Flash a cop because his lights are bright and die

[justoh]

I have been licensed for 17 years, and have handled criminal and civil cases at the highest level in state, federal and military courts throughout the country

Impressive. Which scotus case was yours?

 

[Blanky]

And I just give him my license and am on my way in about 5 minutes. You on the other hand just spent 1-2 hours of your time and accomplished what?

Not being a little bitch to a powertripping cop. It's either important to you as a person or it's not. It is hard to explain if you don't already understand the underlying motivation.

Talking big on the internet is easy, though. If I were pulled over for any reason I'd show ID. If I were stopped on the street and asked I would only defy it if I could be absolutely sure I was able to film it when the cop gets thuggish with me. You can always, in all scenarios, repeat that you do not answer questions, though. And regardless of variables you do not have to answer any.

 

[JSt0rm]

You left out the "attack a cop like an idiot" part of your rant. Surprising....

Gloss over everything I wrote. The real problem is in the training and mindset of our police. As a citizen who pays for your dumb shit we are going to put a stop to it.

 

[cabri]

Impressive. Which scotus case was yours?

Nitpicking for an syntax argument :thumbsdown:

You know that he was not implying a SCOTUS case.

 

[HumblePie]

I do disagree. The fact that courts outside of Michigan have ruled that flashing headlights, specifically for the purpose of warning of speed traps, has no bearing here. Those cases are not controlling precedent in Michigan, and in any case the decedent was not flashing his lights for this purpose. Even if that were the law in Michigan, the officer would have had at least arguable probable cause to pull the kid over, because he undisputedly flashed his brights within 500 feet of the police car, and the officer had no duty to presume this flashing was protected free speech (and indeed it was not, because it had nothing to do with any speed trap) and refrain from pulling him over. Everything that happened after that was an escalation of the situation brought on entirely by the kid's behavior.

When I initially posted (in response to one of your posts) the chain of events that gave a legal justification for the officer's actions, I had not read the DA's report. The report is interesting in that he adds some additional facts I was not aware of, such as the fact that the state troopers had just received training on the dangerousness of sovereign/militia types (of which this kid, through his actions, appeared to be one), but ultimately the DA drew the same conclusion I did, for the same reason. There was probable cause for the stop, the kid engaged in obstruction of justice by refusing to provide his license or to cooperate with his arrest, and there is no clear evidence to disprove the officer's claim that he acted in self-defense, so there just isn't a case against the officer. I do feel bad that this kid died, but that doesn't make it the officer's fault. I expect he feels awful about this incident.

The various case ruling on this subject cares not that the flashing was done as part of warning about a speed trap, but that flashing is protected speech regardless of what the signal is for. People at night flash others because their lights are too bright. It is an accepted form of communication around the globe. During the day, people flash lights for speed traps usually, not for lights being too bright. The reasons for why people flash lights during the day or night are quite clear. At night the chances of seeing a speed trap is not easily to do as it is much harder to spot police cars hiding in the dark off the side of the road. So at night the chance of flashing lights having a signal meaning of warning of a speed trap is non existent. During the day, people don't tend to drive around with lights on nor would lights on bother other drivers as much. So flashing of lights would only mean to warn others of a speed trap.

Regardless of the intent of the signal and the meaning, the signal is a form of communication. Every court has upheld that challenge time and again. So yes, it does set precedent even in Michigan. Which makes the whole stop not a legal stop if the case gets challenged.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The various case ruling on this subject cares not that the flashing was done as part of warning about a speed trap, but that flashing is protected speech regardless of what the signal is for. People at night flash others because their lights are too bright. It is an accepted form of communication around the globe. During the day, people flash lights for speed traps usually, not for lights being too bright. The reasons for why people flash lights during the day or night are quite clear. At night the chances of seeing a speed trap is not easily to do as it is much harder to spot police cars hiding in the dark off the side of the road. So at night the chance of flashing lights having a signal meaning of warning of a speed trap is non existent. During the day, people don't tend to drive around with lights on nor would lights on bother other drivers as much. So flashing of lights would only mean to warn others of a speed trap.

Regardless of the intent of the signal and the meaning, the signal is a form of communication. Every court has upheld that challenge time and again. So yes, it does set precedent even in Michigan. Which makes the whole stop not a legal stop if the case gets challenged.

I am going to need a cite that supports the sweeping proposition you are arguing - the only cases I have seen (including the ones you linked to) related to flashing brights to communicate a speed trap and would not necessarily protect all flashing of brights.

"Every court" that has heard this issue may have ruled that this flashing was legal (though you have certainly not posted anything supporting the notion that they all did), and it would still not create precedent in Michigan. Only case law originating out of the courts of Michigan sets binding precedent in Michigan. Case law originating out of the United States District Courts in Michigan and the Sixth Circuit would also be binding to the extent the issue arose in federal court in Michigan. Case law from any other jurisdiction may be used as persuasive authority but it is not precedent and the court is free to reject it.

As a digression, I have a client in Michigan and actually litigated an entire case in Washtenaw County Court in Ann Arbor a few years ago. I have appeared before at least 100 judges in my career and this judge was, by a significant margin, the worst I have ever encountered. Just an irredeemably lazy, stupid person. Hopefully that was just an unlucky draw and it doesn't reflect on the quality of justice in Ann Arbor, but my God was this guy a fool.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Impressive. Which scotus case was yours?

I have not appeared before the United States Supreme Court, but have appeared in two different federal circuit courts and our state's appeals courts numerous times. So far - knock on wood - my record is unblemished.

 

[NoStateofMind]

For those interested in law I recommend giving this short paper a read. Some interesting points.

John Hasnas - Professor of Georgetown University

 

[NoStateofMind]

https://video-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/h...=e3ad198e502a35814f08648995bcfe8e&oe=55A85E99

 

[tcsenter]

Unbelievable that anyone would defend this officer's stop or probable cause. This officer used his headlights as a witting pretext to entrap motorists, to give him probable cause to stop them that he otherwise would not have, so that he could get his nose in the window in hopes of generating revenue for his department (e.g. DUI, suspended license, smell marijuana, anything that has a nice fine from which the department will profit).

Let's suppose that a cop encounters a road hazard. He nearly hits it and has to take some evasive action, either braking hard, swerving, or both, to avoid it. It is poorly illuminated so you can expect other motorists will do the same thing. So rather than REMOVE the road hazard, or try to alert drivers to it by using his lights or flares to better illuminate the road hazard, he thinks "Hey I'm betting I can use this!" So he pulls off, conceals himself and waits for a motorist to come along and brake hard, or swerve to avoid the road hazard. Gotcha! That right there is my probable cause to pull this motorist over on a pretext of a violation, run his plates, run him for warrants, stick my nose in the window, if I get lucky he is drunk and we'll get some of that DUI fine money. Driving erratically, swerving!

What is the difference between my analogy and what this officer was doing? Nothing! What this officer did is at the very least extremely unethical, but I'm betting a number of attorney generals, judges, and juries would say it rises to the level of an UNLAWFUL pretext. He had NO probable cause to stop anyone on these basis under such contrived and KNOWING circumstances. Given how obviously unethical and deceptive is his behavior, I do not have any doubt at all that this officer is ethically capable of intentionally using his high-beams in order to get these motorists to flash him, creating or manufacturing his own pretext.

Instead of taking this unsafe vehicle (which is in violation of Michigan law, BTW) back and getting a different vehicle, OR just ignoring the motorists who were flashing him, he just decides it's some kind of gift he can exploit in order to stop people that he would otherwise have NO authority to stop. A young man is dead because he rightly protested such an unlawful or dubious stop. Everything that flows from such a highly unethical and dubious, likely unlawful stop thus falls onto the officer.

 

[CZroe]

Unbelievable that anyone would defend this officer's stop or probable cause. This officer used his headlights as a witting pretext to entrap motorists, to give him probable cause to stop them that he otherwise would not have, so that he could get his nose in the window in hopes of generating revenue for his department (e.g. DUI, suspended license, smell marijuana, anything that has a nice fine from which the department will profit).

Let's suppose that a cop encounters a road hazard. He nearly hits it and has to take some evasive action, either braking hard, swerving, or both, to avoid it. It is poorly illuminated so you can expect other motorists will do the same thing. So rather than REMOVE the road hazard, or try to alert drivers to it by using his lights or flares to better illuminate the road hazard, he thinks "Hey I'm betting I can use this!" So he pulls off, conceals himself and waits for a motorist to come along and brake hard, or swerve to avoid the road hazard. Gotcha! That right there is my probable cause to pull this motorist over on a pretext of a violation, run his plates, run him for warrants, stick my nose in the window, if I get lucky he is drunk and we'll get some of that DUI fine money. Driving erratically, swerving!

What is the difference between my analogy and what this officer was doing? Nothing! What this officer did is at the very least extremely unethical, but I'm betting a number of attorney generals, judges, and juries would say it rises to the level of an UNLAWFUL pretext. He had NO probable cause to stop anyone on these basis under such contrived and KNOWING circumstances. Given how obviously unethical and deceptive is his behavior, I do not have any doubt at all that this officer is ethically capable of intentionally using his high-beams in order to get these motorists to flash him, creating or manufacturing his own pretext.

Instead of taking this unsafe vehicle (which is in violation of Michigan law, BTW) back and getting a different vehicle, OR just ignoring the motorists who were flashing him, he just decides it's some kind of gift he can exploit in order to stop people that he would otherwise have NO authority to stop. A young man is dead because he rightly protested such an unlawful or dubious stop. Everything that flows from such a highly unethical and dubious, likely unlawful stop thus falls onto the officer.

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you take the person's allegations about the officer's headlights and pretend that they are fact. It "is" unsafe?" It "is" in violation of state law? Well, you "are" an idiot who's bias is clearly showing.

People complain and flash at cars with factory bi-xenon projectors assuming that they are illegal just because they are brighter, but that hardly makes it true. Heck, he could have completely made up that reason for flashing his lights AFTER he realized it was a cop and got pulled over but you lapped it up like the cop-hating lap dog you are.

 

[tcsenter]

Heck, he could have completely made up that reason for flashing his lights AFTER he realized it was a cop and got pulled over but you lapped it up like the cop-hating lap dog you are.

I presume that you didn't watch the video, where AFTER the cop denies multiple times there was any problem with his headlights and makes it out to be the kid's error or mistake, after he has multiple opportunities to take the stop in a different direction because the basis for it was highly questionable or dubious, the cop confesses "I pulled three other people over tonight because my headlights blinded them, I didn't give them a ticket for flashing their brights but you didn't want to cooperate." (paraphrasing). This confession from the officer that he was FULLY AWARE that his vehicle's headlights blinded and provoked the same response from at least THREE other drivers that night (which according to him, used as a pretext to stop them as well) is also pointed-out in many of the articles, as well as the family's statement.

I don't have to trust anything the kid says. The officer himself gives a full confession that it was a pretext he had been using ALL NIGHT to pull-over at least three drivers before this for the exact same reason.

 

[Darwin333]

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you take the person's allegations about the officer's headlights and pretend that they are fact. It "is" unsafe?" It "is" in violation of state law? Well, you "are" an idiot who's bias is clearly showing.

People complain and flash at cars with factory bi-xenon projectors assuming that they are illegal just because they are brighter, but that hardly makes it true. Heck, he could have completely made up that reason for flashing his lights AFTER he realized it was a cop and got pulled over but you lapped it up like the cop-hating lap dog you are.

Well the cop said that numerous other people had flashed him because his lights were too bright so actually he is taking the kids word AND the cops word. If several people are flashing you because your headlights are blinding them then you are creating an unsafe situation for other motorists by temporarily blinding them while they are driving, I don't care what kind of lights they are.

 

[CZroe]

I presume that you didn't watch the video, where AFTER the cop denies multiple times there was any problem with his headlights and makes it out to be the kid's error or mistake, after he has multiple opportunities to take the stop in a different direction because the basis for it was highly questionable or dubious, the cop confesses "I pulled three other people over tonight because my headlights blinded them, I didn't give them a ticket for flashing their brights but you didn't want to cooperate." (paraphrasing). This confession from the officer that he was FULLY AWARE that his vehicle's headlights blinded and provoked the same response from at least THREE other drivers that night (which according to him, used as a pretext to stop them as well) is also pointed-out in many of the articles, as well as the family's statement.

I don't have to trust anything the kid says. The officer himself gives a full confession that it was a pretext he had been using ALL NIGHT to pull-over at least three drivers before this for the exact same reason.

LOL! "Confession." Dig your hole deeper. It's just as likely a fancy new car with fancy new lights. When a multitude of people complained to the NTSB about "bright" bi-xenon HID projectors, it didn't prove that they were illegal. If you took normal halogen lamps from today back in time and drove on the streets with a bunch of vehicles we would consider antiques today, you'd get a lot of flashes too.

It doesn't matter if that was the pretext in a state that does not allow you to flash your brights so stop using that weak argument.

"Confessed"
"Blinded"
"Fully-aware"


Your run-away imagination in support of your bias is laughable.

Well the cop said that numerous other people had flashed him because his lights were too bright so actually he is taking the kids word AND the cops word. If several people are flashing you because your headlights are blinding them then you are creating an unsafe situation for other motorists by temporarily blinding them while they are driving, I don't care what kind of lights they are.

As a native speaker of the English language, those words only mean what you think they mean if you have a bias you intend to support with those words. Being flashed three times does not mean his lights were blinding. It does not mean that his lights were illegal. It simply doesn't. He was required to give his information and cooperate because the stop was valid. He was not invoking his legal rights. He was illegally resisting. It's not even debatable.

 

[bradley]

For those interested in law I recommend giving this short paper a read. Some interesting points.

John Hasnas - Professor of Georgetown University

Thanks for the link. Very thought-provoking and compelling.

https://video-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/h...=e3ad198e502a35814f08648995bcfe8e&oe=55A85E99

Can you repost this one? I never got a chance to see it.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

You can't expect to be taken seriously when you take the person's allegations about the officer's headlights and pretend that they are fact. It "is" unsafe?" It "is" in violation of state law? Well, you "are" an idiot who's bias is clearly showing.

Who pissed in your cheerios?

1) The cop said his lights are too bright. He even provided a reason as to WHY they are too bright. Who knows though? Maybe you are insinuating the cop could was lying. He is a cop, after all, so it would make sense.
2) The guy he pulled over said his lights are too bright.
3) Another guy he pulled over said his lights are too bright.
4) Another guy he pulled over said his lights are too bright.

I don't know about you, but I've NEVER been flashed more than once in a night. Even when I was a derpy young 16 year old and forgot to turn my brights off I could make it all the way home without getting flashed once. I can reasonably assume there were other people who he blinded but didn't choose to flash him (possibly out of fear).

People complain and flash at cars with factory bi-xenon projectors assuming that they are illegal just because they are brighter, but that hardly makes it true.

Uh, it's not 1999 anymore. This century's xenons are actually quite pleasant. Unless you're talking some ridiculously crappy aftermarket xenon. I've had xenons for like 10 years and not ONCE been flashed with my low beams on. It's hard to imagine that a brand new car in 2015 would have headlights that seem too bright to everyone simply because "oh well, they're xenons". It is far more likely that they just need adjusting.

Heck, he could have completely made up that reason for flashing his lights AFTER he realized it was a cop and got pulled over

Right, he probably flashed his high beams for some OTHER, more evil and terroristy-reason. Like any of the other common reasons such as...uh...what in the FUCK are you talking about? Son, are you on the drugs?

but you lapped it up like the cop-hating lap dog you are.

Yes, we lapped up his reason, the cop's reason, and the reason given by 2 other people that night only because we are cop-hating lap dogs. Great job, righteous hero of justice. You have put everyone in their place and the world is now safer and better.

Tool.

 

[Vic]

Must be fuckin' awesome to have a union government job where you can break all the rules, kill people, and get away with it.

 

[davmat787]

Uh, it's not 1999 anymore. This century's xenons are actually quite pleasant.

What IS ridiculous are the increasingly small LED light bars that at the same time are increasingly bright.

I was driving home on 405 a month or so ago and there was 5-6 police cruisers and trooper vehicles of various makes on the side of the freeway, each equipped with these new LED light bars.

The frequency in change from red to blue was much faster than previous light bar technology which was distracting enough. Couple that with the eye searing brightness and intensity along with the reflections provided by the recent rain a slowdown to 25 mph happened. The inside of the vehicle was lit up like a rave and many had to shield their eyes using a raised hand which added to the danger.

Totally ridiculous but police never turn away from faster, brighter, or more militant hardware.

 

[davmat787]

Must be fuckin' awesome to have a union government job where you can break all the rules, kill people, and get away with it.

And have the settlement paid for by the citizenry while on paid vacation until the heat dies down. A whole class lives upper middle class lives off the taxpayer performing their jobs to such low standards and expectations equivalent behavior wouldn't last a pay period in the private sector.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Thanks for the link. Very thought-provoking and compelling.



Can you repost this one? I never got a chance to see it.

https://www.facebook.com/matthewcookeofficial/videos/406040046258158/?l=1551602320005002167

 

[CZroe]

Who pissed in your cheerios?



1) The cop said his lights are too bright. He even provided a reason as to WHY they are too bright. Who knows though? Maybe you are insinuating the cop could was lying. He is a cop, after all, so it would make sense.

The cop NEVER said that they were too bright and he only provided a reason that the person might THINK that they are too bright. It is laughably desperate reasoning that I already called out but you idiots keep lining up and presenting it over and over and over to confirm your bias.

2) The guy he pulled over said his lights are too bright.

...and that TOTALLY makes it true, right?!

3) Another guy he pulled over said his lights are too bright.

4) Another guy he pulled over said his lights are too bright.

Another unsubstantiated leap. He pulled others over for flashing him and that automatically means that others said his lights were too bright ?! Nonsense. All three could have been flashing to warn oncoming drivers of another cop down the road or they could have been flashing because they THOUGHT his lights were too brights due to them being new/different/noticeable.

I don't know about you, but I've NEVER been flashed more than once in a night. Even when I was a derpy young 16 year old and forgot to turn my brights off I could make it all the way home without getting flashed once. I can reasonably assume there were other people who he blinded but didn't choose to flash him (possibly out of fear).

I certainly have. I've even had people stop in the middle of the road and get out to confront me about it and they shut up quick when I turned my actual brights on.

Uh, it's not 1999 anymore. This century's xenons are actually quite pleasant. Unless you're talking some ridiculously crappy aftermarket xenon. I've had xenons for like 10 years and not ONCE been flashed with my low beams on. It's hard to imagine that a brand new car in 2015 would have headlights that seem too bright to everyone simply because "oh well, they're xenons". It is far more likely that they just need adjusting.

Exactly my point. The NTSB reports the phenomenon every time bulb technology changes. Last time they said an awful lot of it was that legal bi-xenon HID projectors were brighter and were the same color as the illegal ones that really did blind people and because the ratio of illegal to legal was closer when they were first introduced people made the association and were reportedly "annoyed" even by the legal ones. We are going through that transition again with LED headlight. It's very possible that his fancy new police car has LED headlights.

Right, he probably flashed his high beams for some OTHER, more evil and terroristy-reason. Like any of the other common reasons such as...uh...what in the FUCK are you talking about? Son, are you on the drugs?

It doesn't matter the reason when it is illegal, but there very easily could have been a cop down the road clocking people and he was warning oncoming drivers. This is perfectly legal in some states as protected free-speech but not others. Others will enforce the distance limit for engaging your high beams regardless. It was a valid stop.

Yes, we lapped up his reason, the cop's reason, and the reason given by 2 other people that night only because we are cop-hating lap dogs. Great job, righteous hero of justice. You have put everyone in their place and the world is now safer and better.



Tool.

At least I didn't delude myself about the facts of the case for no other reason than to support my bias/hate like you and so many others are so willing to do.

 

[NoStateofMind]

what a worthless conversation to be had with those stuck on licking boots. It's either that or they are police trying to justify their aggressive behavior. Either way they suck and are incapable of rational reasoned thought.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Truth be known you will be licking boots and kissing ass should you be pulled over by an officer.

 

[CZroe]

what a worthless conversation to be had with those stuck on licking boots. It's either that or they are police trying to justify their aggressive behavior. Either way they suck and are incapable of rational reasoned thought.

No where did the cop "admit" his lights were "too bright." Who made the IRRATIONAL conclusion that he had? When did the definition of rational change? The definition of rational agrees with me. Jumping to conclusions and ignoring the possibility that the kid was wrong in order to make stupid assumptions while ignoring reality is not "rational."

 

[NoStateofMind]

Truth be known you will be licking boots and kissing ass should you be pulled over by an officer.

You're free to think as you wish. the officer I confronted about his road blocking would disagree with you 😎