Flash a cop because his lights are bright and die

[JSt0rm]

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

Thanks for fixing my quote. No idea why it went nuts and wasnt about to spend time fixing it.

 

[rudeguy]

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.

I'm with you on this 100%. I thought the exact same thing. But when I started reading, its totally different.

I wonder if one of our resident scum bag lawyers can help?

 

[HumblePie]

This whole incident hinges on the initial justification for the pull over. Since flashing high beams is protected free speech the officer had no cause for pulling the teen over and thus no cause for anything else he did later as a result. The DA dropped the ball on this and the cop should be rotting away in prison awaiting his murder trial.

 

[rudeguy]

Thanks for fixing my quote. No idea why it went nuts and wasnt about to spend time fixing it.

edit your first post so I can edit mine


I had the same time of problems when I do the NFL threads. Copy and paste just goes stupid sometimes.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm with you on this 100%. I thought the exact same thing. But when I started reading, its totally different.

I wonder if one of our resident scum bag lawyers can help?

The ruling is if it makes it to the courts right below SCOTUS, all the courts below are in agreement, and SCOTUS remands any decision back to the lower courts, it is defacto that their ruling stands as it would as if SCOTUS had ruled on it.

 

[cabri]

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.

District courts decisions apply to that district only. Missouri does not cover Michigan. Here is only a geographical section of Missouri. Follow the link to see the map

The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - 6th district is what covers Michigan and does not cover Missouri

Jurisdiction - Eastern District Court - Missouri

Territorial Jurisdiction

The Court of Appeals may issue and determine original remedial writs and has general appellate jurisdiction in all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Missouri Supreme Court. Cases that are not within the Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction may be transferred from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court when it is determined that a case involves an important issue that should be decided by the Supreme Court. The Court's territorial jurisdiction is listed below.

Eastern District Jurisdiction Audrain County
Cape Girardeau County
Clark County
Franklin County
Gasconade County
Jefferson County
Knox County
Lewis County
Lincoln County
Madison County
Marion County
Monroe County
Montgomery County
Osage County
Perry County
Pike County
Ralls County
St. Charles County
St. Francois County
Ste. Genevieve County
St. Louis (City)
St. Louis County
Scotland County
Shelby County
Warren County
Washington County

If you want 50 states, it has to come from SCOTUS or Congress

 

[cabri]

The ruling is if it makes it to the courts right below SCOTUS, all the courts below are in agreement, and SCOTUS remands any decision back to the lower courts, it is defacto that their ruling stands as it would as if SCOTUS had ruled on it.

The Eastern District is not directly below SCOTUS

 

[bradley]

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.

Oh, I see now; you were referring to the prosecuting attorney's autopsy evaluation and synopsis. I though you meant the actual copy of the autopsy itself was released.

I too found it curious that there was lack of mention of Deven's right and left hands, except to state that a bullet shattered the right wrist. So you make a really interesting and valid point.

Deven's lack of hand bruising, cuts or lacerations isn't consistent with Sgt. Frost's injuries. Those autopsy photos would be very interesting indeed.

 

[rudeguy]

The ruling is if it makes it to the courts right below SCOTUS, all the courts below are in agreement, and SCOTUS remands any decision back to the lower courts, it is defacto that their ruling stands as it would as if SCOTUS had ruled on it.

when I read the ruling, I read that flashing your lights to warn of police was protected. Not flashing your lights in general.

I don't think this kid was flashing the cop to warn of cops. Or maybe the pot head was. I don't know.

 

[HumblePie]

The Eastern District is not directly below SCOTUS

I believe it went up to the 8th which remanded the eastern and left in place the permanent injunction against the law as it was in Missouri.

 

[HumblePie]

when I read the ruling, I read that flashing your lights to warn of police was protected. Not flashing your lights in general.

I don't think this kid was flashing the cop to warn of cops. Or maybe the pot head was. I don't know.

He was flashing to warn a driver their high beams may have been on.

People flash for 2 things that I know of. Cops ahead or your high beams are on or lights aligned too high.

The teen specifically stated to the officer why he was flashing his beams at him, which was his only way to communicate on the road at the time for him to the officer before being pulled over.

 

[HumblePie]

District courts decisions apply to that district only. Missouri does not cover Michigan. Here is only a geographical section of Missouri. Follow the link to see the map

The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals - 6th district is what covers Michigan and does not cover Missouri

Jurisdiction - Eastern District Court - Missouri


If you want 50 states, it has to come from SCOTUS or Congress

SCOTUS can remand a ruling from a lower court and it's the same thing. It only matters if there is conflicting rulings from the various circuit courts like there was with the gay marriage. Then SCOTUS tends to listen to cases like that and hand out specific rulings.

 

[rudeguy]

He was flashing to warn a driver their high beams may have been on.

People flash for 2 things that I know of. Cops ahead or your high beams are on or lights aligned too high.

The teen specifically stated to the officer why he was flashing his beams at him, which was his only way to communicate on the road at the time for him to the officer before being pulled over.

Again I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't know:

Does the court ruling say that flashing your lights is legal or that flashing your lights to warn of cops is legal?

 

[HumblePie]

Again I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't know:

Does the court ruling say that flashing your lights is legal or that flashing your lights to warn of cops is legal?

There have been cases with both. In every case that has been tried that I can find with a cursory check it is that flashing is a form of communication and this a form of protected speech by the US Constitution.

Now flashing just to flash is not, but flashing to give a signal to another drive to either check their lights or look out for cops ahead has always been deemed speech by the courts when those rulings took place.

At night drivers flash other drivers to inform them of brights being on or their lights are aimed too high. During the day it's been to inform a person of a speed trap ahead. Anything else for flashing lights would be too hard to convey otherwise.

 

[bradley]

Very informative Humblepie...

The more I read, the more this appears to be a major miscarriage of justice. Glad to see this story is not dying and even has started to receive some slight national exposure. I just hope more come forward to condemn the prosecuting attorney and sheriff's office.

Councilman's Online Remarks About an Officer Involved Shooting Strike A Nerve
http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/309651711.html

A Charlotte City Councilman took to our Facebook page to express his anger that Eaton County Sgt. Jonathan Frost won't be charged with killing Deven Guilford during a traffic stop.

Councilman Brad Johnston directed his Facebook comments to Sgt. Frost and Eaton County Sheriff Tom Reich.

He says, "I don't feel safe knowing our deputies have murderers amongst their ranks;" adding, "Both of you deserve to be in prison for murder 1st degree;" and he ends with, "I feel real safe with a killer with a badge running around."

"This crossed the line. This is not even like just merely unprofessional, this is highly inappropriate comments for one elected official to make about another," said retired Lansing Police Sergeant Mary Stevens.

She said he put the City of Charlotte in a bad situation.

Stevens explained, "I believe in freedom of speech. And, if he had simply stated his opinion about the prosecutor's decision, then I wouldn't have cared, but he went beyond that and turned it into an attack."

She's calling for Councilman Johnston to step down.

"If he chooses not to do that, then I certainly would hope that the citizens of Charlotte would keep this in mind and vote accordingly in the next election, because his term's up in November," Stevens said.

Charlotte Mayor Carrie Burch told News Ten she and the City Manager have received a number of complaints about the posts, but there's nothing she can do.

"No, he really didn't break any sort of rules or anything of Council conduct because it was made outside of Chambers and he is covered under the first amendment," Mayor Burch explained.

But, she wishes he would've done it differently.

"I hope that Brad kind of steps up and does what's right and kind of addresses the issues however he sees fit," Mayor Burch said. "I think there would've been a better way for him to voice his concerns as a Council Member. I think he should've chosen better words."

And, the Mayor wants to remind the City that Councilman Johnston's opinion is his opinion.

The Councilman did send News Ten a statement, it reads: "I would like to apologize to my family, friends, and colleagues for any trouble my emotionally charged and crass statements I made on social media. It was not my intention. I couldn't imagine they would result in a local news story. The comments I made were those of a person with personal ties the teens family and as a parent. I have a great deal of respect for those who risk there lives for our safety. I am especially proud of our city police force. This was a tragedy for everyone and will leave lasting scars for all involved. God bless and best wishes to all ."

 

[bshole]

or you could be moving the goal posts.

Lets start fresh:

What should the cop have done? Please be specific.

Well a cop that was a decent human being (not a raging douche) who actually gave a FUCK about public safety would have taken his car in IMMEDIATELY and got it fixed. He would not have continued to pull over drivers who were trying to warn him of his unsafe lights.

About four months ago, Guilford thought Frost was driving with his high beams on, so he flashed his own lights. Frost has said he was not using his high beams, but was driving a new police car that apparently had unusually bright headlights. He even told Guilford that he had previously pulled over other drivers for flashing their brights at him — all of whom had mistakenly thought he was using his high beams — and let them off with warnings. This would seem to indicate that Frost was driving with headlights that other drivers found distracting and potentially dangerous. Yet instead of looking into the matter, he continued to pull people over, essentially for the crime of being distracted by his lights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...gh-beams-ends-with-michigan-cop-killing-teen/

 

[JSt0rm]

Well a cop that was a decent human being (not a raging douche) who actually gave a FUCK about public safety would have taken his car in and got it fixed. He would not have continued to pull over drivers who were trying to warn him of his unsafe lights.

I bet he found it a easy way to pull people over. I bet he did keep his brights on for that very reason. A shit town like that would have a quota for him.

 

[TheSlamma]

This whole incident hinges on the initial justification for the pull over. Since flashing high beams is protected free speech the officer had no cause for pulling the teen over and thus no cause for anything else he did later as a result. The DA dropped the ball on this and the cop should be rotting away in prison awaiting his murder trial.

None of the cop sympathizers seem to grasp this notion at all. They are fine with pulling people over at the drop of a hat or even full blown entrapment then going lethal force after the person is dumbstruck by their constitutional rights being taken away.

 

[railer]

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.

This was all covered a week ago. These people are like 9/11 conspiracy nutters - they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. No point in continuing this conversation really.

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.

Did that autopsy happen to mention whether this kid was shot in the front, as if he was attacking the officer, or the back, as if he was running away from that deranged homicidal serial killing maniac cop? I wonder....

 

[TheSlamma]

You never disappoint with your ignorance.

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

Flashing your headlights as a courtesy to let another person know they have their brights on is not a crime. That cop had no idea the kid didn't have his license on him at that point.

Mentions specific Michigan law, flashing is not illegal, leaving your brights on is. The cop knew his lights were too bright, he should have been ticketed.
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=32217

“The Michigan Vehicle Code requires head lamps to emit a white light, with "high-beams" of intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 350 feet ahead, and low-beams of intensity to reveal persons and vehicles at a distance of at least 100 feet ahead.

Didn't matter if it was not on "brights" if they were that intense that he had 3 other people flash him he was already breaking the law.


As someone stated flashing is also 1st amendment.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...flash-headlights-warn-about-cops-ahead-n23846

 

[JSt0rm]

This was all covered a week ago. These people are like 9/11 conspiracy nutters - they never let the facts get in the way of a good story. No point in continuing this conversation really.



Did that autopsy happen to mention whether this kid was shot in the front, as if he was attacking the officer, or the back, as if he was running away from that deranged homicidal serial killing maniac cop? I wonder....

Yeah it did say he was shot in the front. The cop probably fell down the ravine and that made him pissed off and the witness to such a mistake had to die. But first rip the cables out of your body camera.

 

[Subyman]

Yeah it did say he was shot in the front. The cop probably fell down the ravine and that made him pissed off and the witness to such a mistake had to die. But first rip the cables out of your body camera.

Yup, kick the phone out of the kid's hand, taze the shit out of him while he is belly-first on the ground, rip body cam off, and then shoot him as the kid jumps up from 50,000V coursing through his body.

Want to reduce the population instantly? Have cops "legally" escalate every stop to a death and you'd have thousands die every day.

 

[TheSlamma]

That kid was a string bean, that cop could have flipped him over one handed and then put the bullets into him. I just don't see that teen getting tazed and then being able to flip over from his stomach and putting the hurt on that cop.

Cops are taught how to restrain people. This is how it's done: https://youtu.be/zoy1lQxHINs?t=544
That guy was also jacked up on drugs.

 

[Ichinisan]

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.



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.

In the video, the officer said he would tell the kid his badge number, but stated he did not have to show his badge. The kid kept interrupting him, but this was clear to me.

 

[smitbret]

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

The cop was being a dick and you are trying to cut him a break.