Flash a cop because his lights are bright and die

[MrColin]

Probably a gang initiation.

 

[AHamick]

First off the stop is entirely legal per Michigan law MCL 257.700 which states flashing lights within 500 feet of oncoming traffic is illegal. It does not matter if the kid was doing it as a courtesy, MI law states it is illegal and has the potential to blind oncoming drivers. The officer even informs the kid he is merely giving warnings because of the belief that the officer was driving with his brights on (which he wasn't ). It doesn't matter one solitary bit of you think the law is "bullshit" or not, the stop is 100% lawful.

Once we've established the stop is lawful the demanding of a DL is also lawful. This is where the kid chooses to argue and refuse lawful orders to produce a license, registration and proof of insurance. The officer gives the kids MULTIPLE opportunities to comply and explains that flashing his brights would only be a warning because of the confusion over his new headlights. The kid repeatedly refuses to comply and is now committing another crime of failing to produce a license.

After numerous verbal orders to exit the vehicle the kid continues to refuse to comply with LAWFUL orders to exit the vehicle. The officer uses the threat of a taser to remove him from the vehicle. When the officer attempts to handcuff the kid he immediately begins to physically resist by pulling his arms under his body. The officer has legal authority to arrest the kid and use physical force to defeat the kids resistance. A taser is used and shortly after the kid is seen getting to his feet and CHARGING AT the officer and physically attacking the officer. This is where video cuts out on the body cam (in not aware of any other video) and all we are left with is audio of a scuffle and gunshots.

We have photo evidence of a facial injury to the officer which corroborates the narrative of the kid striking the officer in the face. Barring any other physical evidence the only thing that labels this officer as a cold blooded murderer is your own bias or law enforcement.

If we learn later through actual evidence (not emotionally based theory) that the officer shot this kid when there was no threat of great bodily harm or death then by all means seek charges against him for whatever fits. Until then the evidence we have is a non compliant driver pulled over on a LAWFUL traffic stop who refuses to hand over his DL, resists arrest and attacks an officer after being tased. If the kid did start striking the officer in the head and face while on top of him in a ditch this is a good shoot all day every day.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

First off the stop is entirely legal per Michigan law MCL 257.700 which states flashing lights within 500 feet of oncoming traffic is illegal. It does not matter if the kid was doing it as a courtesy, MI law states it is illegal and has the potential to blind oncoming drivers. The officer even informs the kid he is merely giving warnings because of the belief that the officer was driving with his brights on (which he wasn't ). It doesn't matter one solitary bit of you think the law is "bullshit" or not, the stop is 100% lawful.

Once we've established the stop is lawful the demanding of a DL is also lawful. This is where the kid chooses to argue and refuse lawful orders to produce a license, registration and proof of insurance. The officer gives the kids MULTIPLE opportunities to comply and explains that flashing his brights would only be a warning because of the confusion over his new headlights. The kid repeatedly refuses to comply and is now committing another crime of failing to produce a license.

After numerous verbal orders to exit the vehicle the kid continues to refuse to comply with LAWFUL orders to exit the vehicle. The officer uses the threat of a taser to remove him from the vehicle. When the officer attempts to handcuff the kid he immediately begins to physically resist by pulling his arms under his body. The officer has legal authority to arrest the kid and use physical force to defeat the kids resistance. A taser is used and shortly after the kid is seen getting to his feet and CHARGING AT the officer and physically attacking the officer. This is where video cuts out on the body cam (in not aware of any other video) and all we are left with is audio of a scuffle and gunshots.

We have photo evidence of a facial injury to the officer which corroborates the narrative of the kid striking the officer in the face. Barring any other physical evidence the only thing that labels this officer as a cold blooded murderer is your own bias or law enforcement.

If we learn later through actual evidence (not emotionally based theory) that the officer shot this kid when there was no threat of great bodily harm or death then by all means seek charges against him for whatever fits. Until then the evidence we have is a non compliant driver pulled over on a LAWFUL traffic stop who refuses to hand over his DL, resists arrest and attacks an officer after being tased. If the kid did start striking the officer in the head and face while on top of him in a ditch this is a good shoot all day every day.

Since you always defend cops killing unarmed people, could you please come over to this thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2436152

and explain how a white cop, who chased down his wife, shot her several times while in her car, and then walked around holding his gun to his head, and then turned around and shot his wife several more times was not shot by the police?

I mean, you come up with a justification for every cop shooting innocent and unarmed (mainly black) citizens, but here is a person with a real gun, who used the real gun to shoot someone, and no cop bothered to shoot him. Indeed, the cops just arrested him and consoled him. Nice double standard, no?

Can you explain this? It seems that according to you that the cop should have been shot right away right? I mean, he was a threat, already shot his wife, but he was allowed to shoot her a 2nd time?

Couldn't have anything to do with him being a white cop now could it??????

Odd that you jump in to defend all these cop shootings, but totally ignored that thread. Hmmmmmm.

 

[Triumph]

Why was this cop REPEATEDLY pulling people over for flashing their brights at him, when he knew full well why they were doing it? Was he looking for a fight?

 

[cabri]

Why was this cop REPEATEDLY pulling people over for flashing their brights at him, when he knew full well why they were doing it? Was he looking for a fight?

If the people were breaking the law; he was justified in pulling the people over.

If the LEO deliberately had his lights setup that way; then he needs to have it taken up through the discipline channels and any tickets voided

 

[Genx87]

First off the stop is entirely legal per Michigan law MCL 257.700 which states flashing lights within 500 feet of oncoming traffic is illegal. It does not matter if the kid was doing it as a courtesy, MI law states it is illegal and has the potential to blind oncoming drivers. The officer even informs the kid he is merely giving warnings because of the belief that the officer was driving with his brights on (which he wasn't ). It doesn't matter one solitary bit of you think the law is "bullshit" or not, the stop is 100% lawful.

Once we've established the stop is lawful the demanding of a DL is also lawful. This is where the kid chooses to argue and refuse lawful orders to produce a license, registration and proof of insurance. The officer gives the kids MULTIPLE opportunities to comply and explains that flashing his brights would only be a warning because of the confusion over his new headlights. The kid repeatedly refuses to comply and is now committing another crime of failing to produce a license.

After numerous verbal orders to exit the vehicle the kid continues to refuse to comply with LAWFUL orders to exit the vehicle. The officer uses the threat of a taser to remove him from the vehicle. When the officer attempts to handcuff the kid he immediately begins to physically resist by pulling his arms under his body. The officer has legal authority to arrest the kid and use physical force to defeat the kids resistance. A taser is used and shortly after the kid is seen getting to his feet and CHARGING AT the officer and physically attacking the officer. This is where video cuts out on the body cam (in not aware of any other video) and all we are left with is audio of a scuffle and gunshots.

We have photo evidence of a facial injury to the officer which corroborates the narrative of the kid striking the officer in the face. Barring any other physical evidence the only thing that labels this officer as a cold blooded murderer is your own bias or law enforcement.

If we learn later through actual evidence (not emotionally based theory) that the officer shot this kid when there was no threat of great bodily harm or death then by all means seek charges against him for whatever fits. Until then the evidence we have is a non compliant driver pulled over on a LAWFUL traffic stop who refuses to hand over his DL, resists arrest and attacks an officer after being tased. If the kid did start striking the officer in the head and face while on top of him in a ditch this is a good shoot all day every day.

The legality of pulling somebody over for courtesy flashing is irrelevant imo. This cop knew his lights were bright as he pulled over 3 other people that night for the exact same reason. What the hell is this cop doing out there driving a vehicle that is clearly not functioning properly, then pulling over people for letting him know? This situation that ended with a dead kid was because a cop took this way too far. He should have gone back to the station and got a car that was properly functioning. Or suspend pulling people over for this inane law knowing his car wasn't functioning properly.

Further how does a cop lose control of the situation? That is where I find this story hits the bullshit meter at full tilt. The last we saw of the kid was he was laying face down after being tased. The cop kicks the phone out of his hand then 30 seconds later 7 shots. Give me a fucking break. I don't buy this cops story of going from having to total control of that skinny kid to losing it to the point of having to use his gun.

 

[edro]

It's simply a case of youth arrogance.

While the details of the stop make this more somber, you cannot resist arrest and most certainly cannot punch a cop after being tazed.

If you're going to play with "knowing your rights", you better damn well know them. He did not.

 

[NesuD]

All he had to do was give the license, registration and insurance. What would he have gotten? Probably a warning. Yet he acted like an idiot, recorded the incident and failed to comply. Then after the cop tased him to make him comply and handcuff him, he assaulted the officer. There is no dispute in this. He shot him to stop the threat. The ones crying about 7 shots have obviously never been taught how to stop a threat of been in this situation.

This is several hours old, I saw it this morning. The cop haters are getting slow. It wasn't over headlights, it was over assault and because the kid was on top of him hitting him. But keep trying that angle.

Like usual, listen to commands. But he didn't, and paid for it. No problems with this. Aaaaaand here come the name calling from the usual cop haters.

Only problem is that the cop did not have the legal right to demand the kids license and insurance. Refusing to show ID is a secondary offense under michigan law. There has to be a legitimate violation before a police officer can legally require you to provide identification in Michigan. Flashing your lights at an oncoming car does not meet that threshhold. The stop was illegal to begin with. The cop could have waited for backup but chose instead to escalate the situation by assaulting the kid, It was an assault by every legal definition. Also why is the legal standard for private citizens to use deadly force only in response to deadly force but apparently for cops the standard is if someone who I have assaulted and tased hits me with his bare hands i can use deadly force? That is seriously screwed up. Also there isn't any evidence the kid even inflicted the teeny cut on the officers head other than the officers questionable statements on what happened. I find it extremely suspicious that the body cam got turned off. The kid was murdered by this cop essentially for nothing more than mouthing off to a cop that was violating his rights. Cop escalated the situation to the point he felt he could murder the kid and that is exactly what he did. If his department does not terminate him at the least i expect the sheriff will not be reelected and i am pretty sure the prosecutor just committed political suicide.


I live two counties away from where this took place. It is sad that no one ever hears about this crap unless a black man is involved. Cops get away with far to much these days.

 

[cabri]

Only problem is that the cop did not have the legal right to demand the kids license and insurance. Refusing to show ID is a secondary offense under michigan law. There has to be a legitimate violation before a police officer can legally require you to provide identification in Michigan. Flashing your lights at an oncoming car does not meet that threshhold. The stop was illegal to begin with. The cop could have waited for backup but chose instead to escalate the situation by assaulting the kid, It was an assault by every legal definition. Also why is the legal standard for private citizens to use deadly force only in response to deadly force but apparently for cops the standard is if someone who I have assaulted and tased hits me with his bare hands i can use deadly force? That is seriously screwed up. Also there isn't any evidence the kid even inflicted the teeny cut on the officers head other than the officers questionable statements on what happened. I find it extremely suspicious that the body cam got turned off. The kid was murdered by this cop essentially for nothing more than mouthing off to a cop that was violating his rights. Cop escalated the situation to the point he felt he could murder the kid and that is exactly what he did. If his department does not terminate him at the least i expect the sheriff will not be reelected and i am pretty sure the prosecutor just committed political suicide.


I live two counties away from where this took place. It is sad that no one ever hears about this crap unless a black man is involved. Cops get away with far to much these days.

First off the stop is entirely legal per Michigan law MCL 257.700 which states flashing lights within 500 feet of oncoming traffic is illegal. It does not matter if the kid was doing it as a courtesy, MI law states it is illegal and has the potential to blind oncoming drivers. The officer even informs the kid he is merely giving warnings because of the belief that the officer was driving with his brights on (which he wasn't ). It doesn't matter one solitary bit of you think the law is "bullshit" or not, the stop is 100% lawful.

Once we've established the stop is lawful the demanding of a DL is also lawful. This is where the kid chooses to argue and refuse lawful orders to produce a license, registration and proof of insurance. The officer gives the kids MULTIPLE opportunities to comply and explains that flashing his brights would only be a warning because of the confusion over his new headlights. The kid repeatedly refuses to comply and is now committing another crime of failing to produce a license.

After numerous verbal orders to exit the vehicle the kid continues to refuse to comply with LAWFUL orders to exit the vehicle. The officer uses the threat of a taser to remove him from the vehicle. When the officer attempts to handcuff the kid he immediately begins to physically resist by pulling his arms under his body. The officer has legal authority to arrest the kid and use physical force to defeat the kids resistance. A taser is used and shortly after the kid is seen getting to his feet and CHARGING AT the officer and physically attacking the officer. This is where video cuts out on the body cam (in not aware of any other video) and all we are left with is audio of a scuffle and gunshots.

We have photo evidence of a facial injury to the officer which corroborates the narrative of the kid striking the officer in the face. Barring any other physical evidence the only thing that labels this officer as a cold blooded murderer is your own bias or law enforcement.

If we learn later through actual evidence (not emotionally based theory) that the officer shot this kid when there was no threat of great bodily harm or death then by all means seek charges against him for whatever fits. Until then the evidence we have is a non compliant driver pulled over on a LAWFUL traffic stop who refuses to hand over his DL, resists arrest and attacks an officer after being tased. If the kid did start striking the officer in the head and face while on top of him in a ditch this is a good shoot all day every day.

One poster (AHamick) quotes the state law indicating that the stop is lawful.
The other (NesuD) states that the stop is not; yet chose to not address the post by AHamick

So until the issue is solved: was the stop valid according to Michigan law, anything else becomes speculation on either side.

 

[DCal430]

Only problem is that the cop did not have the legal right to demand the kids license and insurance. Refusing to show ID is a secondary offense under michigan law. There has to be a legitimate violation before a police officer can legally require you to provide identification in Michigan. Flashing your lights at an oncoming car does not meet that threshhold. The stop was illegal to begin with. The cop could have waited for backup but chose instead to escalate the situation by assaulting the kid, It was an assault by every legal definition. Also why is the legal standard for private citizens to use deadly force only in response to deadly force but apparently for cops the standard is if someone who I have assaulted and tased hits me with his bare hands i can use deadly force? That is seriously screwed up. Also there isn't any evidence the kid even inflicted the teeny cut on the officers head other than the officers questionable statements on what happened. I find it extremely suspicious that the body cam got turned off. The kid was murdered by this cop essentially for nothing more than mouthing off to a cop that was violating his rights. Cop escalated the situation to the point he felt he could murder the kid and that is exactly what he did. If his department does not terminate him at the least i expect the sheriff will not be reelected and i am pretty sure the prosecutor just committed political suicide.


I live two counties away from where this took place. It is sad that no one ever hears about this crap unless a black man is involved. Cops get away with far to much these days.

You are 100% wrong. The cop did have a right to ask for ID, because he was being given a ticket. It was illegal to flash the cop.

 

[DCal430]

No mater what it isn't legal to refuse a ticket if you don't believe you committed an infraction. If a cop pulls you over for speeding, you can't claim you weren't speeding and refuse to give your license and registration.

 

[bshole]

If the people were breaking the law; he was justified in pulling the people over.

If the LEO deliberately had his lights setup that way; then he needs to have it taken up through the discipline channels and any tickets voided

Cop is a total douche. Fucking with people like that is ample evidence of his sociopathy. He doesn't care about people he is supposed to protecting. I wish all the worst for him and hope he never has a job that requires him to interact with the public. This incident ended in death because of this cop's utter incompetence in mediation. Unfortunately mediation has longed since been removed as a requirement for law enforcement. That has changed to an aggressive animosity to all citizens that they interact with.

 

[OverVolt]

Do people even care about facts anymore? There is enough police abuse/absurdity with documented factual evidence. Calling for the pitchforks before we know all there is to know does not help the cause in getting cops to tone it the hell down.

Short answer is no. Especially on the forums.

But if its in a link it must be true. Is the general rule.

This place is officially retarded so take anything here with a grain of salt.

 

[Darwin333]

A taser is used and shortly after the kid is seen getting to his feet and CHARGING AT the officer and physically attacking the officer.

Could you post the link and time stamp of the kid getting to his feet and charging the officer?

 

[sm625]

After being raped by wall street and the thugs on capital hill, what is a minor beatdown by a local cop?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

First off the stop is entirely legal per Michigan law MCL 257.700 which states flashing lights within 500 feet of oncoming traffic is illegal. It does not matter if the kid was doing it as a courtesy, MI law states it is illegal and has the potential to blind oncoming drivers. The officer even informs the kid he is merely giving warnings because of the belief that the officer was driving with his brights on (which he wasn't ). It doesn't matter one solitary bit of you think the law is "bullshit" or not, the stop is 100% lawful.

Once we've established the stop is lawful the demanding of a DL is also lawful. This is where the kid chooses to argue and refuse lawful orders to produce a license, registration and proof of insurance. The officer gives the kids MULTIPLE opportunities to comply and explains that flashing his brights would only be a warning because of the confusion over his new headlights. The kid repeatedly refuses to comply and is now committing another crime of failing to produce a license.

After numerous verbal orders to exit the vehicle the kid continues to refuse to comply with LAWFUL orders to exit the vehicle. The officer uses the threat of a taser to remove him from the vehicle. When the officer attempts to handcuff the kid he immediately begins to physically resist by pulling his arms under his body. The officer has legal authority to arrest the kid and use physical force to defeat the kids resistance. A taser is used and shortly after the kid is seen getting to his feet and CHARGING AT the officer and physically attacking the officer. This is where video cuts out on the body cam (in not aware of any other video) and all we are left with is audio of a scuffle and gunshots.

We have photo evidence of a facial injury to the officer which corroborates the narrative of the kid striking the officer in the face. Barring any other physical evidence the only thing that labels this officer as a cold blooded murderer is your own bias or law enforcement.

If we learn later through actual evidence (not emotionally based theory) that the officer shot this kid when there was no threat of great bodily harm or death then by all means seek charges against him for whatever fits. Until then the evidence we have is a non compliant driver pulled over on a LAWFUL traffic stop who refuses to hand over his DL, resists arrest and attacks an officer after being tased. If the kid did start striking the officer in the head and face while on top of him in a ditch this is a good shoot all day every day.

Right. Whatever it takes to write that fucking warning.

The ONLY reason I can think of for this guy to continue pulling people over who are warning him for having lights too bright is to give a handjob to his fucking ego. "What, you flashed ME? I'll put you in your place." Now somebody is dead. The entire confrontation was unnecessary and it was directly caused and escalated by the cop. Instead of behaving as a rational, mature human being and fixing HIS OWN problem, he decided he was gonna shit on four separate people by pulling them over to fuck with them for warning him. He should have THANKED them.

 

[AHamick]

Bear with me as I'm on my phone and I don't know how to quote multiple people easily.

Garfieldthecat: if you read my post again it clearly states my opinion on what should happen to the officer if evidence supports an unjustified shooting.

As to the off duty cop killing his wife, my best guess, and that's all it is a guess, is that since the officers knew him they hesitated shooting someone they personally knew. I've also heard the rumor that he fired the second volley at his wife as officers on scene were removing the child on scene and weren't even able to return fire (again just a rumor I heard and not seen anything to corroborate) from what I read through the news articles they should have shot to end the threat he posed when he began shooting at his wife. but that has zero to do with this thread and it wasn't ignored I merely never saw that thread. I've been a member here since 2008 and have less than 20p posts. I don't browse OT or P&N all that often and even respond less.

Genx87:the legality of the initial infraction for the stop is entirely relevant. Without a legal reason to pull the kid over the kid had no legal requirment to ID himself. Since it is illegal in MI to use brights within 500 feet of another vehicle, the officer had every legal authority to stop and ID the driver.

It does not matter if his vehicle was functioning properly or not. There is no section of the MI law that gives exception to drivers using brights if for the purpose of warning other drivers that thier brights are on as well. Simply using brights within 500 feet of another vehicle is illegal period.

Situations spiral out of control all the time with the police. Look at the NOLA cop recently killed while transporting a prisoner. That went from routine to dead cop in seconds. Watch some fights online, there's plenty of videos of an underdog flipping the fight to his favor through luck or skill.

Darwin333: not at this moment since I am on my phone and can't get to to link or show the time on the video. I will say that after reviewing the video again I cannot say for certain that the kid actually CHARGED the cop. I do see him get to his feet after being tased and face the officer and reach towards him. there is some sort of movement but it could be the officer closing the distance with the kid or vice versa.

Pipeline1010: I can think another simple reason he pulled them over, it's illegal regardless of why they were doing it. Giving a warning was a courtesy he said to have given others due to the confusion over his new headlights. It doesn't make flashing brights (from what I've seen in the MI statute) legal if you are warning other drivers of their brights.

People need to look at the facts of this case and leave their preconceived bias at the door if they wish to discuss this civilly and objectively. An unarmed can be a lethal threat, evidence supports the kid being a lethal threat over the cop fabricating evidence to cover up murder. Present me evidence that the officer was not justified in shooting this kid and I'll support charges against him.

 

[Blanky]

It was an assault by every legal definition.

Evidently it wasn't, since he wasn't charged.

You guys can go on about secondary offenses all day long. A cop is able to pull you over if he thinks you're doing something strange and you don't have the right at that time to divine whether it was or wasn't strange; if you don't agree, you leave it to the court. When you're driving you also have to show ID.

This is what the video showed and is why the cop walks.

 

[Subyman]

Right. Whatever it takes to write that fucking warning.

The ONLY reason I can think of for this guy to continue pulling people over who are warning him for having lights too bright is to give a handjob to his fucking ego. "What, you flashed ME? I'll put you in your place." Now somebody is dead. The entire confrontation was unnecessary and it was directly caused and escalated by the cop. Instead of behaving as a rational, mature human being and fixing HIS OWN problem, he decided he was gonna shit on four separate people by pulling them over to fuck with them for warning him. He should have THANKED them.

Yup, should have thanked the first one and then went back to the station to swap cars. Pulling over four helpful citizens to chew them out about a problem he knew he had on his own car is ridiculous. Its borderline entrapment if he KNEW his lights were aimed high and he pulled people over for flashing him.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Bear with me as I'm on my phone and I don't know how to quote multiple people easily.

Most impressive 🙂

Pipeline1010: I can think another simple reason he pulled them over, it's illegal regardless of why they were doing it. Giving a warning was a courtesy he said to have given others due to the confusion over his new headlights. It doesn't make flashing brights (from what I've seen in the MI statute) legal if you are warning other drivers of their brights.

No, pulling people over with the implicit threat of officially sanctioned force because they flashed you because YOU ARE BLINDING THEM is not "a courtesy." It's called being an asshole. If one person flashes you, they might be mistaken. Even 2 people might be a coincidence. But by flash # 4, you have ample proof that your lights are too bright and are blinding people. By your logic, the cop should have been pulled over and received an official warning for the brightness of his lights. But this will never happen because no cop would EVER do that to a fellow cop...only to non-cops. Assholes.

He was an asshole to pull the 4 people over because it was petty and because what he was doing was worse. By driving with blinding headlights, he is making it clear to the world that he believes it's OK to blind people with his headlights. Yet then he punishes people for doing a far lesser wrong.

It is pretty obvious to me that if you are an asshole to enough people, eventually you are going to find someone who doesn't take your shit. And THEY aren't the ones in the wrong. Whether the asshole has a badge or not doesn't change that an asshole is an asshole and is morally in the wrong.

TLDR: Cop is a petty asshole.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Yup, should have thanked the first one and then went back to the station to swap cars. Pulling over four helpful citizens to chew them out about a problem he knew he had on his own car is ridiculous. Its borderline entrapment if he KNEW his lights were aimed high and he pulled people over for flashing him.

Yet another example of cops who think that laws aren't for cops and that it's OK for cops to break them.

Either (1) you believe it's wrong to blind people and you fix your lights, or (2) you believe it's OK to blind people and don't write tickets to people who flash.

This cop clearly demonstrates that he thinks it's wrong and yet he continues to blind people not because it's right, but because he has no fear of consequences.

As a collective, cops have pushed very very hard to reduce/remove consequences of their own wrong doing. It is a blunt message that they are sending to the rest of the world that they acknowledge there is right and wrong and that they want the freedom to do wrong.

 

[CZroe]

Wait. It's legal to flash your high beams in MI?! The article says that he did nothing illegal and that there was no primary offense to justify the secondary offense of not showing the requested ID, but flashing your lights is a primary offense everywhere I know of.

Sounds like he decided to "flex" "rights" he didn't have. 🙄

I've seen so many idiots think they know the law trying that stuff. My favorite is when they claim they aren't resisting while they clearly are as they keep pulling hands away and trying to keep them in the air. Newsflash: keeping hands in the air while an officer attempts to cuff then behind your back IS resisting. Flopping when an officer tries to force you somewhere IS resisting.

 

[SparkyJJO]

TLDR: Cop is a petty asshole.

Even if this is the case, the guy did turn it from a traffic stop into getting himself shot by being stupid by arguing with and attacking the cop.

If this guy had attacked another citizen over his headlights, and the guy defended himself and ended up shooting the idiot, would you still have been on the idiot's side?

Cop or not, petty egotistical guy or not, end result is idiot assaults another person over a freaking headlight and gets himself shot. Darwin award right there.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wait. It's legal to flash your high beams in MI?! The article says that he did nothing illegal and that there was no primary offense to justify the secondary offense of not showing the requested ID, but flashing your lights is a primary offense everywhere I know of.

Sounds like he decided to "flex" "rights" he didn't have. 🙄

I've seen so many idiots think they know the law trying that stuff. My favorite is when they claim they aren't resisting while they clearly are as they keep pulling hands away and trying to keep them in the air. Newsflash: keeping hands in the air while an officer attempts to cuff then behind your back IS resisting. Flopping when an officer tries to force you somewhere IS resisting.

While not all states are listed, some do allow it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headlight_flashing

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Even if this is the case, the guy did turn it from a traffic stop into getting himself shot by being stupid by arguing with and attacking the cop.

The traffic stop was over a friendly and brief "hey friend, your lights are too bright" flash of high beams. Probably high beams that were of about equal power to the cop's regular beams (which blinded a minimum of 4 people). Darwin award should have been given to the cop who decides to continue driving around with extra strength regular beams which blinded everyone and then decides to confront everyone who doesn't like it. The Darwin award should go to the asshole who confronts people for letting him know he is an asshole, not the dude who doesn't like getting shat on and stands up to said shatting.

If this guy had attacked another citizen over his headlights, and the guy defended himself and ended up shooting the idiot, would you still have been on the idiot's side?

If the other citizen pulled this guy over and demanded ID and other things from this guy backed by the implicit threat that any non-compliance would be met with state sanctioned violence, then yes...I would still be on the "idiot's" side. Although the real idiot in this case is the one who blinded many drivers and then gave them official warnings for letting him know they were blinding him.

Let's play your game in reverse. Had a regular non-cop citizen pulled over a cop for doing the same thing, demanded the cop's ID, and tazed the cop for non-compliance, and the cop had enough and attacked the citizen, would you be calling the cop the idiot?

Cop or not, petty egotistical guy or not, end result is idiot assaults another person over a freaking headlight and gets himself shot. Darwin award right there.

The assault began with stopping someone over a friendly warning that the initiator of violence received many times and knew exactly what the warning meant. It is universal language all across the nation to give a quick flash of high beams if someone is driving around with bright lights that blind everybody. It's good manners, common sense, and completely inoffensive. In fact, I bet you've done this multiple times yourself. Did you get pulled over for it?