Police Shoot Unarmed Man Dillon Taylor

[baldeagle]

determine what are the facts, so give yourself and the LEO that time by complying with their commands.

What would help in determining the actual facts and go a very long way to promote public confidence, protect good officers, and make sure that people with "inaccurate" accounts are treated properly is requiring body cameras on officers.
There are simply too many instances where we have only one surviving narrative. And we've certainly seen instances where public sentiment is so anti-police that it wouldn't take much for several people to concoct the same story against a single officer.

The sooner this gets done the better.

In this case the officer was wearing a body camera. Did it make the situation any clearer? When I watched it, I thought the suspect's back was to the officers and, because of the ear buds, he couldn't hear their commands. I've since learned he was facing the officers. In that case the ear buds shouldn't have made a difference. He could see his life was in danger. Why didn't he stop and put his hands up? We'll never know, because he's dead. He can't explain why he refused to comply when it was clear that he should have.

Meanwhile the officer has to make a split second decision that could mean life or death for him.

[Charles L. Cotton]

determine what are the facts, so give yourself and the LEO that time by complying with their commands.

What would help in determining the actual facts and go a very long way to promote public confidence, protect good officers, and make sure that people with "inaccurate" accounts are treated properly is requiring body cameras on officers.
There are simply too many instances where we have only one surviving narrative. And we've certainly seen instances where public sentiment is so anti-police that it wouldn't take much for several people to concoct the same story against a single officer.

The sooner this gets done the better.

You only quoted part of my post and it's clear that I was talking about an officer responding to a call and determining the facts; i.e. who's who, what happened, why it happened, etc. Body cameras don't help one bit in that part of the interaction. Body cameras only come into play when investigating the incident.

Chas.

[cb1000rider]

My apologizes. If it makes any difference, weren't intentionally misquoted, so perhaps I missed your point. You're right, body cameras do nothing for pre-incident facts. They just contribute to post-incident recall. And perhaps I'm overly-passionate about it.

[EEllis]

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

My apologizes. If it makes any difference, weren't intentionally misquoted, so perhaps I missed your point. You're right, body cameras do nothing for pre-incident facts. They just contribute to post-incident recall. And perhaps I'm overly-passionate about it.

Thanks, but no apology was necessary. If I were still a street COP, I'd buy my own body camera to defend myself against false allegations. My point is that they won't help me figure out what's going on while events are unfolding.

Chas.

[VMI77]

First, the video is not very revealing. The camera is pointing downward, and it's hard to see what the suspect is doing. It's impossible to tell exactly what happened, but the officer who did not fire said he saw the suspect reaching for something. Whether he really was or the officer was reacting to the trauma is hard to say. We don't know what led up to the confrontation. Why was he singled out and three other males were ignored? What information did the officers have when they arrived on the scene? Based on the video alone, it's impossible to say whether the shooting was justified or not.

They had an anonymous call about a man with a gun. From what I've read, sounds like someone "SWATTED" him.

[Charles L. Cotton]

First, the video is not very revealing. The camera is pointing downward, and it's hard to see what the suspect is doing. It's impossible to tell exactly what happened, but the officer who did not fire said he saw the suspect reaching for something. Whether he really was or the officer was reacting to the trauma is hard to say. We don't know what led up to the confrontation. Why was he singled out and three other males were ignored? What information did the officers have when they arrived on the scene? Based on the video alone, it's impossible to say whether the shooting was justified or not.

They had an anonymous call about a man with a gun. From what I've read, sounds like someone "SWATTED" him.

To my knowledge, all states have a "felony murder" statute. If making a false report to a police officer/agency is a felony, then someone swatting can and should be charged with felony murder.

Chas.

[nightmare69]

This is what can happen when a LEO hesitates. From what I was told in the academy, this officer was recently disciplined for excessive use of force. This is why it is believed he was hesitant to open fire until it was too late. He was out gunned and it cost him his life. I'm afraid with the media and citizens crucifying police that it will cause my brothers in blue to hesitate when using any type of force.

Warning: The death screams are bone chilling.
[youtube][/youtube]

[nightmare69]

I get the impression that some folks who have not been in situations LEOs face seem to think that it is always clear whether or not a subject is a threat, if you wait long enough for it the facts manifest themselves. Simulators are better than no simulators, but they are no match for force-on-force training with Simunitions. Houston's convicted felon and rabble-rouser Quanell X has condemned pretty much every shooting of a black person by a police officer as murder. However, after recently going through force-on-force scenarios (See ShootDonTalk's link to the TV news story), Quanell changed his tune. He had very good advice for everyone - when the COPSs tell you to do something, do it! As he learned, facts are not always clear and as stress levels increase, the human brain can fill in factual gaps. When a subject refuses to comply with a LEO's commands, he may be doing so out of defiance or disrespect, but the LEO is likely view his failure to comply as being a tactical threat.

It often takes time to determine what are the facts, so give yourself and the LEO that time by complying with their commands.

Chas.

I agree. 99% of people who say how a police situation "should have" been handled all have one thing in common, zero police experience. If you local PD or SO does ride alongs take advantage. If you have a citizen police academy take that too. It may very well change your perspective on police.

Those in, or have been in the military can relate when someone who has never served says how they would react in a firefight. You have no idea what you would do until that first round snaps by your head.

[gemini]

This is what can happen when a LEO hesitates. From what I was told in the academy, this officer was recently disciplined for excessive use of force. This is why it is believed he was hesitant to open fire until it was too late. He was out gunned and it cost him his life. I'm afraid with the media and citizens crucifying police that it will cause my brothers in blue to hesitate when using any type of force.

Warning: The death screams are bone chilling.
[youtube][/youtube]

The OP vid clip and this vid clip are two different animals. In this clip the officer not only lets the man
do a monkey dance, race towards the officer, back away, continue dancing and cat calling, THEN the man
returns to his vehicle and pulls a gun. And then the officer warns him multiple times to drop the gun.
I don't have info on the excessive force rep. Maybe it was deserved. But, after watching this vid I think
the officer would have been justified using a Tazer fairly early on in this encounter.... def using deadly force
when the gun came into play. This officer didn't just hesitate.....he went way beyond that, and it cost him his life.
I don't think anyone on this board thinks it's "OK" to not obey a Leo direct order. Whether it's "stay in the car", or
"drop the whatever".

[nightmare69]

This pic sums up what its like to aim down sights at a person and trying to decide to shoot or don't shoot in a split second.

[srothstein]

maybe out of two highly trained officers only one felt the need to fire even though
both were approaching the suspect, seeing the same "perceived" threat or not.

It is kind of funny you mention this. When I was in teh Army, the MPs always patrolled in two man cars. One of the things we were taught in MP school was that if there is a shooting, and only one of the officers shoot, then there will always be the question of whether one officer used too much force or if the other officer was derelict in his duty to shoot. That was in 1975 and the times and legal attitudes were way different from now.

But, in 1991, I was involved in a shooting as an SAPD officer. I was facing down an armed robber who had fired his weapon at the robbery seen and had challenged another officer to a draw contest before running off again. I was facing him head on across a parking lot and he had his pistol in his hand by his ear when I stopped him. A second officer pulled into the parking lot at a 90 degree angle to me and the suspect (the suspect's left side). I was yelling at the suspect to drop the gun and it seemed like a long time. Just as he started to lower the gun, my partner fired at him. I also fired and then my partner fired a second time. His first bullet hit the suspect in the left side and went through the lungs. I remember telling the department psychologist that I did not remember deciding to fire and one of the thoughts that wen through my mind was that he shot so I should (training comes back under stress).

It was only the next day when we were talking about the shooting that my partner told me he saw that the suspect was bringing the gun down to shoot. The autopsy confirmed this. When I was facing the suspect at the beginning of the scene, his left arm was hanging down and his right hand was by his ear with the gun. I focused tightly on the gun (as most will under stress). But the bullet did not go through the arm, just through the side under where his arm was. That means he was bringing his left hand up from his side as his right hand was coming down. This meant he was moving to a shooting position.

Two experienced and trained officers saw two different things based on their focus at the time. I focused on the threat to me and he focused on the suspect as a threat to his partner. The psychologist says I must have seen the movement also but not consciously recognized it as a threat since i did fire. He pointed out that I did not have time to think anything during the shootings since I fired in between my partners two shots. To this day, I cannot say I saw his left arm move though.

Among several other lessons from this incident, I learned that it really is very reasonable for two officers to see the same event and see two different things. This is true for all witnesses, not just officers. Point of view and stress levels do make a difference.

[Jim Beaux]

maybe out of two highly trained officers only one felt the need to fire even though
both were approaching the suspect, seeing the same "perceived" threat or not.

It is kind of funny you mention this. When I was in teh Army, the MPs always patrolled in two man cars. One of the things we were taught in MP school was that if there is a shooting, and only one of the officers shoot, then there will always be the question of whether one officer used too much force or if the other officer was derelict in his duty to shoot. That was in 1975 and the times and legal attitudes were way different from now.

But, in 1991, I was involved in a shooting as an SAPD officer. I was facing down an armed robber who had fired his weapon at the robbery seen and had challenged another officer to a draw contest before running off again. I was facing him head on across a parking lot and he had his pistol in his hand by his ear when I stopped him. A second officer pulled into the parking lot at a 90 degree angle to me and the suspect (the suspect's left side). I was yelling at the suspect to drop the gun and it seemed like a long time. Just as he started to lower the gun, my partner fired at him. I also fired and then my partner fired a second time. His first bullet hit the suspect in the left side and went through the lungs. I remember telling the department psychologist that I did not remember deciding to fire and one of the thoughts that wen through my mind was that he shot so I should (training comes back under stress).

It was only the next day when we were talking about the shooting that my partner told me he saw that the suspect was bringing the gun down to shoot. The autopsy confirmed this. When I was facing the suspect at the beginning of the scene, his left arm was hanging down and his right hand was by his ear with the gun. I focused tightly on the gun (as most will under stress). But the bullet did not go through the arm, just through the side under where his arm was. That means he was bringing his left hand up from his side as his right hand was coming down. This meant he was moving to a shooting position.

Two experienced and trained officers saw two different things based on their focus at the time. I focused on the threat to me and he focused on the suspect as a threat to his partner. The psychologist says I must have seen the movement also but not consciously recognized it as a threat since i did fire. He pointed out that I did not have time to think anything during the shootings since I fired in between my partners two shots. To this day, I cannot say I saw his left arm move though.

Among several other lessons from this incident, I learned that it really is very reasonable for two officers to see the same event and see two different things. This is true for all witnesses, not just officers. Point of view and stress levels do make a difference.

Glad you came out of it safe & hope it's behind you.