Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 53

Thread: Black Salt Lake officer ‘justified’ in shooting of unarmed white man

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Black Salt Lake officer ‘justified’ in shooting of unarmed white man

    Gill said that when repeatedly order to stop and show his hands by Officer Bron Cruz, who was following Taylor as he walked away from the cops, Taylor said, "No, fool." Taylor put his hands in his waistband, then lifted his shirt with one hand. His other hand was "in a drawing motion," Gill said, illustrating with his right hand, drawing cross-body, as if holding a weapon.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58...-lake.html.csp

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...shooting-of-u/

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...lMPxkPawcjvhWM

    What we have here is another failure to comply due to contempt of cop.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    I'm from slc.....the second this story hit local news, I thought it was a huge indication of how racially biased the media is to jump on one racial bandwagon but not another.

    The funny thing is it was a mwag call. Which in utah oc is perfectly legal, which is besides the point as the "gun" he was carrying around ended up being a twizzlers or a beef jerks stick or something like that.

    Also, the local news reported that he was surrounded by officers, which would indicate someone could clearly see he wasn't reaching for a weapon.

    Couple days after this one, about 15 miles south, a 22 year old kid was shot running away, after the cops were called because he was openly carrying (on his back) a replica katana sword.

    That one is still under wraps a month later. Utah has had a fantastic reputation for respectful officers, but these two incidents are definite eyebrow raisers for me.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I guess carrying ID in a fanny pack would also be an instant death sentence now .... "he's reaching for a gun!"

    I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    So, papieren are mandatory?

    Here papieren are required only for driving or concealed weapons carrying.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    In utah, cfp isn't even required to be on you to conceal, as long as legally you have one. I believe*

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I guess carrying ID in a fanny pack would also be an instant death sentence now .... "he's reaching for a gun!"

    I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
    Considering what is taking place I would suggest not carrying documents in any place that could be perceived or claimed as an act of reaching for a weapon. While some people think it is a joke, trust me I have reasons, I carry my documents on a lanyard, mostly for this reason. Though unless I am shopping(credit cards) or driving I used to go commando(no documents).

    But now I have to carry a med alert card and card for my heart device so med personnel can immediately communicate with my device.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  7. #7
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Here is the link to the video. To say the least, I am VERY disappointed in both the officers training as well as the outcome.
    As a ccw permit holder, if I were to shoot someone because I THOUGHT they might have a gun they were drawing, only to find out they were unarmed after the fact, I would be drawn and quartered by both the media and court of law.

    Not to mention, the officer went after the suspect in the first place under the suspicion that he "had a weapon".....which we have learned is NOT RAS for detainment.

    http://youtu.be/o1UjKqzVDCw

  8. #8
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Sickening video. It's like a new one of these pops up every day. Looks like a murder to me. I'm sure a Grand Jury would disagree at the strong suggestion of the DA. There is absolutely no logical argument for this shooting.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  9. #9
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    The da usually prosecutes too. At least this one. This is shocking as to why charges were not pressed.

    VERY far-reaching judgement call imo
    Last edited by J_dazzle23; 09-30-2014 at 07:54 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    In utah, cfp isn't even required to be on you to conceal, as long as legally you have one. I believe*
    Don't believe it. We are issued a CFP for exactly that reason. Driving a vehicle without your license is against the law, and CC without your CFP is also. At the very least, it will get you detained until your CFP can be verified by five-oh. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Don't believe it. We are issued a CFP for exactly that reason. Driving a vehicle without your license is against the law, and CC without your CFP is also. At the very least, it will get you detained until your CFP can be verified by five-oh. Pax...
    I will welcome a citation to any law in Utah that requires us to carry our permit on our persons. I contend there is no such law. I can't prove something doesn't exist. But I have never seen any such requirement. I am open to correction.

    I do agree that not having the permit on your person may get you detained in certain situations until the cop can verify you actually have a permit. I question how often that will take any longer than the cop verifying the permit you hand him is still valid. In either case, he is likely to call BCI's 24/7 hotline, or radio his dispatch to do it for him. In either case, he is likely to read off name and DOB and get a response pretty quickly.

    I carry my permit simply because it is trivial for me to keep it in my billfold next to my DL and credit cards. And I'm in the habit of carrying my ID and credit cards anyway.

    Ironically, I've never been asked for my permit while carrying concealed (it is called "concealed" for a reason), nor even when casually concealing. Once or twice it has probably helped keep cops more at ease when I was approached while OCing. It is kind of a "Hey, I'm a good guy" indicator.

    I can't think of a good reason not to carry the permit. It goes next to a DL very easily and if one is jogging and wants to absolutely minimize IDs, it is as easy to take and a lot easier and cheaper to replace than a DL if it gets lots. It strikes me as foolish to be much beyond one's yard without at least one form of ID. Should I have a heart attack, or get hit by a drunk driver, or otherwise end up incapacitated, I see no benefit in the cops, docs, or others having to spend time figuring out who I am to try to contact my family.

    But, those are my personal views. If someone has different personal views and doesn't want to carry his permit, that is a legal choice in Utah...at least until someone shows me the code to the contrary.

    Charles

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    In my mind, there are a couple of different angles to look at this case.

    In the moment, I believe the officer was justified. He reasonable believed the suspect had a gun due to reports of someone matching his description "flashing a gun". I don' t know the full details, but flashing a gun sounds more like brandishing (I know, not technically in Utah law, but we all know what it means) or threatening with a gun than merely OCing. And the suspects "making a ruckus" or otherwise acting with excess bravado in public would be consistent with a young man having an illegal gun. The failure to comply with lawful orders and making motions consistent with drawing a gun from a waistband were the literal, final nails in the coffin.

    When confronted by an armed officer (or three or ten) on the street, obey their orders. Period. Or go completely limp and offer no resistance at all. Take it up in court later if your rights are violated. But do not offer physical resistance nor anything that looks like physical resistance. And yes, that includes not reaching for ID until you and cop are clear about what you are doing. Frankly, I would refuse to reach for my ID no matter where it was so long as guns were aimed at me. I'll lie down (even in a $1000 suit on a muddy road) and let them come get the ID if they won't holster or at least go to low-ready. If I get shot by a cop, my hands will be over my head at the time. And both witnesses, body cams, and the autopsy will show that. But I expect to avoid getting shot because, other than maybe refusing to move my hands away from an obviously non-threatening position, I expect to obey police commands. A bruised ego, or even bruised body, but being very much alive and able to testify against a bad cop in court is way better than being dead, or worse, from a gun shot that can be ruled "justified" because I failed to comply.

    That all said, the great question is whether the initial stop was legal, justified, or necessary. If not, then the "lawful orders" that were not obeyed come into serious question and whole reason for being justified in shooting no longer exists.

    On this one, I can see both sides.

    None of us want to be hassled by cops for legally OCing.

    OTOH, a credible, third-party allegation of guns being brandished in public do need to be investigated, ideally before some innocent person gets killed by gang bangers or even wannabees acting tough or being stupid.

    No weapon on this kid or his buddies when he was shot. Did any of them have one earlier? Was it a case of mistaken identity? Honest mistake on the part of whomever called in the MWAG? Or something malicious or calculated? "If I just call in a rowdy bunch of guys, no response. But a MWAG call gets cops here a lot faster." I don't know.

    I'm as concerned about police brutality and militarization as anyone else. But the fact that I legally own and carry guns primarily for self defense is evidence I also recognize the potential danger from criminals.

    As for OC not being RAS, that is not quite so absolute as we might hope. As I understand, the Lund decision was not from a court that sets precedence. And the strongest pro-RKBA language in that decision was in a footnote rather than the main body of the decision. The Lund ruling was good. I don't think it was the last word on whether OCing a gun is RAS. And even if it were the last word, as I recall, it said basically that OCing a gun, of itself, was not RAS for a stop. OCing a gun while acting in a threatening manner would be OC.

    I'm not nearly as clear cut on this case as some others seem to be.

    Charles

  13. #13
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    In my mind, there are a couple of different angles to look at this case.

    In the moment, I believe the officer was justified. He reasonable believed the suspect had a gun due to reports of someone matching his description "flashing a gun". I don' t know the full details, but flashing a gun sounds more like brandishing (I know, not technically in Utah law, but we all know what it means) or threatening with a gun than merely OCing. And the suspects "making a ruckus" or otherwise acting with excess bravado in public would be consistent with a young man having an illegal gun. The failure to comply with lawful orders and making motions consistent with drawing a gun from a waistband were the literal, final nails in the coffin.

    When confronted by an armed officer (or three or ten) on the street, obey their orders. Period. Or go completely limp and offer no resistance at all. Take it up in court later if your rights are violated. But do not offer physical resistance nor anything that looks like physical resistance. And yes, that includes not reaching for ID until you and cop are clear about what you are doing. Frankly, I would refuse to reach for my ID no matter where it was so long as guns were aimed at me. I'll lie down (even in a $1000 suit on a muddy road) and let them come get the ID if they won't holster or at least go to low-ready. If I get shot by a cop, my hands will be over my head at the time. And both witnesses, body cams, and the autopsy will show that. But I expect to avoid getting shot because, other than maybe refusing to move my hands away from an obviously non-threatening position, I expect to obey police commands. A bruised ego, or even bruised body, but being very much alive and able to testify against a bad cop in court is way better than being dead, or worse, from a gun shot that can be ruled "justified" because I failed to comply.

    That all said, the great question is whether the initial stop was legal, justified, or necessary. If not, then the "lawful orders" that were not obeyed come into serious question and whole reason for being justified in shooting no longer exists.

    On this one, I can see both sides.

    None of us want to be hassled by cops for legally OCing.

    OTOH, a credible, third-party allegation of guns being brandished in public do need to be investigated, ideally before some innocent person gets killed by gang bangers or even wannabees acting tough or being stupid.

    No weapon on this kid or his buddies when he was shot. Did any of them have one earlier? Was it a case of mistaken identity? Honest mistake on the part of whomever called in the MWAG? Or something malicious or calculated? "If I just call in a rowdy bunch of guys, no response. But a MWAG call gets cops here a lot faster." I don't know.

    I'm as concerned about police brutality and militarization as anyone else. But the fact that I legally own and carry guns primarily for self defense is evidence I also recognize the potential danger from criminals.

    As for OC not being RAS, that is not quite so absolute as we might hope. As I understand, the Lund decision was not from a court that sets precedence. And the strongest pro-RKBA language in that decision was in a footnote rather than the main body of the decision. The Lund ruling was good. I don't think it was the last word on whether OCing a gun is RAS. And even if it were the last word, as I recall, it said basically that OCing a gun, of itself, was not RAS for a stop. OCing a gun while acting in a threatening manner would be OC.

    I'm not nearly as clear cut on this case as some others seem to be.

    Charles
    Charles- is there anything else other than lund vs slc that would go to set a precedent for reasonable detainment? Outside of the fact that carrying a firearm is in no way illegal.

    Good thought charles. My initial thought is similar to yours. Shoot justifiable, legally? Probably. But should it have even been there.....hmmmm. so do we talk to the caller who reported mwag when there clearly was none, and assess some liability to him? Perhaps not only the kid being dead, but a lifetime of regret for the officer could have been avoided?

    Thoughts to consider

  14. #14
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    These instances are hardly news any more. If you don't promptly comply with a cops demands you will be beaten or murdered. I watched the video a few times.
    The guy didn't seem to be a threat. However I am not trained to think of citizens as the enemy. I'm sure this cop really did feel threatened. A black guy, possibly matching a description of a MWAG call that doesn't immediately follow the cop's commands? Shoot first to be safe. It certainly wouldn't save a citizen from prison in the same situation.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    Charles- is there anything else other than lund vs slc that would go to set a precedent for reasonable detainment? Outside of the fact that carrying a firearm is in no way illegal.

    Good thought charles. My initial thought is similar to yours. Shoot justifiable, legally? Probably. But should it have even been there.....hmmmm. so do we talk to the caller who reported mwag when there clearly was none, and assess some liability to him? Perhaps not only the kid being dead, but a lifetime of regret for the officer could have been avoided?

    Thoughts to consider
    At the present time, I'm not aware of any "precedence" other than Lund. That decision probably holds some precedence value in that same court. And any lawyer worth his salt would probably reference it for a similar case in any other case anywhere in Utah. But I don't believe it would be binding in other Utah courts. True precedence would come from an appeals or Utah supreme court decision.

    That carrying a gun isn't illegal isn't precedence. It is law, or rather lack of law. And the judge in Lund used that as part of his reasons for his ruling. His stronger reason, however, was the totality of what does exist in law that he said at least strongly suggested the Utah legislature had affirmatively taken action to make carrying a gun preferred public policy in Utah. (I forget exact wording so don't quote me on these, look up the case for sure.) It was the fact that carry permits are readily available, and we've got strong State preemption, and that we protect the right of teachers to carry in schools (with a permit), and so on that paints a picture of public policy encouraging the private possession of guns. These affirmative actions on the part of the legislature paint a stronger picture of public policy than simply not making OC of a gun illegal. While post-Lund, the recent change to make OC of a holstered or encased gun specifically not grounds for DoC is a part of these actions that help show what public policy is in Utah.

    And I think that is crucial because OC of a fully loaded gun is still illegal sans permit. So a cop or prosecutor could argue that the visible presence of a gun could be RAS to confirm the gun is unloaded. Or they might argue that the visible presence of a gun is so unusual and alarming--even if legal--as to justify a check of the person carrying it. The court in Lund rejected whatever such arguments were made to justify the stop.

    My personal opinion is that the same judge, and most others, would not so limit the police when it comes to a visible gun in an off limits location like a school. There, a permit is (most often) required to legally possess the gun at all. So a quick stop to confirm a permit would seem reasonable. Maybe we'd get lucky and get a court to hold similar to Lund even in a "legal-only-with-a-permit" location. But given the high emotion of guns at schools, I'd not expect it.

    As for the 911 caller, unless it can be shown there was deliberate deceit or malice, I'm not sure what liability could or should be assessed. I've made several calls over the years about "suspicious" cars in my neighborhood. Most were probably nothing worse than teenagers looking for a dark place to make out. But in my mind, they honestly bore some checking out. If a cop concurs and rolls up on one, what is my liability of a kid then gives the cop justification to shoot but turns out to be unarmed and presumably not a real threat? Of course, if someone lies about a gun being present when it isn't, that is a different matter entirely and we're talking about making false reports to the police. But so long as a person relates what he honestly believes, that isn't a crime and mustn't be.

    This seems an unfortunate case. But if the kid was a long time trouble maker with a growing record as I've seen some suggest (can anyone confirm or refute?), then most of my condolences go to the officer and the deceased's family. No, petty crimes and being a general problem child are not grounds to be killed. But if such a person's typical conduct ends up getting him shot when the situation could have been easily avoided by a little civility, well, I'm not a good enough Christian to shed too many tears for him.

    Show me a model citizen getting shot under questionable circumstances, or even a criminal being shot without justification when the cop clearly made a huge error, and I'll pile on the cops. But if we are talking about a known trouble maker vs random cop, my benefit of the doubt goes to cop even if he didn't know who the suspect was. I just figure folks tend to act as they typically act and long time troublemakers tend might just be likely to give cops a lot of reason to be concerned. Ditto when it comes to the testimony of known trouble makers after such an incident. Some cops are jerks. But most all folks with multiple criminal records tend to lie a lot. So my benefit of doubt goes to cops when dealing with folks who turn out to be criminals.

    Charles

  16. #16
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    At the present time, I'm not aware of any "precedence" other than Lund. That decision probably holds some precedence value in that same court. And any lawyer worth his salt would probably reference it for a similar case in any other case anywhere in Utah. But I don't believe it would be binding in other Utah courts. True precedence would come from an appeals or Utah supreme court decision.

    That carrying a gun isn't illegal isn't precedence. It is law, or rather lack of law. And the judge in Lund used that as part of his reasons for his ruling. His stronger reason, however, was the totality of what does exist in law that he said at least strongly suggested the Utah legislature had affirmatively taken action to make carrying a gun preferred public policy in Utah. (I forget exact wording so don't quote me on these, look up the case for sure.) It was the fact that carry permits are readily available, and we've got strong State preemption, and that we protect the right of teachers to carry in schools (with a permit), and so on that paints a picture of public policy encouraging the private possession of guns. These affirmative actions on the part of the legislature paint a stronger picture of public policy than simply not making OC of a gun illegal. While post-Lund, the recent change to make OC of a holstered or encased gun specifically not grounds for DoC is a part of these actions that help show what public policy is in Utah.

    And I think that is crucial because OC of a fully loaded gun is still illegal sans permit. So a cop or prosecutor could argue that the visible presence of a gun could be RAS to confirm the gun is unloaded. Or they might argue that the visible presence of a gun is so unusual and alarming--even if legal--as to justify a check of the person carrying it. The court in Lund rejected whatever such arguments were made to justify the stop.

    My personal opinion is that the same judge, and most others, would not so limit the police when it comes to a visible gun in an off limits location like a school. There, a permit is (most often) required to legally possess the gun at all. So a quick stop to confirm a permit would seem reasonable. Maybe we'd get lucky and get a court to hold similar to Lund even in a "legal-only-with-a-permit" location. But given the high emotion of guns at schools, I'd not expect it.

    As for the 911 caller, unless it can be shown there was deliberate deceit or malice, I'm not sure what liability could or should be assessed. I've made several calls over the years about "suspicious" cars in my neighborhood. Most were probably nothing worse than teenagers looking for a dark place to make out. But in my mind, they honestly bore some checking out. If a cop concurs and rolls up on one, what is my liability of a kid then gives the cop justification to shoot but turns out to be unarmed and presumably not a real threat? Of course, if someone lies about a gun being present when it isn't, that is a different matter entirely and we're talking about making false reports to the police. But so long as a person relates what he honestly believes, that isn't a crime and mustn't be.

    This seems an unfortunate case. But if the kid was a long time trouble maker with a growing record as I've seen some suggest (can anyone confirm or refute?), then most of my condolences go to the officer and the deceased's family. No, petty crimes and being a general problem child are not grounds to be killed. But if such a person's typical conduct ends up getting him shot when the situation could have been easily avoided by a little civility, well, I'm not a good enough Christian to shed too many tears for him.

    Show me a model citizen getting shot under questionable circumstances, or even a criminal being shot without justification when the cop clearly made a huge error, and I'll pile on the cops. But if we are talking about a known trouble maker vs random cop, my benefit of the doubt goes to cop even if he didn't know who the suspect was. I just figure folks tend to act as they typically act and long time troublemakers tend might just be likely to give cops a lot of reason to be concerned. Ditto when it comes to the testimony of known trouble makers after such an incident. Some cops are jerks. But most all folks with multiple criminal records tend to lie a lot. So my benefit of doubt goes to cops when dealing with folks who turn out to be criminals.

    Charles
    Good points here. As far as a citizen with no prior problems being killed under suspicious circumstances, refer to the latest shooting in Saratoga springs. Another openly carried weapon and, unlike this case, no resolution In sight. I think the heightened awareness likely bleeds over to that shooting (which may deserve it's own thread). I'd be curious to here your take on that one. Previously nonviolent citizen that was supposedly shot running away? Another tricky one. I'm curious to see what comes of that situation.

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    These instances are hardly news any more. If you don't promptly comply with a cops demands you will be beaten or murdered. I watched the video a few times.
    The guy didn't seem to be a threat. However I am not trained to think of citizens as the enemy. I'm sure this cop really did feel threatened. A black guy, possibly matching a description of a MWAG call that doesn't immediately follow the cop's commands? Shoot first to be safe. It certainly wouldn't save a citizen from prison in the same situation.
    To be clear, the deceased suspect is white. The police officer is black. That this case hasn't been picked up by the media as racially based shows the one-sided nature of their race hustling.

    That said, I too am concerned about how fast officers resort to physical means rather than attempting to gain compliance through other methods. But when an officer reasonably suspects an illegal firearm is present, and a suspect is not only non-compliant but is reaching into a waistband or otherwise appears to be accessing a weapon, I can't fault the cop for taking defensive measures.

    If someone approaches me while aggressively asking for money and has his hands out of sight, and refuses to comply with my orders to "back off", how long do you think I should wait to access my gun? If he continues to advance while looking down my barrel, how close does he get to come before I am justified in shooting, especially if his hands are out of sight? That magic 21 feet is taught for good reason.

    Biggest difference is that I don't have reason nor authority to approach someone and issue orders to them. I get to run away from trouble while cops are expected to go investigate and resolve it.

    How many times does an officer have to tell a man to show him hands before we expect law-abiding citizens to comply? How many law-abiding citizens don't comply when facing a drawn gun?

    There are times when we need to raise our voices loudly against police violence. But if we condemn all cops, and every police shooting as murder, we will be like Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf and our voices will be of no effect even when shootings truly are unjustified.

    Ultimately, and we should take comfort in this, all evidence I've seen thus far, strongly suggests that had the deceased simply complied with the officer's commands, he'd be alive and well today. The cops didn't shoot his companions who apparently did comply.

    Do not present any credible threat of violence to a police officer (nor legally armed citizen) and then be surprised if that person uses force to defend himself. While you and I don't chase down suspects or try to effect arrests, within our sphere of live, neither of us would stand idly by while someone presented a credible threat of criminal violence against us. I won't ask cops to do so within their sphere of work either. On the street, comply with cops and then talk to the duty sergeant, chief, or judge or even legislators if needed. An armed society is a polite society and short of a cop engaging in gross, unlawful physical violence against you, it simply isn't polite nor prudent to give that cop any credible reason to think you pose a threat of violence against him. Peaceful non-compliance might be one thing. But don't give a cop nor any other law-abiding armed citizen a reason to think you pose a risk of violence against him

    Charles

  18. #18
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    Good points here. As far as a citizen with no prior problems being killed under suspicious circumstances, refer to the latest shooting in Saratoga springs. Another openly carried weapon and, unlike this case, no resolution In sight. I think the heightened awareness likely bleeds over to that shooting (which may deserve it's own thread). I'd be curious to here your take on that one. Previously nonviolent citizen that was supposedly shot running away? Another tricky one. I'm curious to see what comes of that situation.
    At this point, I'm cautiously pessimistic about the incident with the sword in Saratoga Springs. My biggest concern is lack of details released so far. It is starting to look a bit like the Danielle Willards case in WVC. The longer it takes to release basic information, the more complicated or unusual the situation probably has to be in order to have justified the shooting.

    In this present case, the initial information came quickly and was fairly straight forward: MWAG call, recent robbery, cop in fear for his life even though the suspect turns out not to be armed. Easy enough, wait for the full investigation and the particulars.

    But in WVC, no details for too long. And then it turns out to be, "Undercover cops claim to be in fear for their lives from a low-level drug user backing out of a parking spot." That just doesn't quit pass my sniff test. We'll see how the trial goes.

    In the sword case, it has been too long without hearing any real information about why the cop shot. Did he feel personally threatened? Did he believe the guy with the sword posed an immediate and significant risk to others? Something else?

    Now, unlike the family, I'm not about to jump to conclusions about racial this or racial that lacking some evidence. But the longer it takes to release any data at all, the more difficult it will be to convince me and many others that the shoot was justified.

    Which isn't to say it can't be justified. It seems sword man had some mental health challenges. So maybe his behavior was really erratic and he did look like he posed a threat. It is just that the longer it takes to release even a basic plot summary of what happened, the less justifiable any simple plot summary is going to look.

    So I'm doing my best to withhold judgement, while freely admitting that the passage of time without some information is working to pass some level of judgement for me, against the justification of the use of force.

    Charles

  19. #19
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    At this point, I'm cautiously pessimistic about the incident with the sword in Saratoga Springs. My biggest concern is lack of details released so far. It is starting to look a bit like the Danielle Willards case in WVC. The longer it takes to release basic information, the more complicated or unusual the situation probably has to be in order to have justified the shooting.

    In this present case, the initial information came quickly and was fairly straight forward: MWAG call, recent robbery, cop in fear for his life even though the suspect turns out not to be armed. Easy enough, wait for the full investigation and the particulars.

    But in WVC, no details for too long. And then it turns out to be, "Undercover cops claim to be in fear for their lives from a low-level drug user backing out of a parking spot." That just doesn't quit pass my sniff test. We'll see how the trial goes.

    In the sword case, it has been too long without hearing any real information about why the cop shot. Did he feel personally threatened? Did he believe the guy with the sword posed an immediate and significant risk to others? Something else?

    Now, unlike the family, I'm not about to jump to conclusions about racial this or racial that lacking some evidence. But the longer it takes to release any data at all, the more difficult it will be to convince me and many others that the shoot was justified.

    Which isn't to say it can't be justified. It seems sword man had some mental health challenges. So maybe his behavior was really erratic and he did look like he posed a threat. It is just that the longer it takes to release even a basic plot summary of what happened, the less justifiable any simple plot summary is going to look.

    So I'm doing my best to withhold judgement, while freely admitting that the passage of time without some information is working to pass some level of judgement for me, against the justification of the use of force.

    Charles
    I'm in the exact same boat as you. I live down in the south end of the state, and after a bank robbery/car chase/hostage/shots fired last month, with as many events as happened in a short time, the details were release within 24 hours with NOTHING vague. Clear as day it was a valid shoot.

    But with multiple witnesses and policemen and one location and a month later....I dunno.

    This current shooting? Justified shoot? probably. But how many times do we need to see INVALID information and incorrect calls result in a situation escalating farther than it needs to? I agree that the kid could/should have complied, but I can't help but wonder if the officer would have waited to actually see a weapon before firing, had it not been a mwag call. Or if he would have even gotten around to it if the caller had said what seemed to be accurate, that a couple young guys were acting rowdy.

    Hindsight is obviously 20-20, but it makes me wonder if people REALLY understand what I'm entails when you call the cops. They are not meant to be societies' comfort blanket. They are not there to make you feel safer. If anything, they are slowly turning into a military law enforcement group. It almost reminds me of when people call in a domestic dispute unnecessarily...not realizing what it really means to get cops there.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    I will welcome a citation to any law in Utah that requires us to carry our permit on our persons. I contend there is no such law. I can't prove something doesn't exist. But I have never seen any such requirement. I am open to correction.

    I do agree that not having the permit on your person may get you detained in certain situations until the cop can verify you actually have a permit. I question how often that will take any longer than the cop verifying the permit you hand him is still valid. In either case, he is likely to call BCI's 24/7 hotline, or radio his dispatch to do it for him. In either case, he is likely to read off name and DOB and get a response pretty quickly.

    I carry my permit simply because it is trivial for me to keep it in my billfold next to my DL and credit cards. And I'm in the habit of carrying my ID and credit cards anyway.

    Ironically, I've never been asked for my permit while carrying concealed (it is called "concealed" for a reason), nor even when casually concealing. Once or twice it has probably helped keep cops more at ease when I was approached while OCing. It is kind of a "Hey, I'm a good guy" indicator.

    I can't think of a good reason not to carry the permit. It goes next to a DL very easily and if one is jogging and wants to absolutely minimize IDs, it is as easy to take and a lot easier and cheaper to replace than a DL if it gets lots. It strikes me as foolish to be much beyond one's yard without at least one form of ID. Should I have a heart attack, or get hit by a drunk driver, or otherwise end up incapacitated, I see no benefit in the cops, docs, or others having to spend time figuring out who I am to try to contact my family.

    But, those are my personal views. If someone has different personal views and doesn't want to carry his permit, that is a legal choice in Utah...at least until someone shows me the code to the contrary.
    I agree with you. I see no such law, but it doesn't hurt to keep it handy. I keep it in the vehicle with other papers that I don't choose to carry on my person.

    The usually excellent researchers at www.handgunlaw.us agree with us as well.

    I've never been approached while OC'ing in UT. I'm there every few months for something or other, and will probably be going much more regularly for shooting matches now.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Be VERY careful if you are ever approached by LEOs. They are always in fear for their lives and will kill you for any "perceived" threat you may pose.

    And they will NOT be held accountable for your murder.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    To be clear, the deceased suspect is white. The police officer is black. That this case hasn't been picked up by the media as racially based shows the one-sided nature of their race hustling.

    That said, I too am concerned about how fast officers resort to physical means rather than attempting to gain compliance through other methods. But when an officer reasonably suspects an illegal firearm is present, and a suspect is not only non-compliant but is reaching into a waistband or otherwise appears to be accessing a weapon, I can't fault the cop for taking defensive measures.

    If someone approaches me while aggressively asking for money and has his hands out of sight, and refuses to comply with my orders to "back off", how long do you think I should wait to access my gun? If he continues to advance while looking down my barrel, how close does he get to come before I am justified in shooting, especially if his hands are out of sight? That magic 21 feet is taught for good reason.

    Biggest difference is that I don't have reason nor authority to approach someone and issue orders to them. I get to run away from trouble while cops are expected to go investigate and resolve it.

    How many times does an officer have to tell a man to show him hands before we expect law-abiding citizens to comply? How many law-abiding citizens don't comply when facing a drawn gun?

    There are times when we need to raise our voices loudly against police violence. But if we condemn all cops, and every police shooting as murder, we will be like Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf and our voices will be of no effect even when shootings truly are unjustified.

    Ultimately, and we should take comfort in this, all evidence I've seen thus far, strongly suggests that had the deceased simply complied with the officer's commands, he'd be alive and well today. The cops didn't shoot his companions who apparently did comply.

    Do not present any credible threat of violence to a police officer (nor legally armed citizen) and then be surprised if that person uses force to defend himself. While you and I don't chase down suspects or try to effect arrests, within our sphere of live, neither of us would stand idly by while someone presented a credible threat of criminal violence against us. I won't ask cops to do so within their sphere of work either. On the street, comply with cops and then talk to the duty sergeant, chief, or judge or even legislators if needed. An armed society is a polite society and short of a cop engaging in gross, unlawful physical violence against you, it simply isn't polite nor prudent to give that cop any credible reason to think you pose a threat of violence against him. Peaceful non-compliance might be one thing. But don't give a cop nor any other law-abiding armed citizen a reason to think you pose a risk of violence against him

    Charles
    Well said +1
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139
    Yeah, utbagpiper gets a big +1 from me in conjunction with my 1st comment. Well said for the most part...well enough said that it's not even worth arguing any little things with you.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  24. #24
    Regular Member The Truth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Henrico
    Posts
    2,139

    Unarmed Dillon Taylor killed after MWAG call goes horribly wrong

    I'm only posting this because it seems relevant to OC given the issue of false MWAG calls or "swatting." Yes, it is from 2014 but I didn't see a thread about it upon quick search.

    I'll start by saying I believe both Taylor and the cop made bad decisions in this scenario. On one hand, any of us have a cop draw his weapon and we would likely submit to save our skin and fight it in court. Not everyone thinks this way of course, especially maybe those who are not quite as educated on LEO encounters. All this being said, the shooting was ruled justified "not because of an actual threat, but a perceived threat. [paraphrased]"

    Someone called the cops and reported a man with a gun. The suspects were a group of 3 individuals, who were all unarmed. Taylor walks away while the other 2 freeze. He also appears to have headphones in. He also appears to lift his shirt to show he's unarmed or to pause his music, no one can truly know. He appears to be walking away from the cop and is shot twice in the chest as he pulls his shirt up. Judging by the amount of immediate leakage, I'd say it was a direct heart shot. He's immediately incapacitated and expires quite fast, but not instantly.

    I have more I could say about the shooting, but I'll let the peanut gallery get some words in on this. It's really hard to argue that there was not a perceived threat, although the details surrounding the shooting and how quick everything happens could be disconcerting to us OCers who could possibly face the consequences of a MWAG call in our lives. I see the video as a "what not to do" if approached by a cop with his gun drawn.

    Anyway, here's the video with the DA commentating. Unfortunately it seems the video cuts at the end but you still get the idea:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw1DSiJ5hEc
    Last edited by The Truth; 06-05-2015 at 11:36 AM.
    Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis.

    μολὼν λαβέ

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator
    So in actuality you have no evidence that anything wrong took place, you only believe that it could be spun to appear wrong. But it hasn't been. The truth has a funny way of coming out with persistence, even if it was spun negatively the truth would find its way because these people will not accept less.
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    The truth causes some people so much pain they can only respond with impotent laughable insults. Life must be rough for those people.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    I saw the full video on the blaze i think. Horrible, no words, wished i could unseen it. Definitely a direct heart shot.

    I certainly see your point on both sides. Tough to say either way. He clearly was listening to music, probably was trying to show he was unarmed/grab his phone like you said. He's obviously an uneducated kid not versed in how to respond to LEOs. I'm the epitome of the "white privilege guy" and i had a cop draw on me after informing him of my CCW permit/firearm on my right side (all while wearing a suit/driving a higher end car) but i responded very slowly with my hands up and obeyed all orders given. Right or wrong, bleeding out in my car was not how i wanted to end my night/life.

    Very unfortunate situation at the end of the day... Curious the news didnt run with this though...
    Last edited by Kopis; 06-05-2015 at 11:57 AM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •