Shock Video: Teen Boy Shot and Killed by Cop for Flashing Headlights and Flexing Rights

Been out of the loop on this thread for a couple if days and haven't read past page 6 or so. Wondering if this has been addressed yet.

From non ATS sources I've read that the cop stated the shooting occurred because the kid got up after the tasering and tackled the cop and proceeded to "ground and pound" his face.

This part is a possibility.

Here's the part that doesn't jive with my experiences.

While getting pummeled in the face, while laying on his back fully mounted by assailent, the cop was able to get to his hip holstered sidearm???? Is this cop not a human, he got tenticals for arms. Thats not physically possible. the kids legs would be in the way.

Then he goes on to say he tries to shoot the kid in the chest but the gun jammed or was pushed out of battery. (Slide pushed back slightly) so he racked a new round. That takes two hands. How'd the other hand get to his gun while having to get past two flailing arms of the assailant. How'd he perform the recharging of the slide while getting, in his words, pummeled so bad he was afraid of loosing conciousness. Last time i checked unless you are really, really bad ass you can't think straight nor perform any such maneuver while getting repeatedly pummeled in the face. See its a neurological thing. When you get punched in the head its neurologically disruptive in the sense that your brain stops what it was thinking and proceeds to process this very bad incoming signal. Whatever you were trying to do a second before you arent anymore. Your brain has literally terminated that thought process to deal with the incoming stimuli of being punched in the face. You will not be capable of performing complex processes while your head is being treated like a speed bag.

Then they go on to show his face and there are no contusions. No swelling from cracked zygomats. No bruising, nothing just some trickles of blood. Most likely coming from what appears to be a laceration on his nose. Now if a punch had caused a laceration to the bridge of the nose the nose would have been busted too. But nope this cops got a super nose or something. That cop was not repeatedly pummeled in the face.
Plus wheres all the blood? If i shot somebody 7 times who was essentially laying on top of me I'd look like I had just bathed on blood. Why no blood everywhere?

So something is shady with the end of the cops testimonial. It jyst doesnt add up too much in my opinion. Just my opinion though. But it looks like there is some degree of dishonesty in the cops report or something. Like he's covering up for bad judgenent or spazzed and hosed the kid and is trying to cover that part up.

trying to misrepresent material facts in a police report to cover police ineptitude is a systematic, common and protected practice among most American LEOs. I've literally seen them do it with my own eyes write complete lies on reports to get an incident to match their desired official story. Ever seen a police detective threaten to arrest any witnesses who refused to make a fraudulent statement that exonerated gross police misconduct in a nearly fatal accident to cover the police actions. Ever seen that same police detective threaten to arrest the news for interviewing the witnesses because the witnesses (200 people in this one incident) story doesn't cooborate with the offending police officer. I have.

Yes Michigan February at night with a truck barreling at you at 55mph(actually 110) with lights to bright to even see past. as I am being blinded I'll figure out not only its make and model but whether its a cop car even if it has low profile lights which new ones do or the lights are inside the truck. All the while trying to watch out for deer, snow, and ice. As I will repeat again the law is not enforced, its like jwalking Or going 2 mph over.
I live 10 minutes from the incident I know the typical enforcement of laws and what they are after
The alternative? Change the lights or their angle. Its scary as heckl in fall at night with those lights coming at you, you can't see anything else, just waiting for a deer to cross in between us.

originally posted by: bastion

Why not? He was only explaining why he flashed his lights.

Yes, by saying "no, you DID have your brights on... yes you did... no, you turned them off after you turned around... well, I KNOW..." He could have simply said "my mistake, sir."

The police officer was acting illegally, he didn't have to do anything the cop was saying and had every right to explain his actions to the officer. Is he not allowed to know the reason for being pulled? The victim is obviously in a panic which the cop tries to use to his advantage.

How do you have such a completely unrealistic take from the same video that I watched?

1) The officer was not acting illegally. If a police officer pulls you over for ANY reason, you are required to provide your driver's license and proof of insurance. Period.

2) The officer told him why he was pulled over as soon as he walked up.

3) The "victim" is not in a panic, he's being a smartassed brat and trying to mimic what he's seen on YouTube videos. The officer tells him "it's a misdemeanor to not provide your driver's license in a traffic stop" but the kid changes his story multiple times about the license. He then tells the officer "you don't need to see it..." which is the WRONG answer. People who hide their identity during a traffic stop are usually either committing a crime or have a warrant out and those people tend to do bad things to avoid going to jail. The officer is calm the entire time until the kid starts fiddling in his lap and says a final time "you don't need to see my license" and at that point, the officer opens the door to detain him.

From a UK/EU perspective I don't see a patient cop in the slightest. I see one who's doing everything he can to goad people into committing an offence and one who's out creating crimes to duke the stats, not one that's patient or attempting to diffuse the situation.

Really? The officer talked to this kid for 5 minutes and calmly explained to him that he has to see his driver's license. He then calmly explained that it's a crime to not provide the license. He then calmly explained that the kid is being detained. Every time, he's met with more nonsense from the kid.

Surely a patient or professional cop would at least give their badge number or say 'look it's night time and I can tell you're a bit high, now is not a good time to be arguing with a police officer. No one drops off their mate at church at this time of night - if you're going to try and fob me off, at least have the respect to make up a half decent story - now please, hand over your papers' or something to that effect.

Watch the video again. While he was trying to give his badge number, the kid kept interrupting him. The officer avoided arguing with the kid multiple times and said simply "Driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration, please." If that's not patience and professionalism, I don't know what to tell you.

The whole fleeing mentality makes no sense this side of the pond as the 'crime' of flicking your headlights isn't worth the petrol money of a chase - let alone risking others' lives for one. They can always track him down later but because the cop had such a bruised ego he started trying to get into the car knowing the victim was already in a flap.

If he fled the scene, obviously he committed a crime worse than flicking headlights or he had warrants that he was avoiding. Yet again, the officer knew NOTHING about this individual when he made the stop.

How could they track him down later with no driver's license info? The license plate information does them no good because they don't know if the plate info matches the driver info. Real life doesn't work like the movies.

The officer pulled him out of the car because the kid was fiddling around with his hands, looking away from the officer, ignoring commands, and blatantly told the officer one last time "you don't need my driver's license." It was time to remove the kid from the car before the situation escalated because the conversation was going nowhere and by leaving the kid in the car, it gave him the upper hand.

originally posted by: jellyrev
Yes Michigan February at night with a truck barreling at you at 55mph(actually 110) with lights to bright to even see past. as I am being blinded I'll figure out not only its make and model but whether its a cop car even if it has low profile lights which new ones do or the lights are inside the truck. All the while trying to watch out for deer, snow, and ice. As I will repeat again the law is not enforced, its like jwalking Or going 2 mph over.
I live 10 minutes from the incident I know the typical enforcement of laws and what they are after
The alternative? Change the lights or their angle. Its scary as heckl in fall at night with those lights coming at you, you can't see anything else, just waiting for a deer to cross in between us.

The lights are legal. Learn to look away from them. It's something we all live with so Michigan isn't a special exception to the rule.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR


Then they go on to show his face and there are no contusions. No swelling from cracked zygomats. No bruising, nothing just some trickles of blood. Most likely coming from what appears to be a laceration on his nose. Now if a punch had caused a laceration to the bridge of the nose the nose would have been busted too. But nope this cops got a super nose or something. That cop was not repeatedly pummeled in the face.
Plus wheres all the blood? If i shot somebody 7 times who was essentially laying on top of me I'd look like I had just bathed on blood. Why no blood everywhere?

Everything you posted has already been addressed.

You aren't looking at the pictures of the officer's face closely enough. He has a cut on his nose, a cut on his forehead, a contusion on his left forehead, a black left eye, and a busted lip.

To your question about blood... I'll say again... real life isn't like the movies. Sometimes people bleed a lot after being shot and sometimes they don't bleed much at all. The officer's uniform is dark so we don't know how much blood is on it.

If the kid wasn't on top of the officer when the shots were fired, the autopsy would have made that clear.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Not to mention the physical distribution of bullet holes in the kid.

The kid is on top of him, he's fumbling with his gun, and he squeezes off 7 shots.

one is downward through the top of his head, one is downward through his right chest, one is downward from his left abdomen, one is one is level with his right armpit, one is level with his left lung, one in his right wrist and one in his arm.

Yeah, aiming down through someone's body sure follows with him sitting on you with their head to the sky.

sure. Sounds real plausible, I'm sure someone will be along to answer the discrepencies shortly.

a reply to: BASSPLYR
Yes how did he cycle his weapon while being pummeled..in life or death I guess anything is possible but it doesn't make sense the kid would be on top and the cop be able to do it.
This is a bad story with no winners..I don't think the kid should be dead, the cop was clearly fishing but that's what they do I guess..too bad he couldn't wait for backup.
Answer said the cop needed to do something before it went sideways..good job not letting it go sideways.

a reply to: Answer

Hey so I'm looking at the picture. He has no left black eye. No contusion on the left side of his head. He has no cut on his forehead. he has no swelling. He has no bruises.

He has a laceration to the bridge of his nose. All of the blood in that photo comes from the laceration across the bridge of his nose. Nothing more. How he got that laceration is up for speculation but is sure wasn't from a punch.

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: Answer

Nothings ever the cops fault as far as ur concerned

But it it is the cops fault when He knows peroiod.

He knew he knew he knew

There are plenty of situations when the officer is at fault, this isn't one of those.

I know there are a lot of cop-haters on ATS so I'm in the minority when I post in these threads. I accept that. I don't have any "skin in the game" so to speak, I just call it like I see it and I consider myself well-informed because I know quite a bit about how police officers are trained and how defensive situations tend to unfold.

I'll keep replying with facts and rational information no matter how many times I'm accused of ignorantly defending the police. Before I reply in these threads, I read as many sources as I can find to gather information from all sides instead of watching a 5 minute YouTube video with a sensationalized title and posting knee-jerk nonsense like so many seem to do. It's hard to be taken seriously when your opinions are based on so little information.

You folks are only hurting your credibility by claiming that every shooting is a case of police brutality. Choose your battles instead of losing your damn mind every single time a badge is involved.

a reply to: Answer
Omg you are full of it

Question. It's been Said that what i brought up has already been addressed. I wanna go back and read that part of the discussion. Anyone tell me roughly what pages to co back to to read up on it and which members werevdiscussing it so I can look for their posys. Would be interesting to see what was discussed regarding cause its an important point in this discussion

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Answer

Hey so I'm looking at the picture. He has no left black eye. No contusion on the left side of his head. He has no cut on his forehead. he has no swelling. He has no bruises.

He has a laceration to the bridge of his nose. All of the blood in that photo comes from the laceration across the bridge of his nose. Nothing more. How he got that laceration is up for speculation but is sure wasn't from a punch.

What pictures are you looking at? Certainly not the publicly available ones... otherwise you need to adjust your monitor or talk to your doctor about glasses.

This is how these stories get so out of hand. People take a tiny piece of information and run with speculatory nonsense.




In the cleaned-up pic, you can see the black eye and busted lip more clearly.

This is what Sgt. Frost normally looks like so you can tell in the third pic above that his nose is swollen.

a reply to: framedragged
Very interesting..is there any links to that info?

originally posted by: alienjuggalo
a reply to: Answer
Omg you are full of it

Excellent rebuttal.

Yet you wonder why you're not being taken seriously.

originally posted by: framedragged
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Not to mention the physical distribution of bullet holes in the kid.

The kid is on top of him, he's fumbling with his gun, and he squeezes off 7 shots.

one is downward through the top of his head, one is downward through his right chest, one is downward from his left abdomen, one is one is level with his right armpit, one is level with his left lung, one in his right wrist and one in his arm.

Yeah, aiming down through someone's body sure follows with him sitting on you with their head to the sky.

sure. Sounds real plausible, I'm sure someone will be along to answer the discrepencies shortly.

Yeah, I'm gonna need a source for that information. I haven't found ANYTHING stating that the shots were "downward" and that would have obviously gone against everything the prosecutor said.

Post a source or stop spreading lies.

a reply to: Answer

There is no arguing with someone who is OK with cops violating our rights as AMERICANS.

He was not justified to pull the kid over because he knew why he got flashed.

You think its OK for the cop to drive around blinding people and knowing he is doing it. Then pulling people over for telling him he is blinding them

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: bastion

Why not? He was only explaining why he flashed his lights.

Yes, by saying "no, you DID have your brights on... yes you did... no, you turned them off after you turned around... well, I KNOW..." He could have simply said "my mistake, sir."

Why? Just because he's an officer doesn't mean he's right, they're human, they make mistakes - I've said 'I'm sorry officer but you're mistaken, please check the camera' and they've done just that then appologised in the past.

How do you have such a completely unrealistic take from the same video that I watched?

1) The officer was not acting illegally. If a police officer pulls you over for ANY reason, you are required to provide your driver's license and proof of insurance. Period.

2) The officer told him why he was pulled over as soon as he walked up.

3) The "victim" is not in a panic, he's being a smartassed brat and trying to mimic what he's seen on YouTube videos. The officer tells him "it's a misdemeanor to not provide your driver's license in a traffic stop" but the kid changes his story multiple times about the license. He then tells the officer "you don't need to see it..." which is the WRONG answer. People who hide their identity during a traffic stop are usually either committing a crime or have a warrant out and those people tend to do bad things to avoid going to jail. The officer is calm the entire time until the kid starts fiddling in his lap and says a final time "you don't need to see my license" and at that point, the officer opens the door to detain him.

He knowingly drove a vehicle several drivers had thought was bright to the point of blinding. That's knowingly driving dangerously. I'm struggling to believe you have a law as stupid as 'if these lights are too bright and making you unable to see the road then make sure you're not looking at the road beforehand'.

Really? The officer talked to this kid for 5 minutes and calmly explained to him that he has to see his driver's license. He then calmly explained that it's a crime to not provide the license. He then calmly explained that the kid is being detained. Every time, he's met with more nonsense from the kid.

Watch it again, his voice raises. The whole reason the kid comes out with nonsense is he's gone into a panic mode, panic isn't cured by making the person panic more. Radioing for back-up isn't being calm.

The cops story changes also - he doesn't explain it's a new car or that three others have flashed him because they too thought he had his brights on until halfway through the conversation - if he hadn't stonewalled the kids explanation it's highly doubtful it would have escalated any further.

Watch the video again. While he was trying to give his badge number, the kid kept interrupting him. The officer avoided arguing with the kid multiple times and said simply "Driver's license, proof of insurance, and registration, please." If that's not patience and professionalism, I don't know what to tell you.

Where does the officer try and give his badge number in the transcript as I can't see or hear it. I can see where he's explaining the reasons the kid can't see it and completely agree he'd have reasonable suspicion that such a tactic was trying to divert or disarm him but at no point do I hear him try and give a number.

Repeating the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. The kid is clearly in a panic, if the officer was patient or professional he'd tell him to take a deep breath and calm down instead of intensifying the pressure.

If he fled the scene, obviously he committed a crime worse than flicking headlights or he had warrants that he was avoiding. Yet again, the officer knew NOTHING about this individual when he made the stop.

How could they track him down later with no driver's license info? The license plate information does them no good because they don't know if the plate info matches the driver info. Real life doesn't work like the movies.

The officer pulled him out of the car because the kid was fiddling around with his hands, looking away from the officer, ignoring commands, and blatantly told the officer one last time "you don't need my driver's license." It was time to remove the kid from the car before the situation escalated because the conversation was going nowhere and by leaving the kid in the car, it gave him the upper hand.

Or he's a stupid 17 year old wet behind the ears kid who has just been tased so isn't going to be thinking clearly. As you say the officer knew nothing about him - doesn't the US use innocent until proven guilty?

Maybe the US is 30 years behind but here in the EU we have SN's on cars and back ups in place to stop people claiming a mismatch. This is old tech that was around long before I was born 30 years ago.

The kid isn't messing with his hands, he says he's turning the phone camera off and saying he doesn't consent to a search so the officer can't open the door - stupid yes, but a crime punishable by death? Hardly.

If as you state the cop thought he had something in his hand, was guilty of a much more serious crime or the kid had the upper hand by remaining in the car then why would the officer lose his only advantage by stepping into the car? Why not wait for back up to arrive and help?

Obviously the cop never intended to murder someone when starting his shift but surely you can accept he was at least partially to blame for gunning down an unarmed 17 year old scrawny kid when he had a taser and gun on him with back up arriving. Use of deadly force is completely and utterly unacceptable and they'd at least lose their job if not be sent to jail for doing that in the EU as police are here to protect and serve - not knowingly drive around in a dangerous car and being unable to diffuse a situation with a stoned 17 year old.

Or maybe we just have a higher quality of officers as they have to use brains instead of guns, whatever the reason I'm glad to live this side of the pond as deaths by police shootings in the last 30 years can be counted on one hand.

a reply to: Answer

Ah i only saw the top first photo. So he git a cut on his left eyebrow not a laceration to the nose. I see a barely perceptible black eye and a scuff on the left of his head. Looks more like he fell and hit his head than a series of punches to the face.

What pummeling the face looks like.

usatmmajunkie.files.wordpress.com...

i.dailymail.co.uk...

i3.mirror.co.uk...

Here's what single glancing blow to the face looks like.

cdn.inquisitr.com...


i2.mirror.co.uk...

i2.mirror.co.uk...

Here's Steven Tyler after a shower slip n fall. Some cuts, some bruising. No massive swelling.

i.dailymail.co.uk...

Heres whgat a slip n fall facial injury looks like

www.dianabarshaw.com...

www.burgessadventures.com...

See the difference between getting pummeled in the face, take any kinda punch to the face and a slip n fall. Swelling. Lots of swelling.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: framedragged
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Not to mention the physical distribution of bullet holes in the kid.

The kid is on top of him, he's fumbling with his gun, and he squeezes off 7 shots.

one is downward through the top of his head, one is downward through his right chest, one is downward from his left abdomen, one is one is level with his right armpit, one is level with his left lung, one in his right wrist and one in his arm.

Yeah, aiming down through someone's body sure follows with him sitting on you with their head to the sky.

sure. Sounds real plausible, I'm sure someone will be along to answer the discrepencies shortly.

Yeah, I'm gonna need a source for that information. I haven't found ANYTHING stating that the shots were "downward" and that would have obviously gone against everything the prosecutor said.

Post a source or stop spreading lies.

mgtvwlns.files.wordpress.com...

There ya go, autopsy report on page 9

a reply to: vonclod

Posted it above.


Quite frankly the autopsy report is damning for the officer's testimony in one way or another. The shots are fairly believable if Guilford was NOT on his hips, but behind them (ie, in a really bad MMA grappling position). But if he was on his hips, as the testimony states (ie, a really good MMA grappling position) then there is no way he got a bead on the top of his scalp.

The cop had already called for backup and he should have waited for it to get there. If you're not prepared to get punched and not shoot, you shouldn't be a cop or carry a gun. In reference to what someone else posted, you're required to show your license, registration, and proof of insurance on demand, refusal is a misdemeanor.
a reply to: alienjuggalo