Flash a cop because his lights are bright and die

[bshole]

I don't know on this one. The cop wasn't on some power trip. He tried to do his job without violence. When that failed he tried to use as little violence as possible.

^^^^^^^^^^^^ FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


If he wasn't on a power trip, why the fuck did he pull the kid over in the first place? That was completely illegitamite. If that is what our police officers are spending their time doing, WE HAVE TOO MANY OF THEM. Jesus Christ, this cop really couldn't find anything productive to do? His actions in pulling cars over that night IN NO WAY COULD HAVE IMPROVED public safety. He was the idiot endangering safety by driving around with lights that blinded oncoming vehicles. Irony of irony is that a cop who endangers other drivers with his lights then fucks around with the people who did the right thing by flashing him..... thus DISCOURAGING behaviour which improves traffic safety.

This cop has SHIT negotiation skills, SHIT judgement and a TYPE A personality. He has no business whatsoever dealing with the public at large. We need more Andy Griffiths and fewer Rambos.

 

[rudeguy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


If he wasn't on a power trip, why the fuck did he pull the kid over in the first place? That was completely illegitamite. If that is what our police officers are spending their time doing, WE HAVE TOO MANY OF THEM. Jesus Christ, this cop really couldn't find anything productive to do? His actions in pulling cars over that night IN NO WAY COULD HAVE IMPROVED public safety. He was the idiot endangering safety by driving around with lights that blinded oncoming vehicles. Irony of irony is that a cop who endangers other drivers with his lights then fucks around with the people who did the right thing by flashing him..... thus DISCOURAGING behaviour which improves traffic safety.

You never disappoint with your ignorance.

Pulling someone over for breaking the law is a power trip? Its his job you blithering moron.

 

[bradley]

Every single infraction against this driver was civil (not criminal) in matter and a misdemeanor. At best, the driver would have received a bench appearance ticket.

The officer also never followed proper procedure in informing the driver he was under arrest and instead forcefully placed him under custody. I also found the tazing to be excessive.

If I was the officer, I would have waited for backup. Instead he escalated a simple stop over at best a misdemeanor into a homicide.

This officer also had an unrealistic expectation of being above the law, but that's more endemic to police and their respective departments. How many people was he going to give tickets before finally addressing the concerns of these citizens?

Upon the first incident of a driver complaining, I would have called into the sheriff's office about the issuing of a new vehicle. I also would have placed a moratorium on any tickets until the problem was addressed. But again, America is a cowboy culture with its central focus on the ego instead of basic common sense and reason. The fucking end.

 

[bshole]

Pulling someone over for breaking the law is a power trip?.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that the kid did anything illegal (except the self-serving word of a cop who killed that kid).

The cop was blinding oncoming traffic. The cop KNEW that he was blinding oncoming traffic (by his own statements). He was by far the biggest hazard on the road that night. WHY THE FUCK DIDN"T HE ARREST HIMSELF FOR BREAKING THE LAW?!

Do you get the concept that the primary purpose of law enforcement is to promote public safety, not endanger it?

 

[rudeguy]

Every single infraction against this driver was civil (not criminal) in matter and a misdemeanor. At best, the driver would have received a bench appearance ticket.

The officer also never followed proper procedure in informing the driver he was under arrest and instead forcefully placed him under custody. I also found the tazing to be excessive.

If I was the officer, I would have waited for backup. Instead he escalated a simple stop over at best a misdemeanor into a homicide.

This officer also had an unrealistic expectation of being above the law, but that's more endemic to police and their respective departments. How many people was he going to give tickets before finally addressing the concerns of these citizens?

Upon the first incident of a driver complaining, I would have called into the sheriff's office about the issuing of a new vehicle. I also would have placed a moratorium on any tickets until the problem was addressed. But again, America is a cowboy culture with its central focus on the ego instead of basic common sense and reason. The fucking end.

Except driving with no ops is a crime in Michigan punishable by 93 days in jail.


As soon as the kid said he didn't have his license on him, he was arrestable. His attitude gave the cop no reason to cut him a break. Break the law, then be a dick, you go to jail.

 

[rudeguy]

You are assuming facts not in evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that the kid did anything illegal (except the self-serving word of a cop who killed that kid).

The cop was blinding oncoming traffic. The cop KNEW that he was blinding oncoming traffic (by his own statements). He was by far the biggest hazard on the road that night. WHY THE FUCK DIDN"T HE ARREST HIMSELF FOR BREAKING THE LAW?!

Do you get the concept that the primary purpose of law enforcement is to promote public safety, not endanger it?

The kid broke a traffic law making him eligible to be pulled over. He didn't have his license on him which made him eligible for arrest. He was a dick to the cop which made him eligible to be treated like a dick.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I guess Ackmed only defends cops killing kids and minorities when they don't have real weapons. White cops that have real handguns get special privilege not to be shot and killed. No surprise there.

 

[bradley]

Except driving with no ops is a crime in Michigan punishable by 93 days in jail.


As soon as the kid said he didn't have his license on him, he was arrestable. His attitude gave the cop no reason to cut him a break. Break the law, then be a dick, you go to jail.

You are talking about an unlicensed driver or one with an invalid or suspended license. This was a licensed driver travelling from a church basketball game in his girlfriend's car who simply left his wallet behind.

 

[rudeguy]

You are talking about an unlicensed driver or one with an invalid or suspended license. This was a licensed driver travelling from a church basketball game in his girlfriend's car who simply left his wallet behind.

No I'm not.

Please educate yourself a little. Search Google for "no ops on person Michigan" then come back. I promise I won't beat you up. All states have different laws.

Just please do a quick Google then report back.

 

[lotus503]

^ This.
You don't get to decide what constitutes a good enough reason to get yourself pulled over, and then attack cops because you don't agree with the reason. That's not how it works. Too bad the kid is dead, but he alone is 100% responsible for his own actions, and his own demise.

Probable cause, and who knows if the kid attacked him or not the body cam shut off.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

Reading the story and other sources said that pulling over there for "flashing" brights is not a legal justification to be legally pulled over. Continuous USE of the high beams is illegal and that is the case in most states.

Flashing of brights has ALSO been deemed by SCOTUS as 1st amendment protected speech. It is LEGAL in all 50 states. So the officer had zero justification for the initial stop if the stop was for flashing head lights. I thought you would know that one Mr Lawyer. On top of that, willful speech that may even be disruptive to an officer is also protected speech according to Houston v. Hill.

So the chain of events are that the teen had protected speech to flash his headlights at the officer. The officer had no justification to pull him over if the officer was trying to justifiy the stop solely based upon the headlight flashing. Without a justified stop the officer has no right to ask for the teen to present ID because the stop was not justified in the first place. Which means there was no justification to ask the teen to exit his vehicle nor use force to do so. Using of such force without justification gives the teen every right to defend himself against such force as it has been defended time and again by the courts.

Personally though I would be rather tried by 12 then carried by 6 either. I think the officer broke the law here in this situation based on the facts as reported.

 

[lotus503]

Wrong.



Wrong.

what was the probable cause for the traffic stop?

if that doesn't exist he has no right to pull him over or ask for documentation.

disregard I saw DVC's response on the flashing of headlights. that's the probable cause.

 

[rudeguy]

Reading the story and other sources said that pulling over there for "flashing" brights is not a legal justification to be legally pulled over. Continuous USE of the high beams is illegal and that is the case in most states.

Flashing of brights has ALSO been deemed by SCOTUS as 1st amendment protected speech. It is LEGAL in all 50 states. So the officer had zero justification for the initial stop if the stop was for flashing head lights. I thought you would know that one Mr Lawyer. On top of that, willful speech that may even be disruptive to an officer is also protected speech according to Houston v. Hill.

link?

 

[cabri]

Reading the story and other sources said that pulling over there for "flashing" brights is not a legal justification to be legally pulled over. Continuous USE of the high beams is illegal and that is the case in most states.

Flashing of brights has ALSO been deemed by SCOTUS as 1st amendment protected speech. It is LEGAL in all 50 states. So the officer had zero justification for the initial stop if the stop was for flashing head lights. I thought you would know that one Mr Lawyer. On top of that, willful speech that may even be disruptive to an officer is also protected speech according to Houston v. Hill.

Until the law is removed within Michigan, it is still the law. the law can be challenged and deemed invalid based on the SCOTUS ruling.

Let the court decide, not a computer screen lawyer wanta-be.

 

[HumblePie]

link?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=headlight+flashing+protected+speech

 

[bradley]

No I'm not.

Please educate yourself a little. Search Google for "no ops on person Michigan" then come back. I promise I won't beat you up. All states have different laws.

Just please do a quick Google then report back.

I did. I even read incidents in Michigan where officers were kind enough to allow relatives or friends retrieve the license and bring it to the incident. 🙂

Deven Guilford would have received a bench appearance ticket and been given a chance to present a *valid* driver's or operators license. Then he would have received a citation in the mail to appear in court. The charges would have been dropped and plead down to a civil infraction. The no ops charge is reserved for drivers who have never possessed a valid license... no jail time, no fine. The officer even states the charge was a misdemeanor in the video.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=headlight+flashing+protected+speech

Yep, I even read this link recently. The prosecuting attorney really dropped the ball on this case.

And let me reiterate from my previous post, Eaton County's own Undersheriff Jeffrey Cook has stated that officers are indeed required to give the badge number and supervisor's name if asked. So the fundamental fact that the Eaton County DA disagrees enough to write in his official statement "There is no legal requirement of a police officer to provide his or her badge number to the driver" calls a significant portion of his judgment into question. Therefore I don't blame Deven for his apprehension when the officer refused to cooperate.

 

[JSt0rm]

So the kid had 10 seconds to beat on the cop between him moving forqward and the cop murdering him. I see those pictures and I wonder how it would be possible for him to do that much damage to the cops face in that amount of time. Surely the kid would have damage to his hands? I bet they never looked.

 

[rudeguy]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=headlight+flashing+protected+speech

I did google it. I could have sworn it was a supreme court case but I couldn't find the decision. I found a federal court saying that flashing lights to warn of cops was free speech but nothing from the supreme court and nothing on just flashing lights (not warning fo cops).

 

[rudeguy]

I did. I even read incidents in Michigan where officers were kind enough to allow relatives or friends retrieve the license and bring it to the incident. 🙂

But the kid decided to be a dick. There is zero reason to cut someone a break if they are being a dick.

Deven Guilford would have received a bench appearance ticket and been given a chance to present a *valid* driver's or operators license. Then he would have received a citation in the mail to appear in court. The charges would have been dropped and plead down to a civil infraction. The no ops charge is reserved for drivers who have never possessed a valid license... no jail time, no fine. The officer even states the charge was a misdemeanor in the video.

Right. The kid could have been cited, released and on his way. But he chose to be a dick.

Yep, I even read this link recently. The prosecuting attorney really dropped the ball on this case.

And let me reiterate from my previous post, Eaton County's own Undersheriff Jeffrey Cook has stated that officers are indeed required to give the badge number and supervisor's name if asked. So the fundamental fact that the Eaton County DA disagrees enough to write in his official statement "There is no legal requirement of a police officer to provide his or her badge number to the driver" calls a significant portion of his judgment into question. Therefore I don't blame Deven for his apprehension when the officer refused to cooperate.

The kid asked to SEE his badge number. He wanted the cop to lean in so he could record it on his phone. There is no law that says a cop has to lean in so a kid who is high on pot can record him on his phone. When the cop tried to give his badge number, the kid talked over the cop to his phone recording.


You've moved your goalposts. I'll restate what I said:

The cop was justified in pulling the kid over.
The cop had reason to arrest the kid.
The cop had reason to use less than lethal force.
The cop ran out of options because the kid was a dick, resisted lawful orders, then resisted arrest.

 

[JSt0rm]

So I just read the autopsy. No mention of any hand damage yet he did all that damage to the officer in 14 seconds? The kid would of had a bright future in the ufc with those iron hands. I smell fucking bullshit.

 

[bradley]

The kid asked to SEE his badge number. He wanted the cop to lean in so he could record it on his phone. There is no law that says a cop has to lean in so a kid who is high on pot can record him on his phone. When the cop tried to give his badge number, the kid talked over the cop to his phone recording.


You've moved your goalposts. I'll restate what I said:

The cop was justified in pulling the kid over.
The cop had reason to arrest the kid.
The cop had reason to use less than lethal force.
The cop ran out of options because the kid was a dick, resisted lawful orders, then resisted arrest.

Or it's a possibility I am more informed on this case and trying to add relevant facts. As part of these facts, I have including Undersheriff Jeffery Cook's statements (Sgt. Frost's superior) regarding how officers under him are required to present badge numbers as requested. The fact that the officer ignored proper procedure is indeed very relevant.

The Michigan ALCU even chimed in stating the officer should have given his badge number as it was in his own best interests in order to combat negative public perception.

So I just read the autopsy. No mention of any hand damage yet he did all that damage to the officer in 14 seconds? The kid would of had a bright future in the ufc with those iron hands. I smell fucking bullshit.

Interesting. Do you have a link? Yeah, I just watched/listened to the end of the video/audio several more times. I call bullshit too. I'm going to have to see substantial proof to the contrary. For the record, the officer also clearly and significantly exaggerated his perceived injuries. The information is part of the public record and official statements. I guess Sgt. Frost physically overestimated the amount of injury possible with one's own fists.

or you could be moving the goal posts.


Lets start fresh:

What should the cop have done? Please be specific.

Come back to me when you stop disregarding relevant facts.

 

[rudeguy]

Or it's a possibility I am more informed on this case and trying to add relevant facts. As part of these facts, I have including Undersheriff Jeffery Cook's statements (Sgt. Frost's superior) regarding how officers under him are required to present badge numbers as requested. The fact that the officer ignored proper procedure is indeed very relevant.

The Michigan ALCU even chimed in stating the officer should have given his badge number as it was in his own best interests in order to combat negative public perception.



Interesting. Do you have a link? Yeah, I just watched/listened to the end of the video/audio several more times. I call bullshit too. I'm going to have to see substantial proof to the contrary. For the record, the officer also clearly and significantly exaggerated his perceived injuries. The information is part of the public record and official statements. I guess it's physically impossible to beat yourself up with your own fists.

or you could be moving the goal posts.


Lets start fresh:

What should the cop have done? Please be specific.

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.eatoncounty.org/images/Departments/Prosecuting%20Attorney/Press_Releases/Guilford_Press_Release.pdf

Not one mention of a hand injury in the report.

Deven had other external injuries consistent with the reported physical altercation and Taser deployment. At the time of the autopsy, both Taser prongs had perforated the back of his t- shirt and one prong was still embedded in his skin. Abrasions to 5 The 12th rib is the lowest rib. 6 This exit wound is clearly seen in autopsy photos, and is the only pre- autopsy wound to Deven Guilford' s back. 10 his right forehead, right chin and right chest, right side torso and left forearm were seen

sorry for the format.

Left forearm is as close as we get to a hand injury. You know why ufc fighters wear gloves? Its not to soften the blow its to make sure they dont break their hands.

 

[HumblePie]

I did google it. I could have sworn it was a supreme court case but I couldn't find the decision. I found a federal court saying that flashing lights to warn of cops was free speech but nothing from the supreme court and nothing on just flashing lights (not warning fo cops).

It was a remanded case by the federal district court of appeals http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/michaelelli2.pdf

I thought it made it up to SCOTUS, but I was incorrect as well. I just remember hearing about it a few years ago on NPR and the case reaching as high as it did. And the judgement is that it basically affects all 50 states.

It has been taken several times to various Circuit appeals courts and they all ruled in favor of free speech as the links from google and the news sites all state.

 

[rudeguy]

http://www.eatoncounty.org/images/Departments/Prosecuting%20Attorney/Press_Releases/Guilford_Press_Release.pdf

Not one mention of a hand injury in the report.

sorry for the format.

Left forearm is as close as we get to a hand injury. You know why ufc fighters wear gloves? Its not to soften the blow its to make sure they dont break their hands.

Deven had other external injuries consistent with the reported physical altercation and Taser deployment. At the time of the autopsy, both Taser prongs had perforated the back of his t- shirt and one prong was still embedded in his skin. Abrasions to 5 The 12th rib is the lowest rib. 6 This exit wound is clearly seen in autopsy photos, and is the only pre- autopsy wound to Deven Guilford' s back. 10 his right forehead, right chin and right chest, right side torso and left forearm were seen








YW