cops myself.
_____________________________

Indigo5 -

"s'all cool"? Are you even being serious with that?

Perhaps he said "da pool" and started taking his shirt off because he wanted to go swimming, or maybe it was "ya'll rule" and the cop thought he was being sarcastic and shot him down to teach the others a lesson.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I won't watch the video. It's nothing but a snuff film. I don't need to fill my mind with murder.

Exploring a bit further, we need to hold LOE accountable as much as civilians. All they are doing is perpetuating a violent culture.

I find it really sad that ANYONE can condone this behavior by police. Looked like one of those shooter video game clips people are so in love with.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: jacobe001

Baltimore is an example currently of "what would happen if the cops didn't show up".

Hate the cops for being there and hate the cops for not being there. It's just hate for the cops admit it.

I have no problem with it. I hate cops myself.
_____________________________

Indigo5 -

"s'all cool"? Are you even being serious with that?

Perhaps he said "da pool" and started taking his shirt off because he wanted to go swimming, or maybe it was "ya'll rule" and the cop thought he was being sarcastic and shot him down to teach the others a lesson.

Well, the media says hate them there or not there.
We have the right to self defense in this country, and the cops are not there to protect us as the supreme court upheld.
That should be up to the citizens. Perhaps the citizens of Baltimore need to practice more Personal Responsibility and take care of matters themselves than rely on a Big Government Gestapo payed for by tax payers because with so many of these cases showing up, clearly something needs to change.

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: EternalSolace
There are no words to describe how much human trash this garbage behind a badge is...

Normally, I try my best to understand the circumstances behind an officer's actions, but this in inexcusable.

This is nothing short of pre-meditated murder.

Like I said... try Mexico. The police are incredible there... you can drive drunk through checkpoints while only giving a pack of cigarettes. I live there for 3 years and the police there do not shoot anyone. I promise you. ... Try it! Its cheap. I lived like a king with little money.


gl with that.

We don't live in Mexico. We live in a country where even law enforcement should be held accountable for their actions.

But you would rather have policemen like those in other countries... I think you should go try that... You really should.

No matter how you slice it, the responsibility lies with the cop.

What would have happened if the police had not showed up?
There is your common denominator

You are seeing the direct result of "What would have happened if the police had not shown up" in Baltimore right now.

May clocked in the most homicides for the city in 40 years.

That's what happens when the police don't show up.

originally posted by: Xtrozero I can tell you that if a cop killed my 12 year old son because he didn't instantly follow orders and my son wasn't doing anything wrong that cop would most likely not live long either.

ditto. and americans need to be more direct in dealing with these trigger happy morons. a taste of their own medicine might give them pause for thought. cops aren't special. they're just people. they do not have the summary right of execution. they are digging their own graves, maybe literally.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Legman

originally posted by: EternalSolace
There are no words to describe how much human trash this garbage behind a badge is...

Normally, I try my best to understand the circumstances behind an officer's actions, but this in inexcusable.

This is nothing short of pre-meditated murder.

Like I said... try Mexico. The police are incredible there... you can drive drunk through checkpoints while only giving a pack of cigarettes. I live there for 3 years and the police there do not shoot anyone. I promise you. ... Try it! Its cheap. I lived like a king with little money.


gl with that.

We don't live in Mexico. We live in a country where even law enforcement should be held accountable for their actions.

But you would rather have policemen like those in other countries... I think you should go try that... You really should.

No matter how you slice it, the responsibility lies with the cop.

What would have happened if the police had not showed up?
There is your common denominator

You are seeing the direct result of "What would have happened if the police had not shown up" in Baltimore right now.

May clocked in the most homicides for the city in 40 years.

That's what happens when the police don't show up.

One month is not enough to draw a statistical conclusion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Crime statistics[edit]
In 2011, Baltimore police reported 196 homicides, the lowest number of slayings since recording 197 homicides in 1978.[1][2] That number is far lower than the peak homicide count of 353 slayings in 1993.[3] The drop in 2011 was significant, but the homicide rate was in the same range as the late 1980s when the city had another 130,000 residents. City leaders credited their sustained focus on repeat violent offenders and an increased community engagement for the continued drop, reflecting a nationwide decline in crime.[4] However, Baltimore's decline was short-lived, as a reported 219 and 235 homicides were committed in 2012 and 2013, respectively.[5][6] Baltimore's jump in homicides in 2013 defied regional and national trends.[7][8]
Baltimore's level of violent crime is much higher than the national average. In 2009, a total of 1,318,398 violent crimes were reported nationwide across the United States, equivalent to a rate of 0.4 incidents per 100 people.[9]

Why so high a homicide rate in 1993 with police there?
What should the homicide rate be with police there? 0?

May clocked in the most homicides for the city in 40 years.

That's what happens when the police don't show up.

That is being pushed to continue the belief that the police are not wrong in their actions. Very unlikely police can prevent two idiots from shooting at each other. The publicity is just making the law breakers get even more crazy.

But if the idea is that police shoot anyone in public who fits their profile, some of which may participate, then it may be allowing more to venture outside and get crazy.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: jacobe001


Indigo5 -

"s'all cool"? Are you even being serious with that?

Perhaps he said "da pool" and started taking his shirt off because he wanted to go swimming, or maybe it was "ya'll rule" and the cop thought he was being sarcastic and shot him down to teach the others a lesson.

Absolutely serious...why would you doubt it. I cranked up the volume, listened repeated times. He might not have articulated his words well...but that is what he said. he didn't say "yaw fool" and reach for a non existent gun??? Does that make any sense? Even if you are unable to distinguish the words, the tone of the words alone speak to the content. he didn't shout them and he didn't speak antagonistically...the tone was "it's all cool"...and yes...kids trying to sound "street" say "s'all cool" to de-escalate a situation. It's very common? I am surprised that anyone hears anything different.