Cop Shoots teen 16 times

So here is where the problem lies. One is an adult and the other is a child. Think about that for a minute. The second is your belief that the officer had better things to do then sit there with some kid. Which is true and begs the question of why did he pulled him over in the first place? The officer had already pulled over not one, not two but three people for the exact same thing the kid did and the kid was the fourth. So at what point, when does the officer say "Hey, I've pulled over multiple people for the same thing, this isn't worth my time, they're flashing because these lights are bright, I have better things to do"?



See above. You're trying to end your night and go home yet you're pulling over four people, all four of them because they flashed you because your lights were bright as fuck and it's against Michigan law to flash under 500 feet? After teh first or second time shouldn't you know why they're doing it?



Again, I'm not saying he should not have complied. Simply put he was operating the vehicle, there was a legal reason for pulling him over (assuming the flash was under 500 feet) but where is the responsibility and discretion by the cop?



Yet he's dead now.

Without fail people blame the people who were shot and not the police. Of course you can nitpick and day he shouldn't have done this or that, or if you just comply you won't get shot, but that's missing the point entirely and ignoring the increasing hostility and militarization of the police force. Do you really want to live in a society that any random and minor conflict with the police might leave you end up dead? Because that's how it is right now. Minor traffic infraction? You may end up dead. Walking down the street near police officers? You might end up dead. Go to work and find out your chained up dog in your backyard in your own home was killed by police? I guess if that's what you want, cool.

i think your trying to debate me when theres no debate to be had. Ive always agreed that dude with the knife didnt deserve to be shot. How old was the kid driving the car? I was insinuating the cop had better things to do with his time, not over something this petty as headlights. Do petty things need to be dealt with? Yes. But if all petty shit took large amounts of time then larger crimes would go unnoticed/dealt with. So for something as small as this, the kid shouldve been giving his i.d./complying w.e. and ending this. Not progressing it. if i get pulled over by a cop and i straight up refuse everything and just sit there your damn right im expecting a situation to escalate. You gotta let the cop do there job in CERTAIN situations. Put yourself in there position sometimes. Did you see the video of the I forget which blm activist leader taking cop field tests? he failed all the tests. he 'killed' the 2 test innocent people and got 'killed' by the one criminal. So by people refusing not to I.d. themselves or answer cops /comply w.e. has gotta raise the suspicion/ intensity level. Unwise.

I'm not debating anything with you but you're still are looking at the kid (he was 17 btw) and what he did. So let's revisit this again. The cop, an adult, had already pulled over three people prior to pulling over the kid. He pulled over each driver because they all flashed him because his lights were so bright they all thought he had his high beams on. My question, again, is why did he keep on pulling people over when, after the second time, it should have registered in his head that the reason he was being flashed was due to his lights? Why continue to pull people over? And again, not once has anyone said he shouldn't have complied so we're past that point, breh. Is an adult cop so mentally deficient that he needs to experience the same thing, multiple times, in less than a 24 hour period, in order to finally "get it?"

Is it reasonable to pull over multiple drivers if they're all flashing you for the same reason?

Im not knowledgeable with the road they were driving on but in my experience certain stretches of road shouldnt be getting high beams flashed. It is dangerous to the opposite side of the road. So perhaps the cop was pulling the kid over to give both the explanation for his lights and to have the kid not flash his lights. there are alot of factors we dont know that went into play here. Facts are, the kid shouldnt have been so arrogant and the cop shouldve been more patient. High beaming a cop could also be a sign that you are in trouble btw.

In the video the cop says he pulled over three people prior to the kid. The law in Michigan states it's a civil infraction to flash the high beams at a vehicle that is 500 ft of an oncoming vehicle. What other factors do we need to know when the cop says why on camera and it's written in his report?

Again, why did he keep on pulling people over when, after the second time, it should have registered in his head that the reason he was being flashed was due to his lights? Why continue to pull people over? Is an adult cop so mentally deficient that he needs to experience the same thing, multiple times, in less than a 24 hour period, in order to finally "get it?"

Is it reasonable to pull over multiple drivers if they're all flashing you for the same reason?

So by your logic, an adult cop should continue to pull over people and tell him that HIS HEADLIGHTS are not high beams? BTW, none of these questions are rhetorical.

Are there child cops? How does one become an adult cop?
you seem to know all the facts like you were there. Is this a two lane highway? Is there a highway adjacent to this one? How many times did the kid flash his highs?

So in other words you can't back your claims up and don't want to use logic and get to the root of the problem.

Good day.

Im not knowledgeable with the road they were driving on but in my experience certain stretches of road shouldnt be getting high beams flashed. It is dangerous to the opposite side of the road.

it should have registered in his head that the reason he was being flashed was due to his lights? Why continue to pull people over?

Breh, you already know pigs ain't that bright:dead:

Yes, flashing your high beams can be dangerous to other drivers, but you know what's even more dangerous? Driving with your high beams on with traffic coming at you in the opposite direction, which is what every driver that flashed the officer thought he was doing.

Even with the kid acting the way he was, the officer could have just been like, "Thanks for flashing me to warn me about my brights, but my lights are brand new and they're really bright, those were my regular headlights and not my high beams. Be careful flashing your high beams at close distances as it's against the law and can be dangerous. Have a good night." Instead he was basically pissed at the kid for something that was essentially his own fault.

The kid made a stupid decision to fight back during the arrest and it cost him his life, but if that cop had any sort of decency it would have never reached that point.

O so you werent there and cant answer those questions? Interesting. Cause that defiantly factors into the situation we are discussing.

Good night.

I agree, having admittedly skipped ahead to the point of the kid refusing to hand over i.d. i cant tell you what happened prior but you are correct in thats how it shouldve been handled. At the same time though, once pulled over, and the deceased has no proof of license/insurance etc. which is a common first question when being pulled over its a different ball game. And that is why the kid acted so non compliant is cause I guess he actually didnt have his license on him.

Why would I need to answer those questions when the cop explained everything in his report? Did the cop explain those things to the kid or ask him when he pulled him over? Did the kid explain those things or ask the cop those things when he was pulled over? No. Why? Because it wasn't important but in your "logic" and I use that in a very loose sense of the word, these questions are highly relevant and shed light on the situation. They don't.

Let's go ahead and use the reasonable standard test here. Is it reasonable to keep pulling people over for flashing their lights at you when you already know why they're flashing them?

Yes, flashing your high beams can be dangerous to other drivers, but you know what's even more dangerous? Driving with your high beams on with traffic coming at you in the opposite direction, which is what every driver that flashed the officer thought he was doing.

Even with the kid acting the way he was, the officer could have just been like, "Thanks for flashing me to warn me about my brights, but my lights are brand new and they're really bright, those were my regular headlights and not my high beams. Be careful flashing your high beams at close distances as it's against the law and can be dangerous. Have a good night." Instead he was basically pissed at the kid for something that was essentially his own fault.

The kid made a stupid decision to fight back during the arrest and it cost him his life, but if that cop had any sort of decency it would have never reached that point.

And I say again, if there was an adjcacent highway/other drivers in the area that could be effected by highs being flashed (possibly repeatedly since you cant say how many times the kid hit him with the highs) then yes, it is. Cops have a quota to fill. If your giving them an easy excuse to pull you over and fish for something then thats on you.

How many times does not matter. Does Michigan law say anything about how many times a light can be flashed? No. Their laws say it's an infraction if the lights were flashed at 500 feet or less. I've already typed that but you keep missing it. So if he flashed it 1 time or 100 times it doesn't matter. He already knew why the lights were being flashed as he had the lights flashed on him by THREE different drivers before the kid did it. Do you get it now?