Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Police Abuse

D.A. Releases Footage of August Police Shooting of Unarmed Man, Ruling It Justified

Ed Krayewski | 10.2.2014 2:28 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Facebook
(Facebook)
Dillon Taylor
Facebook photo

On August 11, Officer Bron Cruz of Salt Lake City, Utah, shot and killed 20-year-old Dillon Taylor, who was unarmed, because Taylor fit the description of a 911 caller reporting a group of men flashing a handgun, according to the district attorney, who ruled the shooting justified. The D.A. said Taylor and two friends he was with were "making a scene" before approached by cops, according to the SaltLake Tribune, which reports:

Confronted by officers, the two men with Taylor held up their hands, while Taylor alone was "noncompliant."

Body-cam video shows that Taylor turned toward officers with his hands in his pants before hoisting his shirt — a gesture officers are trained to recognize as a possible weapon-draw.

"Nothing that Mr. Taylor did assisted in de-escalating the situation," [the district attorney Sim] Gill said. "If anything, it escalated things."

Taylor's shooting was justified, Gill said, not because he posed an actual threat, but because Cruz reasonably perceived a threat.

"Officer Cruz's belief that Dillon Taylor was armed with a gun and intended to use it against the officers was reinforced by Dillon's actions and the acts of others," Gill wrote in a letter to Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank. "By the time Dillon drew his hands from his waistband, Officer Cruz's belief that Dillon was presenting a weapon [and … would use the weapon against officers] was reasonable."

About that video, it was released with the D.A.'s announcement that the shooting was justified. You can watch that below:

The Salt Lake Tribune cuts the video off after the shooting, so it doesn't show cops handcuffing their "suspect," who died shortly after, or waiting for medical assistance to arrive.

Gill used the video to explain cops already had a plan for the group of men Taylor was in and why the shooting as it went down was justified:

I'd like him as my defense attorney, I think. He's a prosecutor.

There were some protests for Dillon Taylor after the fatal August 11 shooting, but they were not sustained in the way protests after the August 9 shooting of the unarmed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Local protests over that shooting, and the police's heavy handed response, helped propel the story into the national news cycle. The parade of shootings since that have gone unnoticed certainly highlight the importance of community engagement on issues of police brutality.

h/t Scott F.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Another City Dodges the Olympic Bullet

Ed Krayewski is a former associate editor at Reason.

Police AbuseUtahCriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (125)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Old Man With Candy   11 years ago

    He's white, so who cares, really?

    1. Restoras   11 years ago

      And officers went home safe that night, as is their right.

      1. Al Saulinsky   11 years ago

        That has got to be one of the most asinine statements I have ever heard. There was no justification for what happened. Was the guy acting like a jerk, most likely; most Americans are a#@holes now-a-days. If he was so frightened that he overreacted and murdered a man, perhaps he should find some other employment because it's obvious he doesn't have the constitution for state thuggery, after his lengthy prison sentence.

        1. FUQ   11 years ago

          Your sarcasm meter is off my freind

        2. Win Bear   10 years ago

          most Americans are a#@holes now-a-days

          Viz... you.

  2. Free Society   11 years ago

    We need to start researching the ethnic ancestry of the shooters and the victim to determine whether or not my tribe is morally permitted to loot the fuck out of the place.

    1. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

      Hey, the guy who got shot was white!

      Hello, new wide-screen TV!

    2. Old Man With Candy   11 years ago

      Did a group of Mormons get together and loot the grocery stores of all their Postum?

  3. Charles Easterly   11 years ago

    Officer Cruz in pursuit of Dillon Taylor: "Get your hands out now! Get your hands out now!"

    Dillon Taylor complies by raising his hands and Officer Cruz shoots him.

    I see.

    Although it is true that a portion of Mr. Dillon's shirt came up when he began to raise his hands (or Mr. Dillon raised his shirt purposefully), I would have thought Officer Cruz capable of correctly differentiating between a weapon and a stomach.

    1. Dweebston   11 years ago

      Being deputized by law with lethal authority means never having to say your sorry for misinterpreting, or blatantly lying about, your victims' furtive motions.

      1. Dweebston   11 years ago

        having to say your you're sorry

        *grumble*

    2. Loki   11 years ago

      I would have thought Officer Cruz capable of correctly differentiating between a weapon and a stomach.

      Maybe the kid had a killer (pun intended) six-pack, while officer Cruz, more than likely, is a little soggy around the mid-section. Could that be considered "brandishing a weapon?"

  4. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

    Body-cam video shows that Taylor turned toward officers with his hands in his pants before hoisting his shirt ? a gesture officers are trained to recognize as a possible weapon-draw.

    Fucking Christ on a pogo stick. Raising your shirt to show you are unarmed is grounds for killing someone?

    Why the fuck can't these cops wait until they see an actual weapon, like the peasants have to do?

    Aren't many, many movements a "possible" weapon-draw? If I have my hands in my pockets, isn't pulling them out a "possible" weapon-draw? Howsabout if I reach into my pocket, for any reason? Or scratch my ass? Or reach down to tie my shoe?

    1. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

      Fastest T-shirt In The West

    2. Zeb   11 years ago

      I'd say they have to wait until there is a weapon drawn and clear intention to use it. Cops are paid to take those risks so others don't have to. Officer safety should never come before the safety of non-police unless they know for certain someone is a threat.

      1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

        You kidding? Better a hundred innocent citizens die than a single cop get a paper cut!

      2. Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!   11 years ago

        Somehow I and many others managed to survive a lot more than the mean streets of Salt Lake City while still following a rule of Positive Identification of person and threat together. None of this "furtive movement" crap or "could have been" BS.

        Piss on these panic firing cowards.

        1. juris imprudent   11 years ago

          You didn't have a union and the right to go home to your family after shift.

    3. JW   11 years ago

      Why was he going up to them, with his weapon drawn and pointed at them?

      I'm sure the weapon simply discharged and the suspect was injured.

  5. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    Helps explain the drug war and mandatory minimums.

    http://www.publicintegrity.org.....ket-locked

    1. Win Bear   10 years ago

      Sure, it's sleazy, but it's peanuts compared to police and prison staff, and it's peanuts compared to the political capital politicians make from these programs.

  6. creech   11 years ago

    I've never been a cop or in a job where I was paid to put my life in danger. So I wonder if it would be too much to demand that a cop must positively verify that a weapon has been drawn before he/she can fire at the wielder? Sure, some perp may get off a lucky first shot, but in other cases we all know about, an unarmed suspect is dead because a cop thinks he saw a furtive movement.

    1. Restoras   11 years ago

      All that matters is that procedures were followed and officers went home safe that night. Everything else is irrelevant.

      1. Al Saulinsky   11 years ago

        I'm beginning to wonder if you are serious or not. Nobaody can be this stupid on purpose.

        1. Al Saulinsky   11 years ago

          Nobody that is

          1. BigT   11 years ago

            Msacras.

    2. Homple   11 years ago

      And the only worry about a lucky shot is that a suspect would be a much better marksman than the average cop.

    3. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      Since when were cops paid to put their lives in danger?

      Seriously. They are paid to be safe and to go home to their families, even if it means killing an unarmed man. Shoot first, and don't bother asking any questions.

    4. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

      Cops aren't paid to put their lives in danger, either. Much as they would like us to believe otherwise.

      If they were, their highest priority wouldn't be going home safe at the end of their shift.

      1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

        They are paid to make you obey their every word, and it doesn't matter if it's a lawful command or an unlawful command. Obey or die.

    5. This Machine Kills Bass Licks   11 years ago

      Troops downrange have much higher standards in their rules of engagement, and they get in BIG fucking trouble if they deviate from said standards.

      When the police have more liberty to kill than uniformed soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines in a war zone, you know there's a problem.

      1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

        Yep.

      2. BardMetal   11 years ago

        Can't we go back to where our soldiers acted like soldiers, and our cops acted like cops?

        We have it all backwards now. Our soldiers are sent on missions to win hearts and minds, while our cops are told they are patrolling an active war zone.

      3. intolerantape   11 years ago

        Well put.

  7. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

    So, the officer isn't required to actually see a weapon prior to blowing you away? Just needs to think their might possibly be a weapon? What level of probability is required, exactly, before you can end someone's life? Do you need to be 50% certain? 10%? Or is .1% okay?

    So, if I'm an armed civilian, and I see a guy who might be a mugger walking toward me, I'm perfectly justified in blowing him away if he lifts his shirt?

    1. Restoras   11 years ago

      No, Francisco. You haven't received the requisite extensive training and don't selflessly put your life on the line everyday for the good of the community you serve.

    2. Loki   11 years ago

      So, if I'm an armed civilian, and I see a guy who might be a mugger walking toward me, I'm perfectly justified in blowing him away if he lifts his shirt?

      Don't be silly, cops get more leeway because they're Big Damn Heroes. You're disposable, so no.

    3. Catatafish   11 years ago

      Do YOU have a shiny medallion that imbues you with mystical powers making you infallible in the eyes of the law?!

      I didn't think so, pleb.

  8. DK   11 years ago

    You know what other gestures officers are trained to recognize as a possible weapon-draw?

    1. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

      Blinking like Stephen Hawking?

    2. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

      Breathing?

    3. Old Man With Candy   11 years ago

      Barking and tail wagging.

      1. Loki   11 years ago

        Thread winner.

      2. Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!   11 years ago

        What the OMWC said.

  9. Zeb   11 years ago

    As someone (robc, I think) said the other day, in a situation like this (or if someone answers their door armed) the police have a moral obligation to take the first shot (as in accept the risk that they might get shot). If they don't know for sure that the person poses a real threat to them, then the police need to give the benefit of the doubt. The guy answering the door in the middle of the night has no reason to know that there are police at the door (even if they identify themselves, anyone can yell "police!"). This kid presumably had no way to know that the police thought he might have a gun.
    Sorry, cops. If you shoot first and ask questions later, you are in the wrong, I don't care what the law says. Don't like it? Get a different job.

    1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      If you shoot first and ask questions later, you are in the wrong, I don't care what the law says.

      Well, the law and the cops don't care what you say.

      Don't like it?

      Like I said, that is immaterial.

      Get a different job.

      What? And give up the power to inflict violence upon anyone who doesn't immediately obey your every word? Give up the power to kill anyone who dares to threaten you in any way?

      Not gonna happen.

      1. BardMetal   11 years ago

        I wonder if modern policing just attracts losers who get a chubby at the thought of having some authority? Or is it that modern police training instills a sense of paranoia in cops that makes them think that any routine traffic stop could be their last?

        I have a feeling it's more the later then the former.

        1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

          I think it's a healthy mix of both. They go into the Academy as losers who crave authority, and they come out terrified to fucking death of anyone who doesn't immediately obey them.

          1. WTF   11 years ago

            Losers!? Clearly you don't know how awesome it is to be a power-lifting, surfing champion, cop musician married to Morgan Fairchild!

            hth
            smooches

        2. Charles Easterly   11 years ago

          "I wonder if modern policing just attracts losers.... Or is it that modern police training instills a sense of paranoia ...?"

          In my limited experience it is a mixture of what you have written.

          The older police officers I know now consider most everyone a threat, and they tell me that the younger officers are being hired not for their perceived capabilities to understand the law but for their willingness to follow orders and enforce the law (or just follow orders).

          Another officer who I was talking to told me that her father was also a cop. I asked her if she or her father had noticed a trend in their police department to hire "order followers" versus law enforcement officers. She said they both had, and after some further conversation she basically wished me luck in any future interactions, hoping that I would only encounter the better kind of officer.

          Regards,

          Charles

      2. Zeb   11 years ago

        Well, of course it's not going to happen. It still should be said from time to time.

  10. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

    Dunphy light lit.

    1. SugarFree   11 years ago

      Turn on your tardlight
      Let it shine wherever you go
      Let it make a tardy glow
      For all the world to derp

      Turn on your tardlight
      In the middle of a young boy's pants
      Don't wake me up too soon
      Gonna ride him across the room
      You and me

      1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

        +1 Reese's Pieces Donut.

    2. WTF   11 years ago

      Don't hold your breath on this one.

  11. Raston Bot   11 years ago

    that paranoid basket of nerves has no business handling a firearm, let alone working for law enforcement. it's broad daylight. the man takes his hands out of his pockets and lifts his shirt ostensibly to show he has no gun. not to draw a gun. this nimrod needs to be parted from the state power to execute before he kills a nursing mother for taking her nipple out of her babe's mouth in public.

    1. derpules   11 years ago

      It's a tough call. Lifting his shirt was clearly a mistake, as was continuing to put distance between himself and the officers when he knew he had a gun on him. The first thing you must do if you're carrying IWB (the most popular way to carry) is lift your shirt. He knew he had a gun leveled on him and he continued to move backwards, then he raised his shirt. I'm not defending the officer, and I'm not saying it was a good shoot, but I can see how this would be mistaken for a draw.

      1. JW   11 years ago

        I can see how this would be mistaken for a draw.

        Oh sure. In his hopped-up, adrenaline induced, fuzzy delirium, alternating between pissing and shitting his pants, he could have seen anything.

        Why, for a moment, I definitely saw Dr. Smith and Young Will Robinson, scurrying away from the alien danger.

      2. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

        I can see how this would be mistaken for a draw.

        I don't. He never had anything, much less a gun, in his hand.

        1. derpules   11 years ago

          regardless of whether it was a good shoot, doing anything other than putting your hands in the air when multiple cops have you at gunpoint is just stupid

          1. JW   11 years ago

            He wuz asking for it, dressed like that!

            1. juris imprudent   11 years ago

              Saucy bitch.

  12. Notorious G.K.C.   11 years ago

    This guy was dangerous - it's not as if he was some harmless guy leaping the fence and getting into the White House.

  13. DK   11 years ago

    Bla...bla...bla...

    Goddamn speech-to-text...

    Bla...bla...bla...

    hth

  14. Invisible Finger   11 years ago

    Will body cams replace TV cop shows?

    1. SugarFree   11 years ago

      Not when they are always turned off for the "good" parts.

  15. Adam330   11 years ago

    According to the police logic, once this guy put his hands in his pockets, he was done for. Leaving them in his pockets would have been non-compliance since the cop was yelling at him to take them out. And taking them out somehow looked like he was drawing a weapon. Either way, he's dead.

    1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      Yep.

    2. WTF   11 years ago

      The best is when multiple cops scream conflicting orders at somebody. Then whichever cop whose orders weren't obeyed starts off a panic fire.

      1. Loki   11 years ago

        The best is when multiple cops scream conflicting orders at somebody.

        They do that so that no matter what happens they can arrest the "perp" for failing to obey/ resisting arrest since it's impossible to obey every conficting order being given.

      2. Lawman45   11 years ago

        The FBI got away with this in Baltimore, shooting a COMPLETELY innocent man, because they did not have enough self-discipline to have ONE officer giving CLEAR orders. Google Jensen. About 5 years ago.

        The FBI internal investigation found "No problemo, Senior" just like in Mexico.

      3. Ayn Random Variation   11 years ago

        Gale: All right, ya hayseeds, it's a stick-up. Everybody freeze. Everybody down on the ground.

        Feisty Hayseed: Well, which is it, young feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? Mean to say, if'n I freeze, I can't rightly drop. And if'n I drop, I'm a-gonna be in motion. You see...

        Gale: Shut up!

        Feisty Hayseed: Okay then.

        Gale: Everybody down on the ground!

        Evelle: Y'all can just forget that part about freezin' now.

        Gale: Better still to get down there.

        Evelle: Yeah, y'all hear that, don't ya?
        [Everybody lays down. Gale looks at the now-empty teller windows]

        Gale: Shit! Where'd all the tellers go?

        Teller's voices: We're down here, sir.

        Evelle: They're on the floor as you commanded, Gale.

        1. Charles Easterly   11 years ago

          Excellent.

          I noticed you used your code name when posting the lines.

    3. juris imprudent   11 years ago

      Just the way they train it at the academy! You must have been an instructor.

  16. Brett L   11 years ago

    Bottom Line: Cops can either be each one a hero, or they can take special precautions to make sure that each gets home safely at the end of his shift, but not both. And if they want the latter, they should be prepared to be hated and shunned like any other gang of thugs.

  17. GILMORE   11 years ago

    I'm reserving judgement until New Dunphy shares its view

    (FYI I think posts like this provide case study in why its *not* really him - he would only show up on 'Cop Topics' and be highly specific to the scenario - whereas this one just blabbers on all over the place without anyone even engaging it)

    1. sarcasmic   11 years ago

      Yeah. This ain't the same guy. The real dunphy always resorted to personal attacks whenever someone made a good point.
      "you're all butthurt because you were arrested once"
      Or some shit like that.

      1. Mainer2   11 years ago

        agree....so who is the new dunphy ? a regular or a troll ?

        1. Loki   11 years ago

          It has to be someone who was around during the old dunphy's days in order to ape his posting style (which is another way you can tell it's an impersonator, it's way too over the top and deliberatly obnoxious to be real).

          I'm not sure who it is though. tulpa maybe?

        2. derpules   11 years ago

          what ever happend to the old dunphy?

        3. juris imprudent   11 years ago

          My first guess was Cesar, but that was only wishful thinking and this troll makes mistakes that he wouldn't. I'm more or less onboard with it being another Mary outbreak.

    2. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

      he would only show up on 'Cop Topics' and be highly specific to the scenario

      That's not how I remember it.

      I think it's him. 92.3% probability. He is more agitated, but that could be anything. Got married, divorced, put on paid vacation... But it's him.

  18. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    "Nothing that Mr. Taylor did assisted in de-escalating the situation," [the district attorney Sim] Gill said. "If anything, it escalated things."

    Your duty as a civilian is to ensure police officers are not made to feel unease, in any way.

    Othering the police is a capital crime.

    1. WTF   11 years ago

      Failure to obey carries a death sentence.

  19. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    This ain't the same guy.

    That's my suspicion, as well; dunphybot 2.0 has some algorithm tweaks.

    More preternatural smugness and slavish appeal to authority, tighter range of trigger word "if/then" canned responses.

    1. WTF   11 years ago

      Yeah, the original dunphy wasn't quite so insane and stream of consciousness. Unless maybe he injured himself powerlifting and is on some serious painkillers. Who knows?

      1. Protagoronus   11 years ago

        Could it be Mary?

        1. Loki   11 years ago

          My money's on either her or tulpa.

  20. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    He (dunphybot) refers to commenting via speech to text; hopefully, this is because somebody dropped a cinderblock on his head and rendered him a quadriplegic. It would also explain the brain damaged rambling.

    1. Pl?ya Manhattan.   11 years ago

      It's a spoof.

      1. MegaloMonocle   11 years ago

        Spoof? Troll? Sock?

        Or just idiot?

        Eh. Who really cares?

        1. Francisco d'Anconia   11 years ago

          Yes, idiot regardless.

        2. Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!   11 years ago

          An Idiot Sock-Troll who is spoofing us.

        3. Mainer2   11 years ago

          I've saved so much time just scrolling past his nonsense.

  21. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    I thought it was a spoof, at first; especially with the "artist formerly" business. But it has become much more active and strident, like a panhandler with the jitters.

    It's a fucking obnoxious nuisance, and I skip over its posts in their entirety.

    hth

    1. Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!   11 years ago

      "more active and strident, like a panhandler with the jitters"

      *opera applause*

    2. juris imprudent   11 years ago

      like a panhandler with the jitters.

      One of the very best Law and Order episodes was the wheelchair bound nutcase (assaulted by vigilantes) who ended up suing and testified that he would use the money to get high and further harass the neighborhood.

  22. some guy   11 years ago

    I've heard of suicide-by-cop. But lately I've been seeing a new trend... murder-by-cop. Just call the cops saying someone you don't like is waving a gun around and let them do the dirty work for you...

  23. JimSt_   11 years ago

    Until we start demanding police be held accountable by holding them to the same burden of proof we as citizens have nothing will change. If there was no firearm, this guy is guilty of manslaughter at least. For Christ's sake these are supposed to be public servants not executioners.

  24. JKProd   11 years ago

    Justified. Clearly the interpretation by the officer that Taylor might be drawing a gun was reasonable. He gave clear and numerous commands, he had information that a weapon might be present. This is tragic because ultimately Taylor wasn't armed and therefore wasn't a threat but you can only judge the officer by what was known at the time. The simple fact is that it takes fractions of a second to draw and fire a handgun so there wasn't time for the officer to wait and see what Taylor was doing. The fault ultimately lies with Taylor who ignored commands and escalated the situation.

    1. Mainer2   11 years ago

      yes. the old "split second decision" excuse. tiresome.

    2. Emmerson Biggins   11 years ago

      Would it be immoral to swat people like this? At least that is an incremental step toward the problem fixing itself.

    3. Blake   11 years ago

      "Clearly the interpretation by the officer that Taylor might be drawing a gun was reasonable."

      He didn't have a gun so it wasn't reasonable, the officer never made a visual on a weapon. There was never any evidence that this person had a weapon, a phone call is not evidence, it's heresay. This is a clear case of guilty until shot dead and proven innocent.

    4. IceTrey   11 years ago

      "He gave clear and numerous commands"
      Yes, for Taylor to take his hands out of his pants and when Taylor did exactly that the cop shot him. BTW, Taylor had a BAC of .18. He was drunk.

  25. MichaelArchAngel   11 years ago

    I amj profoundly deaf. I guess this means when I don't hear the policeman's orders he can just shoot me without seeing a weapon or me threatening him in any way!

    1. Big Ol' Texan   11 years ago

      So you are saying Taylor didn't see the officers with their guns drawn as he was walking away?

      1. IceTrey   11 years ago

        Taylor was drunk.

      2. Charles Easterly   11 years ago

        "So you are saying Taylor didn't see the officers with their guns drawn as he was walking away?"

        I think he is pointing out the fact that some police officers will attack their fellow citizens if those citizens do not quickly obey the officers' orders.
        Research the case of Jonathan Meister, a deaf man beaten for not complying with verbal orders.

        Regards,

        Charles

  26. Big Ol' Texan   11 years ago

    Just asking the question: does anyone who disobeys someone with the upper-hand on them (policeman, federal agent, guy who is attempting armed robbery against them) bear any responsibility for what happens to them? Or is it all on the one with the upper-hand? Seems to me the two who complied did not get shot. Not putting it all on the deceased, but his choice to walk away put him in a bad spot. Decisions have consequences.

    1. el esc?ptico   11 years ago

      You mean like the victim of a rapist? Superior strength and brutality rarely equate to superior moral high ground.

  27. Paul.   11 years ago

    So wait, it was complying with the order to "get your hands out, now!" that justified the shoot? Do I have that about right?

    1. Charles Easterly   11 years ago

      You are correct, Paul.
      This is clear in the first video embedded in the article, from which I quoted above.

  28. Lawman45   11 years ago

    DA's are elected. They all believe that they cannot get re-elected without the endorsement of the Police Union so they do what they must to keep the police satisfied. This is an example of a DA cave in.

  29. Rufus J. Firefly   11 years ago

    Officer Cruz is an incompetent murderer.

    If the justice system won't say it, then the people should.

  30. The Late P Brooks   11 years ago

    Clearly the interpretation by the officer that Taylor might be drawing a gun was reasonable.

    And any gun owner in America would receive the same deference, right?

    Bullshit. If I shot somebody for scratching his belly, I'd go to jail. That cop won't even lose a paycheck.

  31. blackjack   11 years ago

    It's very difficult watching this coward shoot a kid in the back for pulling up his stupid baggy gangbanger pants. I can only hope that the guilt of having killed a kid for no reason eats this lowlife cop from the inside out and destroys whatever remains of his pitiful life from the inside out.

    Baggy pants need to be pulled up almost continuously. Whenever I see ese's standing around and, particularly, walking, they are constantly pulling their pants back up. It's just part of wearing that uniform. I'm certain that cops know this, as they deal with baggy pants wearers everyday.

    Having a mumbling, barely coherent prosecutor breathlessly try to explain this, obviously desperate to exonerate the officer, in no way changes that. That lawyer could only make it on the team which has the weight of the whole system behind him. Defense lawyers are a brazillion times more eloquent.

    1. Damien   11 years ago

      Zip strips made a very good belt for baggy pants in my classes. Only used them once or twice during the school year. Come to think of it, not too many students wore baggy pants in my classes.

  32. BigT   11 years ago

    Movie idea: vigilante group that learns about these bad pig shoots and avenges the murders after the DA lets the pigs off. Would it draw? It would certainly be controversial.

  33. Damien   11 years ago

    Officer clearly committed an egregious error in procedure. Should have shot the perp in the left buttock as soon as the hand dropped to the waistband. Would have made for a more entertaining video as well.

    1. Charles Easterly   11 years ago

      "Should have shot the perp in the left buttock as soon as the hand dropped to the waistband."

      Damien, didn't you watch the video? The perpetrator already had his pistol in hand before he shot the unarmed victim. The perpetrator's own body camera clearly shows this to be the case.

  34. Anon E. Mouse   11 years ago

    Dear Law Enforcement Officers,
    Welcome to the United States of America, where there are roughly 270 million to 310 million LEGALLY OWNED guns, and roughly 100 million LEGAL gun owners.

    The odds are that everywhere you go, some people around you will be armed. On average, they're better trained than you, they shoot more often than you, and they're more responsible than you. Statistically, those that are licensed to carry concealed weapons have a much lower rate of criminality than the police, and they're SEVEN TIMES LESS LIKELY to accidentally shoot an innocent person. "Why is that?", you might ask. It's because they are actually held to a higher standard than you. ]

    If an armed citizen accidentally shoots the meter-reader in his yard because he mistook a cellphone for a gun, it'll cost him. He'll be arrested, charged, and will spend tens-of-thousands of dollars in legal fees, at a minimum. He may or may not be convicted, but while he's waiting to find out, he'll be sitting in a cell. He'll lose his job, and probably his home, and everything else he's worked for.

    cont;

    1. Anon E. Mouse   11 years ago

      On the other hand, should you accidentally or intentionally shoot an unarmed person, you'll have the backing of the State. You'll probably get paid to sit at home, or at a desk, while your fellow employees of the State investigate the incident. There's a very high probability that you'll be exonerated of any wrong-doing before the blood of the victim has dried. Your legal fees and any subsequent civil judgements are paid by the very same people you are allowed to accidentally shoot.

      You are held to a lower standard than those you feel superior to, and have power over. You can spray bullets wildly though a neighborhood, and someone else pays for it. You can t-bone a car full of teenage girls because you ran a red-light, and someone else pays for it. You can falsely arrest anyone for anything, and someone else pays for it. You are not accountable, while we are.

      Because we regular, non-anointed citizens ARE held accountable, we're more careful and thoughtful of our actions. We have to be. We pay for firearms training from our own pockets. We buy our own firearms and ammunition. We practice, because we know we can't depend on you to be everywhere, nor do we expect you to be everywhere.

      1. Anon E. Mouse   11 years ago

        We assume responsibility for our own safety. This presents a problem however. When you are trained to view every firearm as a threat, and every armed citizen as a criminal, it puts us at odds with each other. Whether you like it or not, we have a right to be armed. With 100 million legal gun owners in this country, the mere sight of a firearm is NOT grounds to open fire on anyone, ever.

        If the mere presence of a firearm scares you, perhaps you should seek a different career; maybe something like interior decorating or flower arrangement. If you feel like you're entitled to kill an innocent person without repercussion just because YOU made a mistake and felt threatened by a cell-phone, "furtive movement", or whatever, you're a fucking coward.

        Yes, we expect there to be an actual threat before you kill one of us; not some perceived threat, but an actual one. You signed up to be a cop. If you're not willing to take risks and put our safety before your own, we don't need you.

        1. Anon E. Mouse   11 years ago

          Unless something changes and LEOs are held to a higher standard, there will come a point when we fear the police more than we fear criminals. For many people, we are already there. Bad acts and poor judgement are a part of life. Bad acts and poor judgement without negative repercussions are not. Hold yourselves accountable, or there will come a point where the average citizen is not on your side. When that happens, you will lose the game of "us versus them", be it on the streets or in the courts.

  35. Larry E   11 years ago

    I think too many cops are just cowards. This one had his pistol out, and "had the drop" on Taylor. So he couldn't wait to see if Taylor actually had a pistol?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!