So, just so I am clear on this post:

You said that no one can really tell what is happening in the video.

But these two cops who were not there claim they do know exactly what happened, but only from the video in which as you state, "what goes on inside and on the other side of the car can't be seen."

So unless you are contradicting yourself, you are saying that these two retired officers are more or less offering nothing of substance.

So if that is the case...why lend them credence?

@1,

Here, let me help you parse the plain english of what these former cops said:

Although one cannot see what occurrs behind and inside of the car, one can see and hear the events that led up to it. See? There's a difference.

And regarding those events leading up to the moment behind the car, these cops are calling out two easily visible tactical errors made by the SPD officers at the outset of their approach:

#1, they issued confusing and contradictory commands ("get on the ground" and "hands up"), as opposed to something clear and consistent, like "put your hands on your head", and,


#2, they ordered Taylor to get on the ground within reach of the open car door, as opposed to ordering him to step slowly back away from the car.

What are the names of the three officers?
What positions did they hold?
How long has it been since they were on the job?
What was the circumstances of them leaving the force?

You can't have it both ways Ansel...

The fact that they rushed a slanted version of his rap sheet to the media while leaving so much else unanswered is all the proof you need that police reform in Seattle has gone exactly nowhere. We're right where we were five, ten years ago.

The "good" cops will never do what it takes to change anything, let alone the bad cops.

Burn it to the ground and start over. Eliminate the SPD as an entity and every person connected to the SPD. Create a whole new agency with a whole new mission, a whole new staff with a completely different background and different skill set and different approach to life, their work and our community. The SPD is nothing but a street gang with fancy uniforms and an inflated sense of significance.

Don't need them. Don't want them. And they don't like or respect us anyway. Let's all say goodbye.

@6,

Actually, they kinda did order him to remain right next to his gun and keep his hands out. It's right there on the video, yanno?

@3: Say that we accept that the cops made two tactical errors, but that does not mean that Taylor did not reach for the gun in the car (as the one civilian eyewitness said). I know the eyewitness account does not back up the "cold blooded murder" angle Ansel is pushing so hard, so there has not been much reporting about it here, but being confused about what "hands up and get on the ground means" is not a good excuse (or legal defense) for trying to grab your gun.

You can't see what Taylor does from the video other than lean into his car. Anything other than that is just seeing what you want to see/are biased to see. But, since the civilian witness in the car who saw what happened said he was going for the gun, and he has a history of using a gun to commit violent crimes, that seems more likely to me.

This article tries to set up the idea that if the autopsy shows he was shot in the back, the shooting was unjustified. But if he turned into the car to grab a gun, shooting him was justified even if they shot him in the back. This isn't a western movie where you have to give the other guy a fair chance.

Yes, the video doesn't show everything. Yes, the officers might have made a tactical mistake by issuing two different commands. But their statements and the those of a civilian witness indicate this guy--a convicted violent felon in possession of a handgun and in the midst of a drug deal--reached for a gun while he was being arrested. Glad the officers are safe.

@10:

So basically, on top of all the other excuses LEO's get to use to justify shooting people, they can now add: "well, we totally confused them by giving obviously contradictory commands that violate established procedures, but you know, it was an honest mistake, because we were all so jacked-up on adrenaline at the time. Oops, our bad."?

Wait a minute ... does the content of this article sustain its headline?

Three former LEO's were interviewed. They agree Taylor was ordered to get down, and (in some fashion) did get down -- which is consistent with SPD's account of the incident.
Hampton: "He got down. He was following the orders." Lichten: "It looked like he [Taylor] was going into his car, not going down on the ground." Anonymous: "He's getting down. But we can't tell if he's getting all the way on the ground."

Taylor is not accused of "failure to get down". He arguable complied with the command "Get Down!" He arguably failed to comply with the commands "Get on the fucking ground! ... GET ON THE GROUND! ... HANDS UP, RIGHT NOW! ... HEY! DON’T – HANDS UP!"

And if he "got down" by ducking into the car and going for a gun -- a suggestion the Three LEO's fail to address in the excerpted comments -- then all bets are off.

Putting aside the legitimacy of the shooting for a moment, I would just like to ask why the cops always have to be such drama queens. What a bunch of screaming Mimi's

So a violent felon who was adjudicated, convicted and jailed on counts of assault and rape violates the law by possessing a Springfield XD-S .45 ACP semi automatic handgun which he attempts to turn and use on two patrol officers is not grounds for the Seattle PD to use lethal force? This is despite video evidence and eye-witness testimony corroborating the events of the shooting.

And you expect people to take the NAACP, HashtagBlackLivesMatter and anything reported by The Stranger seriously?

If I recall, the information leaked to the public at first said that the witness states Taylor had a gun on his holster. Then when the video came out the police said he was reaching for a gun inside of his car. However, Taylor's car is the black magnum parked in front of the Ford Taurus. So the car he was standing next to was not his like it has been stated. So which actual witness statement are we supposed to believe?? The one who says they seen a gun on his holster or the one that says he was reaching for a gun inside of "his" car??

He didn't follow instructions if he put his body in the car or reached in the car. Any evidence that part of his body was in the car exonerates the police.

Just like the white protester in Oregon, hands were not up.

@14: Well, it's a profession that has a lot of dramatic situations.

But Phoebe dear, as we both know, if you let yourself get caught up in a drama, you make the situation worse.

Why can't they have a protocol that says one person does the talking, and that they do so in a calm manner? Why must they always sound like they're in some Terrantino movie?

This is really irrelevant, if he was complying or not.

The story is that he was killed for reaching for a handgun on the seat of the car right next to him. If that's true, I understand why the cops shot him, that's how they're trained and it's what the law allows (I think cops shouldn't have guns in the first place, but whatever). He could have been compliant the whole time, or not; but if he did reach for a gun, the outcome was predictable. So I don't know what these two former cops have to say about it, there is really only one question here and they have nothing to say about it.