While I agree, the guy was unarmed. His actions, while stupid, didn't warrant being killed. Cop or not, he should be held responsible IMO.

 

If police did things the way you want a lot more of them, and probably innocent civilians too, would die at the hands of criminals.

 

If he obeyed commands like the other two guys with him, he'd have lived through that encounter.

 

The officers actions were reasonable based on what he knew at time.

Do our laws afford that much power to a district attorney to make this call?

 

If a police officer shoots an unarmed man, shouldn't the case at least go before a grand jury to see if there is evidence for criminal investigation.

Btw, the police did make contact with the same people someone called in about.

 

'The caller described men wearing a white shirt, a striped shirt and a red shirt — the clothing worn by Taylor, his brother and his cousin.

 

"It was very distinctive descriptions," Cruz said later, according to a transcript of his interview with investigators. Cruz noted he was about two blocks away when the call came in.'

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58472404-78/taylor-cruz-hands-gill.html.csp

I am really glad some on this board are not police officers. Some refuse to see the forest for the trees. Police officers have a split second to make decisions in many cases.

 

I hate to see any loss of life but this one is on the subject for not following the officers orders and making threatening moves. It's a tragedy all the way around. I have no question this officer did not wake up that morning thinking, "Hey, this would be a good day to go kill somebody".

 

It's easy to sit in the comfort of your home and question everything the police do. My suggestion is if you don't like the way it's being done, either apply for a job as an officer and try a different way or run for office and attempt to affect legislation.

Here are the only relevant factors in this case:

 

Officer was dispatched with a report of potential weapon.

Victim walked off when the officer pulled up. Raised suspicion.

While walking away at about the 0:28 mark the victim takes his hands from his side and puts them at his belt line where they cannot be seen.

Victim did not raise his hands and made what COULD be construed as going for a weapon.

 

That's it.

 

He had a chance to raise his hands (and, for the record, I believe he heard the officer from the beginning). When you put an officer in the situation where he has to decide if you are pulling out a weapon (remember: there was a report of a weapon that led to the dispatch) then the final outcome is on YOU.

 

We cannot have, as some have said, the officer WAIT to see if the guy is armed. That's silly and unrealistic.

 

The officer gets more leeway than the victim. That's just the way it goes and the way it should be if we want officers to keep us safe.

While I agree, the guy was unarmed. His actions, while stupid, didn't warrant being killed. Cop or not, he should be held responsible IMO.

The cop didn't know he was unarmed. He had a report about a guy that was armed and this guy fit the description. He pulls up to investigate and the dude starts acting suspicious. He forced the officer into a decision to either risk being shot or to shoot.

For those that say he should not have been shot because he was unarmed how did the officer know that?

Here are the only relevant factors in this case:

 

Officer was dispatched with a report of potential weapon.

Victim walked off when the officer pulled up. Raised suspicion.

While walking away at about the 0:28 mark the victim takes his hands from his side and puts them at his belt line where they cannot be seen.

Victim did not raise his hands and made what COULD be construed as going for a weapon.

 

That's it.

 

He had a chance to raise his hands (and, for the record, I believe he heard the officer from the beginning). When you put an officer in the situation where he has to decide if you are pulling out a weapon (remember: there was a report of a weapon that led to the dispatch) then the final outcome is on YOU.

 

We cannot have, as some have said, the officer WAIT to see if the guy is armed. That's silly and unrealistic.

 

The officer gets more leeway than the victim. That's just the way it goes and the way it should be if we want officers to keep us safe.

 

Agreed. It's unlikely, but maybe hearing it from you will change some minds here.

For those that say he should not have been shot because he was unarmed how did the officer know that?

This says it all and is exactly why you do what a cop asks.

Do our laws afford that much power to a district attorney to make this call?

 

If a police officer shoots an unarmed man, shouldn't the case at least go before a grand jury to see if there is evidence for criminal investigation.

There is an investigation First...and the info from the investigation is presented to a grand jury if the prosecutor feels there is sufficient evidence to do so...Grand Jury then decides if he is Indicted or not, they don't decide if it's investigated or not. An investigation is done automatically in all shootings involving police officers (normally by an outside agency or Internal Affairs in bigger departments) with the findings turned over to the prosecutors office.

 

In some states the prosecutors office may actually lead the investigation. But either way all Officer involved shootings are investigated.

There is an investigation First...and the info from the investigation is presented to a grand jury if the prosecutor feels there is sufficient evidence to do so...Grand Jury then decides if he is Indicted or not, they don't decide if it's investigated or not. An investigation is done automatically in all shootings involving police officers (normally by an outside agency or Internal Affairs in bigger departments) with the findings turned over to the prosecutors office.

 

In some states the prosecutors office may actually lead the investigation. But either way all Officer involved shootings are investigated.

I posted this before in another thread but it's mpy understanding in Ky it always goes to a grand jury when the police kill someone.

I posted this before in another thread but it's mpy understanding in Ky it always goes to a grand jury when the police kill someone.

It goes AFTER the investigation...the Grand Jury only decides to indict or not...not to investigate or not.

As I said earlier, I usually give the cops the benefit of the doubt in these situations because of the incredibly tough job they have. My posts on the various cop threads prove that. I have looked at the video a few times now. I don't like that the officer fired but I can at least understand it. The view we have is somewhat blocked. I do find it interesting that only one officer fired so the other must not have felt the need at that point.

 

What really disgusts me is how the officer felt the need to cuff a guy he just shot in the chest with blood absolutely spurting out. His shirt was totally covered almost immediately. It was more important to do that and then callously lay the guy down face first so his face was covered in his own blood. That is how you treat an unarmed man you just gunned down. That just really bothers me.

It goes AFTER the investigation...the Grand Jury only decides to indict or not...not to investigate or not.

I understand that. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter what the investigation turns up, it will go to a grand jury. At least that is what I was told.

I understand that. I was simply pointing out that it doesn't matter what the investigation turns up, it will go to a grand jury. At least that is what I was told.

:thumb: