Relatives say man shot, killed by police was not armed

[greenego]

And where is the National media on this?  :waiting: 

 

May be Al and the others just missed it. :shrug:

 

"SOUTH SALT LAKE — A man is dead after an officer-involved shooting in South Salt Lake Monday night, according to Salt Lake City Police.

Relatives of 20-year-old Dillon Taylor, the man who was shot, said he wasn’t armed.

The shooting happened near a 7-Eleven gas station at 2102 S. State Street Monday night.

Salt Lake City Police confirmed it was a Salt Lake City police officer involved in the shooting."

 

http://splashurl.com/m7shst7

[BigK]

hmm, no riots? looting? civil unrest?

[Links2k]

Just another "Thug" killed by the cops, right?

[bersaguy]

No Race Card available.....................jmho   Now to get serious. This is a truly awful situation and a complete shame that this young man was killed for actually doing totally nothing wrong except listening to he head phones and not hearing the officers orders. This Police Officer of Officers that fired and shot down this young man better have some damn good attorneys cause they are going to get prosecuted for sure..............jmho

Edited August 25, 2014 by bersaguy

[Omega]

No Race Card available.....................jmho   Now to get serious. This is a truly awful situation and a complete shame that this young man was killed for actually doing totally nothing wrong except listening to he head phones and not hearing the officers orders. This Police Officer of Officers that fired and shot down this young man better have some damn good attorneys cause they are going to get prosecuted for sure..............jmho

I dont know, the rev might come down on them if they try to prosecute the officer. I think they might find the card then.

[Lumber_Jack]

Not being armed, does not preclude you from being shot by police. Now I haven't read the story or know the facts of the situation. I just hate the "he wasn't armed" defense. Because that's not necessary to justify a shooting

[DaveTN]

You don’t need to be armed to get shot.

Very few details other than they were responding to shots fired and when they ordered him to the ground he grabbed at his waist. His brother said he was pulling his pants up.

He had a warrant for probation violation on felony robbery.

Maybe Obama will call the Chief and tell him to be "transparent" with this investigation. Or maybe he can send Holder to tell BS stories about being harassed by the cops.

[bersaguy]

Well even with as much respect as I do have for LEO's the shooting of an unarmed citizen without first seeing a weapon is beginning to get a little out of control recently. The facts came out the following morning that he was not armed and was listen to head phones and didn't hear the orders clearly from the police officers. Reaching for his waist band to pull his pants up is still not grounds for shooting a person. It seems there were several LEO's on the scene and they all had their guns trained on the three men so surely if he was that stupid to even think about pulling out a gun the officers would have been able to shoot then in self defense. Sorry guys but like I said, Even with all the respect I have for the police I do not feel this was a good shoot..............jmho

[Omega]

As I wasn't there I'll reserve judgment as to whether it was a good shoot or not. It just strikes me as hypocrisy that nobody is covering this nationwide, even with the hook about possibly LEOs out of control lately which may or not be the case. There was another unarmed shooting as well, at a walmart I think. The victim was carrying a pellet rifle (from walmart) and had LEO called on him by "concerned" shoppers. I didn't catch the race in that one so may or not be carried nationwide. Edited August 26, 2014 by Omega

[TMF]

Sorry guys but like I said, Even with all the respect I have for the police I do not feel this was a good shoot..............jmho

How do you know? There is hardly any information in the article. Based on the 911 call, police went to the scene informed that this man WAS armed. How do you know they didn't act reasonably based on the information they had?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited August 26, 2014 by TMF

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

short of a prisoner escaping, a known murderer/rapist trying to escape, having classified info, or a dangerous/destructive device or substance (ie anthrax/sarin), or disparity of force (the proverbial 270 linebacker against the 120 lb officer) I think the policy of lethal force against an otherwise unarmed person is a dangerous precident and needs to be squashed.

[TMF]

short of a prisoner escaping, a known murderer/rapist trying to escape, having classified info, or a dangerous/destructive device or substance (ie anthrax/sarin), or disparity of force (the proverbial 270 linebacker against the 120 lb officer) I think the policy of lethal force against an otherwise unarmed person is a dangerous precident and needs to be squashed.

So if an unarmed person attacks you with intent to do great bodily harm or death you shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force? Police should have just as much right to self defense as we do.

We don't know what happened here to make an educated assumption as to whether or not he was justified. Seems to me folks default to the cop being in the wrong simply because they don't like cops. No different than racists who belie that white folks who shoot a black aggressor are guilty simply for being white.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

Well even with as much respect as I do have for LEO's the shooting of an unarmed citizen without first seeing a weapon is beginning to get a little out of control recently. The facts came out the following morning that he was not armed and was listen to head phones and didn't hear the orders clearly from the police officers. Reaching for his waist band to pull his pants up is still not grounds for shooting a person. It seems there were several LEO's on the scene and they all had their guns trained on the three men so surely if he was that stupid to even think about pulling out a gun the officers would have been able to shoot then in self defense. Sorry guys but like I said, Even with all the respect I have for the police I do not feel this was a good shoot..............jmho

Those aren’t facts; they are excuses from his brother. He doesn’t know what he could hear or what he was doing. Whether or not you have respect for the Police has nothing to do with it. I won’t make any judgments (not that mine matters) until I hear both sides or have more information than a cop shot a thug that was unarmed.

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1183242" timestamp="1409009048"]You don’t need to be armed to get shot. Very few details other than they were responding to shots fired and when they ordered him to the ground he grabbed at his waist. His brother said he was pulling his pants up. He had a warrant for probation violation on felony robbery. Maybe Obama will call the Chief and tell him to be "transparent" with this investigation. Or maybe he can send Holder to tell BS stories about being harassed by the cops.[/quote] "..he grabbed at his waist. His brother said he was pulling his pants up." Finally a good reason to wear proper fitting pants and use a belt.

[bersaguy]

So if an unarmed person attacks you with intent to do great bodily harm or death you shouldn't be allowed to use deadly force? Police should have just as much right to self defense as we do.

We don't know what happened here to make an educated assumption as to whether or not he was justified. Seems to me folks default to the cop being in the wrong simply because they don't like cops. No different than racists who belie that white folks who shoot a black aggressor are guilty simply for being white.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said anything about if an unarmed man attacks you that you don't have the right to defend yourself but a guy pulling up his pants is not attacking anyone and you have several officers backing you up is a far cry from having one attacking you as the situation in Ferguson MO. I think that officer had every right to shoot the man that had just attacked him viciously and was possibly trying to kill him. Two totally different situations with the same outcome......................jmho

Edited August 26, 2014 by bersaguy

[TrickyNicky]

:shake: :leaving:

[TMF]

I never said anything about if an unarmed man attacks you that you don't have the right to defend yourself but a guy pulling up his pants is not attacking anyone and you have several officers backing you up is a far cry from having one attacking you as the situation in Ferguson MO. I think that officer had every right to shoot the man that had just attacked him viciously and was possibly trying to kill him. Two totally different situations with the same outcome......................jmho

Well, since you were there could you give the board a more detailed account of exactly what happened?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

SALT LAKE CITY — The police officer who shot and killed Dillon Taylor captured the incident on his body camera, Salt Lake City Police Chief Chris Burbank said Tuesday.

Burbank said the video, along with the name of the officer, will be released to the public at the "appropriate" time. He said he didn't know if that would be days, weeks or months.

"It would be wholly inappropriate to take the most vital piece of evidence that we have and put it out to the public prior to the officer having some due process," he told reporters.

The officer's body camera recorded the entire incident, including the point when the officer shoots Taylor, Burbank said.

Burbank has watched the video but would not comment on whether he thought the Aug. 11 shooting in a 7-Eleven parking lot was justified. Burbank also would not comment on whether the 20-year-old Taylor had a gun. The man's family has said he was not armed.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609132/SL-officer-captured-Dillon-Taylor-shooting-on-body-camera.html?pg=all

Guess we will have to wait and see.

[TMF]

Guess we will have to wait and see.

No we don't. He's a cop so obviously he's guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk