Flash a cop because his lights are bright and die

[Chiropteran]

I love a good witch-hunt as much as anyone, but I don't think this is the right case. The idiot kid attacked the cop, the cop shot him in self defense. Case closed.

Were the cop's headlights illegally bright? Maybe, but irrelevant. Even if he was running around with high-beams on, the correct response to that never includes resisting arrest and committing battery.

 

[Ichinisan]

How do you know that they were screwed up? They may just be brighter than people are used to. I recently got a new Suv with brighter than normal headlights. I am sure we have all seen them on the road. They annoying and bright, HID are the worst. Perhaps they were tilted at the wrong angle and were more up than needed to be, who knows. But there is zero proof that they were on bright or illegally bright.

Since he had been told they were bright, he could have ignored the kid yeah. Maybe he was bored, maybe he was looking to pull someone over, whatever the case it was a legal stop. I'd like to think if that was me I would have, but who can say when not in the same position? The kid just had to produce a license, insurance, and registration and would have been on his way. Either with or without a ticket. I think he gave warnings before? If that is the case, another warning. But he didn't, completely acted like a fool.

I think it's good that he's letting people know to stop flashing everyone with brighter-than-normal headlights. What are people with new cars and brighter-than-normal headlights supposed to do? Go replace their perfectly-good brand-new headlights with inferior headlights? Stop flashing me!

 

[HumblePie]

Glad you can tell how big the cut is, not that matters. What matters is that the kid was on top of him hitting him. Do you think that taking the life of a 17 year old and the emotional swing made him look sullen? Do you think the anguish in his face is real, not fake? Take off your obvious blinders. He wasn't killed over headlights, but good try.

I have to state you have no fucking clue!

1) It has already been ruled by SCOTUS that everyone has the right to defend themselves even from police officers if the police officers are using force without just cause.

2) The officer had zero justification in pulling the teen over and even less in using force to pull him out of his car.

3) Since the officer was NOT justified in his initial use of force against the teen, the teen has every right to defend himself. The officer in most states would be giving up that right unless the officer is attempting to disengage after starting the fight. Because in this scenario the officer most certainly did start an unjustified fight by his use of force and if he was remaining as a combatant he would have zero rights for self defense.


Too bad most of what happened in regards to actual shooting happened off camera so the officer can say whatever the hell they want and get away with it. Complete bullshit in this case. The police have ZERO authority to instigate use of force if they have zero probable cause of any crime.

 

[bshole]

3) Since the officer was NOT justified in his initial use of force against the teen, the teen has every right to defend himself.

Um...... riiiight.... Good luck with that. I am sure that attitude will never get you killed or maimed by the cops.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I have to state you have no fucking clue!

1) It has already been ruled by SCOTUS that everyone has the right to defend themselves even from police officers if the police officers are using force without just cause.

2) The officer had zero justification in pulling the teen over and even less in using force to pull him out of his car.

3) Since the officer was NOT justified in his initial use of force against the teen, the teen has every right to defend himself. The officer in most states would be giving up that right unless the officer is attempting to disengage after starting the fight. Because in this scenario the officer most certainly did start an unjustified fight by his use of force and if he was remaining as a combatant he would have zero rights for self defense.


Too bad most of what happened in regards to actual shooting happened off camera so the officer can say whatever the hell they want and get away with it. Complete bullshit in this case. The police have ZERO authority to instigate use of force if they have zero probable cause of any crime.

The officer was legally justified in pulling the kid over. It is a violation of MI law to use brights within 500 feet of oncoming traffic - http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hu...eg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-700 - so blinking the brights was a basis for pulling the kid over.

The kid then violated the law by refusing to show the officer his license. While an officer can't force you to produce ID if you are just walking down the street, he can if you are driving - that is one of the conditions of having a driving privilege. By refusing to provide it, the kid was obstructing justice and gave probable cause to arrest.

Because the kid did not cooperate when told to get out of the car, the officer was justified in using reasonable force to pull him out. Once he was pulled out, he continued to refuse to cooperate with verbal commands to put his hands behind his back. The use of the taser was consistent with the use of force continuum police are trained on, because the kid was not cooperating. As for the use of a gun, we don't have enough information to tell whether it was warranted, but the injuries to the officer suggest it may well have been.

I know you like playing armchair lawyer, but you are dead wrong. God help you if you train your children that it's acceptable to act this way toward the police. As far as I'm concerned this kid's parents are at least as culpable in his death as this police officer. It's one thing to know your rights (my mom, then a judge, taught me not to answer questions asked about anything I had done when I was about 12), but that doesn't mean being a condescending, obnoxious wiseass who refuses to comply with direct, lawful orders from a police officer. As far as I am concerned, when I am dealing with the police in a traffic-stop situation, my entire job is to make them feel comfortable and sympathetic toward me.

 

[bshole]

I know you like playing armchair lawyer, but God help you if you train your children that it's acceptable to act this way toward the police. As far as I'm concerned this kid's parents are at least as culpable in his death as this police officer.

The kid was a HUGE fan of know your rights videos that are rampant all over the internet.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

The kid was a HUGE fan of know your rights videos that are rampant all over the internet.

Clearly. The difference (or at least one critical difference) is that he was driving, not just standing in a public place. He had no legal right to refuse to show his ID (which the people in those know-your-rights videos always love to do).

 

[Blanky]

The kid was a HUGE fan of know your rights videos that are rampant all over the internet.

I guessed as much in post 91 🙂

If he was a fan of killed by police videos maybe he wouldn't have acted as he did.

As don points out most of these people are not driving. A funny few vids I have seen of a guy who was were the "I don't answer questions". Watch the greatest hit compilation. But that guy knows the law: this kid didn't. Even argued with the cop to "trust me" your high dams were on.

It is a very dangerous game and only to be played when you know all the rules, and resisting arrest is never one of them.

 

[bshole]

I guessed as much in post 91 🙂

If he was a fan of killed by police videos maybe he wouldn't have acted as he did.

As don points out most of these people are not driving. A funny few vids I have seen of a guy who was were the "I don't answer questions". Watch the greatest hit compilation. But that guy knows the law: this kid didn't. Even argued with the cop to "trust me" your high dams were on.

It is a very dangerous game and only to be played when you know all the rules, and resisting arrest is never one of them.

I was shocked that the kid's self preservation instincts never kicked in! Jesus, I talk shit all the time but my own cowardice would keep from escalating a situation with the cops. I am not willing to risk my life to play lawyer with a stranger carrying a badge and a gun.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I was shocked that the kid's self preservation instincts never kicked in! Jesus, I talk shit all the time but my own cowardice would keep from escalating a situation with the cops. I am not willing to risk my life to play lawyer with a stranger carrying a badge and a gun.

That's why I keep coming back to the way he was raised. Talk about the arrogance of youth - I find his tone and his defiance almost unbelievable. I would no more talk that way to a police officer than to any other stranger with a gun. Unfortunately I think Deven Guilford and his parents (and the makers of the know-your-rights videos he had been watching prior to his death) bear the great majority of the blame for his death. If he had just cooperated he would have driven off with a warning or, at worst, ended up being cited for the small quantity of pot he had in the car.

Apparently, per the DA's public statement, the sheriff's department had received a department memo about the prevalence of sovereign/militia types just before this incident, and the deputy was concerned Deven might be such a person, and might be calling for help on his phone (he had in fact called his girlfriend).

 

[JSt0rm]

The officer was legally justified in pulling the kid over. It is a violation of MI law to use brights within 500 feet of oncoming traffic - http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(hu...eg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-257-700 - so blinking the brights was a basis for pulling the kid over.

The kid then violated the law by refusing to show the officer his license. While an officer can't force you to produce ID if you are just walking down the street, he can if you are driving - that is one of the conditions of having a driving privilege. By refusing to provide it, the kid was obstructing justice and gave probable cause to arrest.

Because the kid did not cooperate when told to get out of the car, the officer was justified in using reasonable force to pull him out. Once he was pulled out, he continued to refuse to cooperate with verbal commands to put his hands behind his back. The use of the taser was consistent with the use of force continuum police are trained on, because the kid was not cooperating. As for the use of a gun, we don't have enough information to tell whether it was warranted, but the injuries to the officer suggest it may well have been.

I know you like playing armchair lawyer, but God help you if you train your children that it's acceptable to act this way toward the police. As far as I'm concerned this kid's parents are at least as culpable in his death as this police officer. It's one thing to know your rights (my mom, then a judge, taught me not to answer questions asked about anything I had done when I was about 12), but that doesn't mean being a condescending, obnoxious wiseass who refuses to comply with direct, lawful orders from a police officer. As far as I am concerned, when I am dealing with the police in a traffic-stop situation, my entire job is to make them feel comfortable and sympathetic toward me.

I too enjoy living in a society where the police are allowed to escalate anything into a death sentence.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I too enjoy living in a society where the police are allowed to escalate anything into a death sentence.

The police did not escalate this situation - an arrogant, misinformed young man did. He paid for his poor judgment with his life. I'm sorry Deven Guilford is dead but that doesn't mean it was anyone's fault but his own.

 

[JSt0rm]

The police did not escalate this situation - an arrogant, misinformed young man did. He paid for his poor judgment with his life. I'm sorry Deven Guilford is dead but that doesn't mean it was anyone's fault but his own.

But the police are trained to kill a person for refusing some simple command by escalating through 3 levels of violence.. Maybe it would be better to train them to talk to people and realize every time they encounter a human that human could be in a mind state that is not conducive to following authoritarian commands. AND being in that mind state shouldnt be a death sentence.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

But the police are trained to kill a person for refusing some simple command by escalating through 3 levels of violence.. Maybe it would be better to train them to talk to people and realize every time they encounter a human that human could be in a mind state that is not conducive to following authoritarian commands. AND being in that mind state shouldnt be a death sentence.

I don't disagree that it feels wrong that an encounter that began with a teenager blinking his brights ended in a death. That being said, this was not (apparently) a case of a mentally ill subject - it was a case of a subject who erroneously believed he could get away with an infinite amount of non-cooperation and even violence toward a police officer. The officer gave Deven Guilford many, many chances to comply. Ultimately Guilford made it impossible for this situation to end well.

 

[JSt0rm]

I don't disagree that it feels wrong that an encounter that began with a teenager blinking his brights ended in a death. That being said, this was not (apparently) a case of a mentally ill subject - it was a case of a subject who erroneously believed he could get away with an infinite amount of non-cooperation and even violence toward a police officer. The officer gave Deven Guilford many, many chances to comply. Ultimately Guilford made it impossible for this situation to end well.

Not everyone who refuses the cops is mentally ill. People should be able to have a bad day and not lose their life over it because a cop decided to escalate a situation. Sometimes people think "fuck it" when 2 hours later they would of been fine. A police officer should be able to deal with anyone without killing them unless they are being fired upon. If the kid refused to get out then he should call for backup.

Hell I bet he knew his lights were fucked up and left it like that on purpose to pull people over for flashing him and writing tickets for that obscure law.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

How do you know that they were screwed up?

4 different people flashing him. That's how we know. That has NEVER EVER happened to me. Not even 2 people have ever flashed me on the same night.

Since he had been told they were bright, he could have ignored the kid yeah.

Yup, that's the overwhelming consensus, yes. Ignore the kid. Kid lives.

Maybe he was bored, maybe he was looking to pull someone over, whatever the case it was a legal stop.

Sure, and forcing colonials to provide room and board to Redcoats was legal, too. They also raped the women of the house and it was considered legal. Resorting to "something is moral because it's legal" is the same thing as saying "i know it's immoral and wrong and repulsive but fuck you because the law says i can get away with it". It makes you sound like as much of an asshole as this cop.

I'd like to think if that was me I would have, but who can say when not in the same position?

I can. I can say with certainty that after the 2nd encounter with high beam flashing I would have stopped pulling people over and demanding papers please. 100% certainty. By then it only takes the mental capabilities of a child to determine that I need to fix my shit and I need to stop demanding "papers, please".

The kid just had to produce a license, insurance, and registration and would have been on his way. Either with or without a ticket. I think he gave warnings before? If that is the case, another warning. But he didn't, completely acted like a fool.

Wrong. The kid shouldn't have been in this position in the first place. The initiator of confrontation was the asshole cop. The escalator of violence was the asshole cop. The killer was the asshole cop. Had the cop not been an asshole and decided to ignore the fact that he is blinding people and had he correctly decided NOT to punish people for letting him know he is blinding them, the confrontation never would have happened.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

You are deluding yourself.

Also, you don't seem to know what a Darwin Award is.

I don't see any logical arguments against my positions in this quote. Would you care to expand upon your position? If I'm deluding myself, then certainly I need to become aware of how and why so I can cease to delude myself. Clearly, the how and why are missing from your post, so I am at a loss for how to improve myself.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

The idiot kid attacked the cop, the cop shot him in self defense. Case closed.

No. The cop attacked the kid first. With a Tazer. Tazers can be deadly.

Were the cop's headlights illegally bright? Maybe, but irrelevant.

Horseshit. Bright lights is the very reason the cop used to pull over the kid under threat of state sanctioned violence. Answer the question: are bright lights always wrong or never wrong? You would be extremely hypocritical to say that bright lights are OK if you're a cop but not OK otherwise. Which seems to be your position.

Even if he was running around with high-beams on, the correct response to that never includes resisting arrest and committing battery.

Unless the person (very briefly) running around with high beams is not a cop. Then, in that case, taze the fuck out of them. Pull them over under the threat of force. Taze them for not answering questions enough. Then kill them if they try to fight back.

You are presenting a very poor argument for why we should accept tyranny and why tyrants should receive absolute power.

 

[halik]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/17-year-boy-shot-killed-cops-flashing-headlights-flexing-rights/

This cop admits he has been flashed several times during the night due to his bright headlights and takes this stop to such extreme? He wants us to believe while tasing this kid on the ground the kid got the upper hand?

Of course the cop wasn't charged with a crime.

One sided story is one sided. Here's a life lesson for all the idiots in this thread: Don't assault anyone with a firearm. You won't win.

 

[cabri]

I too enjoy living in a society where the police are allowed to escalate anything into a death sentence.

The police did not escalate this situation - an arrogant, misinformed young man did. He paid for his poor judgment with his life. I'm sorry Deven Guilford is dead but that doesn't mean it was anyone's fault but his own.

We see this happen way to much; both w/ respect to the people challenging a LEO based on ego or even private citizens.

And then there are people that want the exonerate thees idiots for lack of common sense.

 

[cabri]

But the police are trained to kill a person for refusing some simple command by escalating through 3 levels of violence.. Maybe it would be better to train them to talk to people and realize every time they encounter a human that human could be in a mind state that is not conducive to following authoritarian commands. AND being in that mind state shouldnt be a death sentence.

Yet police are also a target for assholes that think that they do not have to obey the law.

LEOs have recently been killed for just being at a location.

LEO are not trained to kill a person for refusing. They are trained to protect themselves and the public.

People with your attitude is what increases the risk and death count on both sides of the ledger

 

[cabri]

Not everyone who refuses the cops is mentally ill. People should be able to have a bad day and not lose their life over it because a cop decided to escalate a situation. Sometimes people think "fuck it" when 2 hours later they would of been fine. A police officer should be able to deal with anyone without killing them unless they are being fired upon. If the kid refused to get out then he should call for backup.

Hell I bet he knew his lights were fucked up and left it like that on purpose to pull people over for flashing him and writing tickets for that obscure law.

The kids escalated the situation, not the cop. By refusing a lawful request and then challenging the cop physically. At that point; he does not have the opportunity to call for backup.

Or do you feel that any interaction with the police should require a second officer. Are you willing to foot that bill?

 

[Nashemon]

I have to state you have no fucking clue!

1) It has already been ruled by SCOTUS that everyone has the right to defend themselves even from police officers if the police officers are using force without just cause.

2) The officer had zero justification in pulling the teen over and even less in using force to pull him out of his car.

3) Since the officer was NOT justified in his initial use of force against the teen, the teen has every right to defend himself. The officer in most states would be giving up that right unless the officer is attempting to disengage after starting the fight. Because in this scenario the officer most certainly did start an unjustified fight by his use of force and if he was remaining as a combatant he would have zero rights for self defense.


Too bad most of what happened in regards to actual shooting happened off camera so the officer can say whatever the hell they want and get away with it. Complete bullshit in this case. The police have ZERO authority to instigate use of force if they have zero probable cause of any crime.

Even if that's true, that is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever read, and spreading it should be considered gross negligence. Resisting arrest, even if unfounded, is the number one reason sited for why a situation was escalated and the perpetrator was arrested/beaten/shot/killed. Charging someone with resisting arrest justifies everything for the officers in the eye of the law, and to tell people that it's ok to resist arrest if you haven't committed a crime is asking people to get themselves into a situation where they can be shot and killed by said officer. Sounds to me that whoever informed you of that has some backwards agenda where they're trying to troll people into getting themselves shot by a cop so our nation can fast-track gun control or something.

 

[cabri]

Even if that's true, that is the biggest load of horseshit I've ever read, and spreading it should be considered gross negligence. Resisting arrest, even if unfounded, is the number one reason sited for why a situation was escalated and the perpetrator was arrested/beaten/shot/killed. Charging someone with resisting arrest justifies everything for the officers in the eye of the law, and to tell people that it's ok to resist arrest if you haven't committed a crime is asking people to get themselves into a situation where they can be shot and killed by said officer. Sounds to me that whoever informed you of that has some backwards agenda where they're trying to troll people into getting themselves shot by a cop so our nation can fast-track gun control or something.

Where is the evidence as to the type of resistance that was done.
The kid escalated the issue; we have no idea how much.

All we know is the end result; the injuries to the LEO show that kids was not peaceably resisting.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I have no idea what you're talking about. This thread is not related to that at all. At least try to stay on topic.

Here, let me help you:

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

Please explain why this white man wasn't immediately shot and killed. You always defend cops killing mainly minorities, go ahead please explain why the cops didn't have shot this man.

Because he was white? He was a cop? Hmmmm...still no comment?