Body Cam Video Shows Police Kill Unarmed Man With Headphones On

On August 11, 2014 in Salt Lake City, Utah, an innocent bystander listening to his headphones named Dillon Taylor was shot twice in broad daylight by Police Officer Bron Cruz. Police officials were called because there were reports of a suspicious person potentially carrying a firearmUnedited Footage of the event has since been released.

Dillon Taylor, along with his brother and cousin, were actually in process of walking out of the 7-Eleven which unfortunately for him, happened to be the area that local police were patrolling for a suspect who was supposedly carrying a gun. These young men, unfortunately, matched the description of the suspects and it  would cost them gravely.

When the police officers showed up, the three young men were ordered to stop and show their hands to the officials, two of them followed these orders, but Taylor, who was walking in the opposite direction with head phones on playing music, was followed from behind and ordered to show his hands by officer Bron Cruz immediately. When Taylor failed to comply, he was shot twice in the chest.


The tragic video, was only released in an edited version which cut out after the shots were fired was finally released after a significant period of time after the events.

But now a new video has been released (below) which shows the full horror of the murder which has sparked outrage across Social Media and debate.

Just two days after the famous killing of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Taylor met a similar fate. On October 1, however, the district attorney in Salt Lake City, Sim Gill, much to the outrage of the public, ruled that the killing of the young 20-year old Taylor was ok because “Taylor’s shooting was justified not because he posed an actual threat, but because (Officer) Cruz reasonably perceived a threat.”

dillon-taylor-unarmed-shot-by-salt-lake-city-utah-cops

This has led to a major campaign online to get #Justicefordillon. People are growing tired of police officers shooting to kill when they are in situations of doubt, rather than shooting to injure. 
Taylor’s brother who witnessed the killing, and has was certainly traumatized, told the SLC Tribune“I saw them point guns at my brother’s face, and I knew what was going to happen. He got confused, he went to pull up his pants to get on the ground, and they shot him.”

The DailyKos provided a full summary of the heart breaking 7 minute video.

At 0:17, Officer Bron Cruz gets out of his vehicle. You will notice people confused by his presence.
At 0:22, Officer Cruz walks past two men who were friends with Dillon Taylor.
At 0:24, Officer Cruz walks behind Taylor, who has on a white T-shirt and is listening to music.
At 0:33, we see the officer has his gun drawn and is yelling at Taylor, who’s holding his sagging pants up and does not appear to hear Cruz.
At 0:36, the officer shoots Taylor. It would be fatal.
Starting at 0:41, you will notice the headphone cord coming out of Taylor’s pocket.
At 0:48, you will see that the headphones were clearly going up to Taylor’s ears.
At 0:52, the officer asks Dillon to “give me your hands,” but Taylor is already near death. His friends begin screaming and crying in the background.
At 1:03, the officer handcuffs Taylor.
At 1:48, the officer turns Taylor over, the headphones are visible, and the officer states “it’s clear”—meaning that Taylor was actually unarmed.
At 2:54, the officer turns Taylor completely over, keeping him handcuffed, and begins talking to him and trying to get him to talk. Taylor appears nearly dead and is completely covered in blood.
At 4:56, the officer is rummaging through Taylor’s pockets instead of providing any first aid.

And just like that, a young man’s life is gone.

Are you tired of the same old propaganda from mainstream media outlets, and even many alternative media outlets? Are you more concerned with learning than being entertained? Check out our partners, A New Kind of Human, for a source of guidance, integrity, truth and empowerment. This article originally appeared on choiceandtruth.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’