17 Year Old Shot And Killed By Cop

[aCultureWarrior]

Since the death of her mother at age four, 17-year-old Kristiana Coignard...

Boy GFR7, for someone who is pro law enforcement, you sure do spend a lot trying to persecute them.

Grand jury: No charges against officers who shot Coignard
http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/jun/26/grand-jury-no-charges-against-officers-who-shot-co/

But then what's a Grand Jury know, they only scrutinize the evidence.

Better luck next time.

 

[Rusha]

There's a conspiracy by cops against America's youth ?

https://youtu.be/tEm3fxNSwK4


Since the death of her mother at age four, 17-year-old Kristiana Coignard struggled with bipolar disorder and depression. She was hospitalized for suicidal behavior twice; once for trying to hang herself and once after she drank toilet bowl cleaner.

Coignard was shot and killed by three officers last Thursday in the lobby of Longview Police Department in Texas, after she reportedly asked to talk to an officer while wielding a weapon.

Very sad situation. Here is more on the incident:

http://www.people.com/article/parents-kristiana-coignard-speak-out-fatally-shot

Kristiana "did not deserve to die," local resident Matthew Sherman told the newspaper. "Maybe she's lost. Maybe she doesn't know what is going on. She needed somebody to talk to her. Why should we be a-feared of the law? They are supposed to be here to serve and protect us."

Longview Police Department public information officer Kristie Brian tells PEOPLE the case is "still an ongoing investigation." She added, "But she was holding a knife in a threatening matter."

In a press release on Jan. 28, the police department said that Kristiana was shot four times after they tried to use a taser that had no effect.

My question is ... how would you expect someone to respond to a person who is wielding a knife at them? The taser didn't work.

 

[GuySmiley]

You missed the point, the point is it makes it incredibly unlikely he was any threat to the officer at all.

In the video I saw, the tazer didn't work, and the kid did get up and fight the officer. Its on the video. The officers injuries afterward show he was a threat to the officer, so you are just wrong.

 

[Quetzal]

In the video I saw, the tazer didn't work, and the kid did get up and fight the officer. Its on the video. The officers injuries afterward show he was a threat to the officer, so you are just wrong.

You can't see anything in the video that is conclusive to anything after a certain point.

 

[GuySmiley]

You can't see anything in the video that is conclusive to anything after a certain point.

CNN slows it down for you.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/10/16/police-shoot-teen-body-cam-casarez-newday.cnn

Forensics supported the cops account.

By the way, in the video you can clearly see he doesn't kick the cell phone, he grabs it with his hand and tosses it. Not that it matters either way.

 

[Granite]

CNN slows it down for you.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/10/16/police-shoot-teen-body-cam-casarez-newday.cnn

Forensics supported the cops account.

By the way, in the video you can clearly see he doesn't kick the cell phone, he grabs it with his hand and tosses it. Not that it matters either way.

It doesn't because this shouldn't have happened.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Very sad situation. Here is more on the incident:

http://www.people.com/article/parents-kristiana-coignard-speak-out-fatally-shot

The People article lacked numerous details that were brought up in the article that I linked (the deceased had written on her hand that she had a gun, etc.).

http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/jun/26/grand-jury-no-charges-against-officers-who-shot-co/

I look forward to GFR7's armchair quarterbacking on this case, telling us all how he would have handled the situation.

 

[Quetzal]

CNN slows it down for you.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/justice/2015/10/16/police-shoot-teen-body-cam-casarez-newday.cnn

Forensics supported the cops account.

By the way, in the video you can clearly see he doesn't kick the cell phone, he grabs it with his hand and tosses it. Not that it matters either way.

Hmmmm, hmm indeed. This does change things. Thank you for sharing.

 

[annabenedetti]

Deven Guilford: "For what crime?"

Sgt. Frost: "You flashed me with your high beams."


So according to Frost, flashing high beams is a crime? That's news to me.

 

[Granite]

Deven Guilford: "For what crime?"

Sgt. Frost: "You flashed me with your high beams."


So according to Frost, flashing high beams is a crime? That's news to me.

High beams and sass. That's all it takes to get shot to death by a cop.

USA. USA.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Deven Guilford: "For what crime?"

Sgt. Frost: "You flashed me with your high beams."


So according to Frost, flashing high beams is a crime? That's news to me.

If you were to pay attention to other posts in the thread, it's an infraction in the State of Michigan (and numerous other States as well).

Driving while high on dope on the other hand...

 

[annabenedetti]

If you were to pay attention to other posts in the thread, it's an infraction in the State of Michigan (and numerous other States as well).

Driving while high on dope on the other hand...

Like I said, it's news to me that it's a crime. It's a civil infraction, which is less than a misdemeanor.

The sergeant was driving a new patrol car, a Ford Explorer SUV, and the lights Guilford thought were high beams turned out to be the vehicle's regular headlights. The sergeant told Guilford he did not have his brights on, but told the teen that other motorists had also made the same mistake and flashed him.

Like me, a reader from Portland thinks of flashing as a courtesy. She was surprised that doing so could lead to a traffic stop.

“This whole thing is scary and, I'm almost to the point where I'll risk an accident from someone's accidental brights, rather than give them a quick flash,” the Portland resident wrote.

All of my driving life, a long time now, I have flashed lights as a courtesy if I think an approaching driver has forgotten to turn down his or her bright lights. Apparently, the law says I’m wrong. Michigan’s motor vehicle code prohibits the use of high-beam lights within 500 feet of an oncoming car. It’s a civil infraction if you violate it.

Here’s what the Michigan Secretary of State has to say from the handbook “What Every Driver Must Know.”

• "It is illegal to use or even flash high-beam headlights within 500 feet of an oncoming vehicle. Also, dim your lights for pedestrians and cyclists.
• "If oncoming drivers do not dim their headlights, keep your eyes on the right edge of the road ahead. Do not look directly into oncoming headlights. The glare may blind you for several seconds. A dirty windshield will make headlight glare worse.
• "Do not use high beams when behind other vehicles. Bright lights shining in their rearview mirrors can be distracting."

[. . . ]

The state law governing bright lights hasn't been changed since 1954. In light of the Guilford tragedy, it's time for lawmakers to revisit the law.

Allowing the brief flashing of lights, as a courtesy, to remind oncoming drivers to turn down their high beams just makes sense. Wisconsin also has a prohibition on using high beams within 500 feet of oncoming traffic but it specifically exempts the momentary flashing of the lights at a vehicle using its high beams. Michigan should follow suit.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...-your-brights-can-lead-traffic-stop/74055674/
​

 

[Granite]

Having lived in Michigan for years I can attest that this idiotic "law," such as it is, was violated all the time and as a courtesy. Never once saw or heard of anyone ever pulled over for it. Ever.

 

[Rusha]

The People article lacked numerous details that were brought up in the article that I linked (the deceased had written on her hand that she had a gun, etc.).

http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/jun/26/grand-jury-no-charges-against-officers-who-shot-co/

I look forward to GFR7's armchair quarterbacking on this case, telling us all how he would have handled the situation.

People don't really know how *they* would handle such a situation until it is up in their face.

It would be lovely to talk someone down. However, when it comes to protecting others and self-defense, many have an instinct to survive and protect.

As sad and regretful as it would be, if someone was wielding a knife at my family or myself, my priority would be to defend first and ask questions later.

 

[patrick jane]

Having lived in Michigan for years I can attest that this idiotic "law," such as it is, was violated all the time and as a courtesy. Never once saw or heard of anyone ever pulled over for it. Ever.

In Missouri I have heard of getting pulled over for having brights on but not simply flashing. It is used as a signal that a cop is nearby or taking radar in the opposite direction, or to signal that the other driver has their brights on. It's not an crime.

 

[Granite]

In Missouri I have heard of getting pulled over for having brights on but not simply flashing. It is used as a signal that a cop is nearby or taking radar in the opposite direction, or to signal that the other driver has their brights on. It's not an crime.

Yeah, exactly. Just one of those things everyone knows.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you were to pay attention to other posts in the thread, it's an infraction in the State of Michigan (and numerous other States as well).

Driving while high on dope on the other hand...

Like I said, it's news to me that it's a crime. It's a civil infraction, which is less than a misdemeanor.

As I stated above, hence Sgt. Jonathan Frost had probable cause to stop the vehicle driven by Deven Guilford.

The state law governing bright lights hasn't been changed since 1954. In light of the Guilford tragedy, it's time for lawmakers to revisit the law.

The specific ordinance that we're talking about is yet another tool that law enforcement uses to get people off of the road that shouldn't be driving.

Just looking at the video it was obvious that Guilford was high on either alcohol or narcotics.

Why are you not concerned that someone high on drugs was driving?

Toxicology testing reported low levels of THC, the active ingredient in marihuana, and caffeine. The THC and THC-COOH levels are consistent with someone who had been using marihuana over a period of time, and that the active THC level (7. 2
ng/mL) suggests that Deven last used marihuana within 3- 4 hours or sooner. The THC metabolite numbers (28.6 ng/mL from blood and 293 ng/mL from urine) are consistent with recent smoking. A pill bottle labeled "Green Crack, 90% Sativa /10% Indicia, 1 gram" was found in the car's arm rest. A partially smoked handrolled
cigarette containing an unknown substance was found inside this pill bottle.

News release from Eaton County Michigan Prosecuting Attorney Douglas R. Lloyd
http://www.eatoncounty.org/images/D...ney/Press_Releases/Guilford_Press_Release.pdf


Why are you not concerned that someone who was legitimately stopped by a police officer attacked him and beat the officer, causing the officer to use deadly force because he was in fear of losing his life?

I addressed the HATRED that you, GFR7 and the movement that you represent has towards the American criminal justice system in another thread.

Seek therapy, as all of that HATE is going to eat you up inside.

 

[annabenedetti]

As I stated above, hence Sgt. Jonathan Frost had probable cause to stop the vehicle driven by Deven Guilford.

Sounds to me like Frost was bored.

 

[Rusha]

In California, I have been pulled over for not using a turn single and having a tail light out. Also, for speeding. Without incident.

Wyoming and Nebraska are worse. Years ago, my older cousin was pulled over and given a ticket for going 58 in a 55. Without incident.

Everyone is entitled to handle these situations to their choosing, however, I would rather deal with an injustice in the courtroom.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The People article lacked numerous details that were brought up in the article that I linked (the deceased had written on her hand that she had a gun, etc.).

http://www.news-journal.com/news/201...s-who-shot-co/

I look forward to GFR7's armchair quarterbacking on this case, telling us all how he would have handled the situation

People don't really know how *they* would handle such a situation until it is up in their face...

As opposed to "people" in general, police officers are highly trained in dealing with various situations and know that they must abide by the law before using deadly force.