TOTALLY GEEKED!

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

People are ignoring that a cop is supposed to have probable cause to pull you over in the first place. Is flashing brights illegal? No. If that's all he did - there was no basis for the stop in the first place. This is not a police state.

---

 Actually.  I was pulled over once for flashing my brights.

At 11ish at night. 

I was told it was illegal to flash lights.

---

 Well, they lied.  It is not.  In fact, it is protected free speech in Georgia - although that case law is newer. But the laws related to lights regulate the use of high beams, and actually, the cop's car may have been in violation if it uses high beams as regular lights.

A. Lights - It is said that the eyes are a human being's window to the world. Similarly, the lights on a vehicle are its eyes and are essential to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. The following laws and requirements should be acknowledged:

1. The law requires you to use headlights from half an hour after sunset to half an hour before sunrise. Additionally, headlights must be used at any time it rains or you cannot see at least 500 ft. ahead.

2. Headlights must be on low beam when within 500 ft. of an approaching vehicle or 200 ft. of the vehicle ahead (the vehicle you are immediately following).

3. High beams may be used only when there is no direct negative impact on any other drivers.

4. All new cars as of 1986 must have a third rear brake light to be mounted on the rear window.

5. Taillights need to be maintained, as they are warning mechanisms for vehicles to the rear.

6. Emergency hazards or flashers should only be utilized in distress situations to alert other drivers of a problem. These lights are the same as those used as brake lights, and a switch or button inside the car activates them. When activated, they flash at a regular interval until turned off. These flashing red lights should warn other drivers that you have a problem and imply that they should use extra caution around you.

7. Headlights should be used when it is cloudy, raining, snowing, foggy or when windows may be icy, making it difficult to see other cars (anytime you use your windshield wipers due to weather conditions, headlights must be turned on).

8. Headlights should be used during the daytime when driving on mountain roads, country roads, through canyons or tunnels, or any time you have difficulty seeing.

9. It is illegal to drive with only your parking lights on.

10. Any vehicle may add two auxiliary lamps (fog, passing, or driving lamps). The lamps must be placed on the front of the vehicle at a height of not less than 16 inches and not more than 42 inches.

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

People are ignoring that a cop is supposed to have probable cause to pull you over in the first place. Is flashing brights illegal? No. If that's all he did - there was no basis for the stop in the first place. This is not a police state.

---

It's illegal here.  Son in law got a ticket for it a couple of years ago... 

---

 I find that odd.  Federal courts have found that even flashing brights to warn of speed traps is legally protected, so why wouldn't it be legal to flash brights to tell someone theirs are on?  And flashing your headlights to warn others is protected free speech in TN. 

---

Well, either the cop didn't know, or didn't care, because he gave him a ticket. 

---

 If he gets another - he should fight it.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/eighth_circuit/2014/02/flashing-headlights-to-warn-drivers-is-free-speech-dist-court.html

According to the ACLU, this is the first federal court ruling on the issue of flashing headlights. On the state level, Amy Feldman of the Constitution Daily writes that state courts in Florida, Utah, and Tennessee have all ruled that flashing headlights are protected speech, and that a headlight flasher can't be prosecuted for obstructing justice for flashing headlights to alert oncoming traffic of a speed trap.

However, Feldman notes that headlight flashers' civil claims against the police for violating their First Amendment rights have been far less successful.

Judge Autrey's ruling is only a preliminary injunction; a hearing on a permanent injunction is pending. If the Eighth Circuit entertains an eventual appeal by the City of Ellisville, it'll be interesting to see how the court rules on the novel matter. In the meantime, let there be light.

People are still getting tickets.  The cops don't care.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

http://blogs.findlaw.com/eighth_circuit/2014/02/flashing-headlights-to-warn-drivers-is-free-speech-dist-court.html

 

According to the ACLU, this is the first federal court ruling on the issue of flashing headlights. On the state level, Amy Feldman of the Constitution Daily writes that state courts in Florida, Utah, and Tennessee have all ruled that flashing headlights are protected speech, and that a headlight flasher can't be prosecuted for obstructing justice for flashing headlights to alert oncoming traffic of a speed trap.

However, Feldman notes that headlight flashers' civil claims against the police for violating their First Amendment rights have been far less successful.

Judge Autrey's ruling is only a preliminary injunction; a hearing on a permanent injunction is pending. If the Eighth Circuit entertains an eventual appeal by the City of Ellisville, it'll be interesting to see how the court rules on the novel matter. In the meantime, let there be light.

 

People are still getting tickets.  The cops don't care.

---

 Well, if this kid's family wins this lawsuit, they will start to care.  The people in those other cases didn't end up dead.

---

TOTALLY agree. This is not a first amendment rights case.  This is murder. 

FNW wrote:

---

Lexxy wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

FNW wrote:

---

I've been pulled over 5 times. Three times I did not know the reason. Tinted windows, who knew. Illegal u-turn, I did not see the sign. And unsafe left turn. WTF?

---

 Did they make you get out of your car & lay on the ground?

flan

---

 I bet she just showed the required paperwork when asked.

---

 Yep.  I even offered to get out of the car.  He said that wasn't necessary.  

 

My mother taught me that you get more flies with sugar than vinegar.

---

 I used to work at a gym that gave discounts to police, fire fighters & EMTs so there were a lot of them who worked out there.  Overall as a group they were good guys.  I got to know some of them pretty well.  It was a general feeling that they don't like it when people try to step out of the car unasked.  It made things risky because they didn't know their intent.  I know you offered before opening your door but I thought I'd just put that out there as a PSA.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

Look at the wording. Why, or rather how was a dead person driving?

Come on,, you grammar Nazis should have caught that.

 

 

': US cop shoots dead unarmed 17-year-old boy driving back from church basketball game	Permalink   - More -Printer Friendly

---

 Everyone else here understood that the cop "shot him dead" and that he was unarmed.

flan

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:

---

DH carries. It's his right and he has the right paperwork to show it. He got pulled over a few months back and the first thing he said was that he had a gun on which hip. The officer told him to keep his hands on the steering wheel and not to get out of the car. All was good. Long time ago when our Jeep was rear ended he did the same thing. The police have been nothing but nice to us.

---

Always being polite and cooperative is VERY IMPORTANT. 

Years ago, there was an altercation in our local White Castle, between 6 or 7 local HS football players, and 4 or 5 black teenage guys from somewhere else. (White Castle is a 50 foot walk from the train station and 4 bus lines.)

The cops came, and IMMEDIATELY  handcuffed the black teenagers.

THEN they found out from the workers that the black guys were minding their own business, and the locals came in and started a fight with them.

Everyone went home afterward, no one disrespected the cops, no one got shot, no charges were filed.

ed11563 wrote:

---

Empyreal wrote:

---

Why did the cop shoot him 7 times?

Rage.

---

He was probably struggling. The cop probably had a 15 shot magazine, and it's amazing that he didn't use them all. 

 

---

 This is sick.

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:

---

The devastated family of an unarmed teenage boy who was shot dead by a Michigan sheriff's deputy earlier this year after flashing his car lights at him has filed a lawsuit against the officer.

Deven Guilford, 17, was pulled over by Sgt. Jonathan Frost, of Eaton County Sheriff's Department, on a cold evening in February after flashing the officer because he believed his brights were on.

During the traffic stop, Guilford refused to put his hands behind his back or give Frost any official documents, leading to an altercation between them, according to county prosecutor Doug Lloyd.

This ended with Guilford lying dead in a snow-filled ditch, having been shot seven times by Frost


Now, the teenager's grief-stricken relatives are taking legal action against the officer and the county - four months after Lloyd cleared Frost of any criminal wrongdoing in the February 28 shooting.

In their suit, filed in federal court on Wednesday, the family members claim Frost's 'entire course of action' in the fatal incident was illegal' - and that it was 'in violation of Deven's constitutional rights'.

'As we take this action today we are outraged at the huge miscarriage of justice done to our son Deven Guilford,' the boy's parents, Brian and Becky Guilford, said in a statement on Wednesday

The added that their trust in officials has been 'shaken to the core' following their son's death.

The suit requests a jury trial in the case, according to the Detroit Free Press.

However, it does not seek specific financial damages.

Guilford had just finished playing a game of basketball at a local church and was driving to his girlfriend's home in her 2010 Ford Focus on the M-43 near Mulliken at around 8.30pm when he passed by Frost, an eight-year veteran on the force who was driving a new patrol car

Believing the officer's bright lights were on, the teenager flashed him. He was one of at least three motorists to flash Frost, implying his vehicle had 'improperly bright or misaimed' lights, the suit says.

Guilford was subsequently pulled over by Frost and asked for identifying documents.

However, he allegedly refused to give the officer his driver's license - which was actually at his girlfriend's house - as well as his registration or his proof of insurance, Lloyd told the Press.

Frost then pulled the teenager out of his car and told him to lie on his stomach on the ground, which Guilford did. However, when he was asked to put his hands behind his back, he refused to do so.

Seconds later, Frost fried his stun gun into Guilford, but it was not completely effective, it is reported.

An 'altercation' that apparently occurred, which resulted in Frost shooting dead Guilford.

Footage captured on the teenager's cell phone and Frost's body camera shows the officer approaching Guilford's car, before telling him: 'Trust me, I did not have [my bright lights] on.'

Frost then repeatedly asks the boy for his driver's license, registration and proof of insurance, before dragging him out of his vehicle, ordering him to lie on the ground and training his stun gun on him.



'Arms out to the side,' Frost instructs Guilford angrily.

After the teenager refuses to put his hands behind his back so he can be handcuffed, Frost can be seen physically restraining him, causing Guilford to cry: 'Officer, what are you doing?'

As the boy struggles, Frost then tasers him, prompting him to jump up. The footage then goes blurry, before cutting off altogether, so it does not depict the moment of the deadly shooting.

Frost's camera apparently came off in the struggle, while Guilford's phone lay on the sidewalk.



After the incident, the officer was treated for facial injuries in hospital.

Guilford, meanwhile, was declared dead at the scene

In their statement on Wednesday, Guilford's parents referred to the video footage, saying: 'Since the moment we viewed the body camera footage our confusion has turned to outrage over what was done to Deven at the hands of Frost and the whole Eaton County “justice” system.

'We always had great respect for law enforcement and the men and women who chose that profession in the past. But we must say that belief has been shaken to the core by the actions of Frost and refusal of the Eaton County Prosecutor to hold Frost accountable.'

Cynthia Heenan, of Constitutional Litigation Associates P.C., who is representing Deven's family, said the teenager's fatal shooting represents a 'disturbing trend of demanding 100 per cent compliance with police authority, coupled with zero tolerance of risk of harm to police officers.'

She added that Guilford's death was 'tragic and totally unnecessary'.
The inquiry also found Guilford had traces of marijuana in his system.



However, the teenager's relatives maintain that Frost acted illegally by shooting Guilford dead - and that he also had no right to pull him over in the first place,The Free Thought Project reports.

They have set up a Facebook page dedicated to getting 'justice' for Guilford.

On the page, named 'Justice For Deven Guilford', they write: 'Deven Guilford was 17 years old, on his way home from a church basketball game, when he was pulled over by an eaton county police officer. This routine traffic stop turned into a struggle and Deven was shot and killed.

'Our family is seeking justice, accountability, and SUPPORT!'

In on post, Guilford's relatives explain how they are 'not anti-cop or 'anti-Eaton County' - and had 'backed every officer' involved in a shooting 'before this happened to our beloved Deven'.

But they write: 'If the facts were plain and simple that Deven was in the wrong, we would not be going forward with any of this but there are too many holes in the story.'




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275534/Devastated-relatives-file-lawsuit-against-sheriff-s-deputy-shot-dead-unarmed-teenager-flashed-car-lights-him.html#ixzz3ojd2u5zy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Lloyd's decision to clear Frost of any criminal wrongdoing followed an internal investigation into the incident, which found the deputy followed official 'regulations, general orders and training'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275534/Devastated-relatives-file-lawsuit-against-sheriff-s-deputy-shot-dead-unarmed-teenager-flashed-car-lights-him.html#ixzz3ojcyP8yN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

---

 Just the bolded. That's the important parts.

This 17 year old was high, driving, and fighting. The refusing to comply and the fighting is what got him shot AFTER he didn't settle when tazed.

And this 'disturbing trend of demanding 100 per cent compliance with police authority, coupled with zero tolerance of risk of harm to police officers.'

What the cuss!?!? An officer asks for something, or tell you to do something, you do it.

Of COURSE you should completely comply with police authority. 

I can't believe ANYONE would think otherwise.

This young man fought with an officer, the officer tried the tazer, that didn't work. 

So I guess that officer should have just throwed up his hands and said never mind.

And as for pulling him over, this young man was under the influence, he was flashing lights into oncoming traffic. You don't drive under the influence and you don't flash other drivers because you think their lights are on bright. Because then you have 2 drivers who can't see. 

And we don't know what else he was doing that got the officer's attention. 

WYSIWYG wrote:

---

I could be wrong, but my guess is that there would have been quite a different outcome if the 17 year old had responded to the officer's first request for license and registration with "Yes, sir. Here you go officer." hands over documents. "Is there anything else you need?"

---

Unfortunately, he didn't HAVE any of the documentation. He'd "borrowed" the car and left his own documents / wallet at his girlfriend's house. 

Better to have cooperated and gone to jail in handcuffs for auto theft, until the car's owner could be contacted. And his wallet retrieved.