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

originally posted by: roadgravel


If a person is shot once or twice and does not get up, is another 5 or more shots necessary. The definition of threat stopped at some point must have been change to 'dead'.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the story where the officer kept shooting after the kid was down on the ground.

originally posted by: Answer
Your comments about the officer shooting to make the kid stop screaming make that painfully obvious to anyone with a clue about how police officers are trained.

Well, let's take this case in point.

You have a 17 year old who might go a buck fifty. You plug him pretty square, enough that he starts screaming and writhing around on the ground. You've disengaged, and the kid is obviously hit pretty hard.

At what point have you reasonably rendered the target harmless? Isn't that enough? To a reasonable person, you for example, at what point would that threat be over? Is the kid getting up? Coming at you? Would a reasonable person wait at that point for an unarmed assailant to resume aggression before continuing to fire?

Or did he just freak out and get it over with because the kid was dying pretty hard and it was his first shooting? I'll give you the possibility he IS a sociopath and kept shooting because he enjoyed teaching the kid a lesson. But if I had done that and been caught doing it, I'd have had at least NJP to find out why I'd hamburgered someone.

eta: or, I suppose, the kid might actually be a martial arts expert and those were kiais, and he was flinging wheel kick after wheel kick at the cop. In that case, ok. Seven shots are always called for if the kid's a ninja.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Answer

Um, no. No you're not.

If you say so.

Your comments about the officer shooting to make the kid stop screaming make that painfully obvious to anyone with a clue about how police officers are trained.

Training be damned, you shoot someone who starts screaming and flailing around, it's pretty unsettling unless you're a total sociopath.

eta: Who said anything about police? I'm former military.

Well, we are discussing a police shooting, not military.

I'll say again, there was no "screaming and flailing around." That insinuates that the officer kept shooting after the kid hit the ground.

There was a total of 4 seconds of shooting which means that the officer didn't just pump out 7 quick rounds...

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: roadgravel


If a person is shot once or twice and does not get up, is another 5 or more shots necessary. The definition of threat stopped at some point must have been change to 'dead'.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the story where the officer kept shooting after the kid was down on the ground.

Looks like the man was either really tough and hard to stop or some shots were poorly placed. I suppose this is why 10 to 20 officers must all empty their weapon in one person in order to stop the person.

I admit the man was pushing it with attitude and possible attack but in today's world it seems most shootings are design to kill.

originally posted by: Answer

There was a total of 4 seconds of shooting which means that the officer didn't just pump out 7 quick rounds...

Oh, that I'd believe, he was doing it with intention.

Or he was having trouble re-acquiring his target, what with all the wheel kicks and flying roundhouses.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Answer
Your comments about the officer shooting to make the kid stop screaming make that painfully obvious to anyone with a clue about how police officers are trained.

Well, let's take this case in point.

You have a 17 year old who might go a buck fifty. You plug him pretty square, enough that he starts screaming and writhing around on the ground. You've disengaged, and the kid is obviously hit pretty hard.

At what point have you reasonably rendered the target harmless? Isn't that enough? To a reasonable person, you for example, at what point would that threat be over? Is the kid getting up? Coming at you? Would a reasonable person wait at that point for an unarmed assailant to resume aggression before continuing to fire?

Or did he just freak out and get it over with because the kid was dying pretty hard and it was his first shooting? I'll give you the possibility he IS a sociopath and kept shooting because he enjoyed teaching the kid a lesson. But if I had done that and been caught doing it, I'd have had at least NJP to find out what I'd hamburgered someone.

So you've changed the narrative now to "the kid was shot, fell on the ground, and was screaming and writhing around" but the officer kept firing?

Where, exactly, is that version of the story coming from?

I think there's enough to analyze here without bringing an imaginary scenario into the mix to confuse people, don't you?

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: roadgravel


If a person is shot once or twice and does not get up, is another 5 or more shots necessary. The definition of threat stopped at some point must have been change to 'dead'.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part of the story where the officer kept shooting after the kid was down on the ground.

Looks like the man was either really tough and hard to stop or some shots were poorly placed. I suppose this is why 10 to 20 officers must all empty their weapon in one person in order to stop the person.

I admit the man was pushing it with attitude and possible attack but in today's world it seems most shootings are design to kill.

People don't always fall down and give up after one shot like in the movies.

Guilford was shot once in the head, right chest, upper belly, left armpit, lower chest, right wrist and right forearm.

The head shot finished the fight.

It's a bit difficult to shoot straight when you've just been getting your face pummeled.

The officer tried to fire the first shot with the muzzle of his pistol in the kid's chest which is a big mistake... pressing the slide back on most semi auto pistols will keep the firearm from discharging. The kid was on top of the officer when the shots were fired.

a reply to: Answer

Not that that doesn't happen, but what about many other shootings that certainly seem overboard. Overboard seems to be the new standard, either by officer choice or design.

originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: Answer

Only one taser prong hit him which means the taser was not effective.

What were all those crispy sounds then, accompanying the 2 seconds long sparking in that video?
And the boy already laid with his naked underarms and hands and his now wet T-shirt in the wet snow, seemingly sprayed already with road-salt.
When one dart did miss, it surely ended up in that salty mush. And caused a big part of the current to run through the boy's body and nerves towards the snow bound other taser dart. As can be seen as all that "fire works" in the video.

The taser still makes noise whether it has solid contact or not.

There are sources that state one prong ended up in the kid's back and one was only in his shirt.

You're making up your own version of the story where it ended up in the snow and shocked both the officer and the kid but that's complete hogwash.

a reply to: Answer

Since A Police Officer is taught how to shoot. This sporadic patten means either this kid was super fast or the officer was incapable of aiming.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Answer

Not that that doesn't happen, but what about many other shootings that certainly seem overboard. Overboard seems to be the new standard, either by officer choice or design.

Which shootings are you referring to?

originally posted by: Answer

I think there's enough to analyze here without bringing an imaginary scenario into the mix to confuse people, don't you?

It would be nice if the recording was better, or we had the kid's video. It might be out there, all I have is the cop's body cam audio that I've heard. The kid's sure screaming about SOMETHING before they edit the end off the cop cam.

Now, you want an imaginary scenario, the cop's story is that the kid's on top of him, beating him into unconsciousness. Somehow, he unholsters his weapon, has a dud round, he racks the slide on the weapon, and then shoots the kid seven times.

Tell me, how do you, while being beaten unconscious by a ruthless killer ninja 17 year old, bring your sidearm around in front of you so that you can rack the slide and eject the dud round? Remember, you're fading from the death blows you're taking. But somehow, you can bring both hands in front of you, one with a weapon in, and cycle the action.

Lloyd said Guilford got off the ground and the altercation ended in a snow-filled ditch, where Guilford was able to get on top of Frost and was hitting him in the face. There is no video of the final moments. Frost's body camera came off during the fight and his SUV had no dash camera; Guilford's cell phone remained on the pavement, recording audio of the shots but no video of the shooting.

Lloyd said Frost could feel blood in his mouth and felt he was about to lose consciousness before he removed his gun from the holster. Lloyd said Frost's gun did not fire at first, but he ejected an unfired round, chambered a new round and fired seven shots at close range in four seconds, all of which struck Guilford.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I can't jack a shell out of a semi-auto pistol single handed whilst being beaten unconscious. And if I can bring both hands in front of me to do so, it's going to be hard to explain how I'm being pounded as well.

Does that fit to you?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Answer

Since A Police Officer is taught how to shoot. This sporadic patten means either this kid was super fast or the officer was incapable of aiming.

Police officers are notoriously bad shots. They are trained how to shoot well enough to pass their qualification and the majority of them don't try to hone their skills.

The kid was on top of the officer beating him in the face when the shots were fired. The officer placed most of the shots in the upper torso and I'm going to assume that the kid's arm was in front of his torso or raised up by his head in an offensive/defensive position. The hits aren't that sporadic, all things considered.

Laying on your back firing at a target that's on top of you is not exactly a scenario that most people train for...

originally posted by: Answer
It's a bit difficult to shoot straight when you've just been getting your face pummeled.

It's a bit difficult to get the sidearm between you and fire if you've got someone on top of you pummeling you. Harder still to cycle the weapon and then begin firing.

The officer tried to fire the first shot with the muzzle of his pistol in the kid's chest which is a big mistake...

How do you know? Is there any recording of this that's not out in public? Although I agree, if the slide's pushed out of battery the weapon won't fire.

The kid was on top of the officer when the shots were fired.

Yet the officer managed to cycle his weapon, and nowhere during him doing that or aiming at the ninja kid did the kid just bat the pistol to the side.

Or maybe the officer just shot the kid at close range after getting a bloody nose. We'll never know.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Answer

Since A Police Officer is taught how to shoot. This sporadic patten means either this kid was super fast or the officer was incapable of aiming.

Eh, you're giving the guy a lot of credit. A lot of cops coast through their pistol quals. You do have some who are very good, though. Most of them are former military and end up in whatever passes for SWAT.

originally posted by: Answer

Police officers are notoriously bad shots. They are trained how to shoot well enough to pass their qualification and the majority of them don't try to hone their skills.

Laying on your back firing at a target that's on top of you is not exactly a scenario that most people train for...

My God. We agree on something.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Answer

I think there's enough to analyze here without bringing an imaginary scenario into the mix to confuse people, don't you?

It would be nice if the recording was better, or we had the kid's video. It might be out there, all I have is the cop's body cam audio that I've heard. The kid's sure screaming about SOMETHING before they edit the end off the cop cam.

Yes, he screams about the taser prong hitting him in the back.

Now, you want an imaginary scenario, the cop's story is that the kid's on top of him, beating him into unconsciousness. Somehow, he unholsters his weapon, has a dud round, he racks the slide on the weapon, and then shoots the kid seven times.

Not a dud round. He pressed the muzzle into the kid's chest which caused a malfunction. He racked the slide thinking it was a bad round because that's what you're trained to do when the weapon malfunctions in a high-stress situation.

Tell me, how do you, while being beaten unconscious by a ruthless killer ninja 17 year old, bring your sidearm around in front of you so that you can rack the slide and eject the dud round? Remember, you're fading from the death blows you're taking. But somehow, you can bring both hands in front of you, one with a weapon in, and cycle the action.

It's not that difficult. I'm not sure why you think it's an impossible task... With all your military training, you never practiced malfunction drills on handguns?

Lloyd said Guilford got off the ground and the altercation ended in a snow-filled ditch, where Guilford was able to get on top of Frost and was hitting him in the face. There is no video of the final moments. Frost's body camera came off during the fight and his SUV had no dash camera; Guilford's cell phone remained on the pavement, recording audio of the shots but no video of the shooting.

Lloyd said Frost could feel blood in his mouth and felt he was about to lose consciousness before he removed his gun from the holster. Lloyd said Frost's gun did not fire at first, but he ejected an unfired round, chambered a new round and fired seven shots at close range in four seconds, all of which struck Guilford.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I can't jack a shell out of a semi-auto pistol single handed whilst being beaten unconscious. And if I can bring both hands in front of me to do so, it's going to be hard to explain how I'm being pounded as well.

Does that fit to you?

I think you're trying to find holes in the story where there are none, honestly, and you're having to grasp pretty desperately at straws. If the kid was not on top of him when the shots were fired, don't you think that would have been obvious during the autopsy?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Answer
It's a bit difficult to shoot straight when you've just been getting your face pummeled.

It's a bit difficult to get the sidearm between you and fire if you've got someone on top of you pummeling you. Harder still to cycle the weapon and then begin firing.

The officer tried to fire the first shot with the muzzle of his pistol in the kid's chest which is a big mistake...

How do you know? Is there any recording of this that's not out in public? Although I agree, if the slide's pushed out of battery the weapon won't fire.

I know because one of the sources stated that he tried to fire with the muzzle contacting the kid's chest. You see, before I enter into a discussion in one of these threads, I read as much as I can about the case so I don't go off half-cocked (no pun intended.)

The kid was on top of the officer when the shots were fired.

Yet the officer managed to cycle his weapon, and nowhere during him doing that or aiming at the ninja kid did the kid just bat the pistol to the side.

Actually, that's a possibility since the kid was hit in the armpit, hand, and forearm.

Or maybe the officer just shot the kid at close range after getting a bloody nose. We'll never know.

The pictures of the officer's injuries show a cut on his nose, a cut on his forehead, bruising on his left forehead, a black left eye, and a busted lip.

Again, if the shots were not fired while the kid was on top of the officer, that would have been very obvious in the autopsy.

The man was stupid after all. After an attempted shot as he tries to take out the police officer, he allow the officer to clear the weapon and then shot him while being within inches of the weapon.

I do see Bedlam's point. Something isn't quite as stated.

Trying to picture this is even more confusing.

My take on the cop's statement is that the kid got him in the ditch and was pounding on him when he decided either (a) he was going to pass out or (b) the kid tried to take his weapon, I've read it both ways, and at that time he unholstered his weapon, tried to fire it, had a dud, racked the slide, then shot the kid seven times.

Now, if I were on top of you in a position to pound your head mercilessly (although the injuries were quite minor...), I am pretty sure I won't physically be ABLE to reach into your holster and take your weapon, unless my arms were either unnaturally long or had an extra joint or two.

Moreover, if I'm straddling you, you are in a ditch, and one would assume you are reflexively putting your hands in front of your face, I am not able to visualize how you remove the weapon from the holster at that point. Unless you've got some sort of non-standard cross-draw rig, or an armpit holdout.

That kid's knee and thigh is seriously going to be in the way of you reaching the butt of the weapon.

Help me out here. How can the kid be on top of you, you on your back, perhaps with the ditch sides also constricting your lateral movement, AND you able to reach down, unholster the weapon and then cycle the action?