[VIDEO] Michigan Teen's Death Doesn't Look Like Police Brutality On Body Cam

This might be disturbing to some viewers.

369 5
369 5

Police are getting a bad rap these days.  A lot of people are looking at the men and women who try and protect us from crime as the enemy.  After Ferguson and Baltimore, people seem to almost be looking for reasons to get angry at the police.

Sometimes, it’s easier to find than others.

In Michigan, parents of deceased 17-year-old Devon Guilford seem to have more than most.  Unfortunately for them, the officer was wearing a body camera and it tells a very different story.

Guilford was stopped after flashing his high beams at a police officer.  The officer pulled Guilford over and, by the end of the encounter, a teenage boy was dead.

However, because the officer, Officer Frost, had a body camera on, we can see for ourselves what happened.

A warning though: This might be disturbing for some viewers.

From Hot Air:

From that point the officer continues to ask for the documents several more times, growing increasingly frustrated as Guilford continues to refuse, pulling out his phone to record the conversation and then attempting to place a phone call. At that point Frost is clearly fed up and orders Deven out of the car. He refuses to comply and at that point the officer pulls his taser and threatens to use it. Finally Guilford gets down on the ground after much additional arguing, but won’t comply with the commands given so that he can be placed under arrest. That’s when all hell breaks loose.

Guilford is resisting and Frost finally fires his taser, but for some reason it doesn’t work. Deven breaks lose and begins attacking the officer. In the muddled final frames of video you can see him, not running away, but in Frost’s face with his fists raised. The body camera is damaged in the attack but there’s still audio in which you hear shots ring out.

All of that is in the camera.  What isn’t is this photograph Hot Air posted of Officer Frost following the incident.

Photo courtesy of Hot Air
Photo courtesy of Hot Air

It certainly looks like Guilford resisted arrest.

Some may argue that Guilford didn’t have a weapon, something he states on the video.  That may well be true.  However, the officer carries weapons on his belt.  There’s asphalt on the ground beneath them.  There’s traffic speeding by.  Guilford had ample means to kill the officer.

Further, it’s clear that he attacked Frost.  Thanks to his body camera, we can see that.

In this article

Join the Conversation


  1. Jerry Vinikoff Reply

    What’s disturbing is that Sgt Frost was hypocritically breaking the law, blinding drivers and pulling them over for a courtesy flash. Rather than wait for backup, he abused power and egoistically found it necessary to use force and attack a 17-year old foolish kid who eventually fought back in self-defense. Somehow Frost could not handle the fight he initiated and escalated except to focus on his gun to blow the kid away with 7 rounds. Where’s a gruesome picture of dead Devon?

    1. DoctorDad67 Reply

      Hi Jerry,

      Sgt Frost didn’t have his high beams on. The new car he’d been assigned had poorly adjusted lights, but after he pulled the cars over for flashing high beams at him, he flashed his high beams just to show them they hadn’t been on. He then informed them that Michigan law says it is illegal to flash your high beams at oncoming traffic. Given that’s on the books, he was really just doing his job. If the kid had not argued, incorrectly, that the officer had no right to pull him over for it, and had given him the requested license and registration, we wouldn’t be discussing this. I read one article which said Guilford actually didn’t have his license with him, which may be why he was acting so suspicious.

      Every time a police officer pulls a car over, there’s a risk the rare psychopath every Cop’s parents worry about, is behind the wheel. We have to respect that, especially when they’re within their rights as officers of the law. This kid didn’t. I showed the video to my kids so we could discuss what never to do. He refused to cooperate as the law required and acted very suspiciously. Frost had called for backup already, and decided to get the kid out of the car. Given how the kid was acting, I can’t say that was unreasonable. Frost didn’t know what weapons might have been in the car. I’m sure Sgt Frost will always wish he’d waited for back up, but he really didn’t do anything wrong except put himself in more danger than he needed to. Unfortunately, Guilford actually turned out to be dangerous. The kid’s ego, lack of courtesy, and stupidity were unbelievable, and his temper got him shot.

      1. Jerry Vinikoff Reply

        Dear DoctorDad67,

        I commented on the article because of it’s extreme bias and lack of fact, not because I think Devon acted perfectly innocent or Frost like a homicidal maniac. If I were commenting on an article written either by a biased cop-hater or if it was Frost who had been killed, then I would have commented differently. I think someone got stupidly and unnecessarily killed, I’m against that. I believe police have to be held to a high standard of behavior and training just as I believe the public needs to be held to standards of civility and abide by laws (which should be made and enforced conscientiously).

        You seem nice but somehow justify or dismiss as OK that Devon was killed. I think it’s one thing to look at the situation, learn and analyze Devon’s own responsibility in his death, but perhaps you’re also uninformed and so maybe that is why what you wrote somehow puts all the blame solely on 17-year old Devon and gives much sympathy and excuses for Sgt. Frost who killed Devon. Since you cared to comment you may want to further consider the matter as the situation was NOT as you said. First point of fact is Sgt. Frost was knowingly driving around violating Michigan headlight law which started the whole thing.
        (Michigan 257.700(b) – Whenever the driver of a vehicle approaches an oncoming vehicle within 500 feet, such driver shall use a distribution of light or composite beam so aimed that the glaring rays are not projected into the eyes of the oncoming driver.
        The lowermost distribution of light, specified in section 699 paragraph (c), shall be deemed to avoid glare at all times regardless of road contour and loading.)
        It is not about whether Frost had high beams on when Devon flashed him, rather it’s about Frost’s irresponsibility and lack of safety as he was knowingly blinding other drivers with his lights, especially when it’s against the law and he’s a police officer. Don’t you know Frost had already stopped several other motorists prior to Devon because they had also flashed their lights at him. It could be easily construed that Frost’s conduct is a form of entrapment to fish and ask people for their papers, whether or not that’s true, he caused the stop by violating the law and if he had not then Devon would be alive and with his family. If you want, and admit that Sgt. Frost was hypocritically breaking the law, then I will further address your additional points of consideration and the actual facts.

        We both agree that Devon did not handle the situation smartly, sometimes teens are arrogant, dumb and think they know more than they do. It very sad for me that you seem to think that Sgt. Frost had no choice or alternative at any point, other than to take the path to killing Devon.

        I will rephrase your words: Every time a parent’s child is pulled over there’s a risk it’s by the rare psychopath cop. We have to respect that, especially when the system is geared to protect the police. It appears Sgt. Frost got all the backup he needed to be completely excused of what he did wrong. Unfortunately for Guilford, Frost turned out to be lethally dangerous. The cop’s ego, lack of courtesy and immaturity were unbelievable, and his temper caused him to abuse the power of his authority and weaponry rather than deescalate and calm the situation with a foolish teenager….as I think a reasonable and caring adult human being and qualified police officer would do. I also showed the video to my kids so we could discuss what never to do.

        1. DoctorDad67 Reply

          I disagree. Sgt Frost was driving around in a police issued vehicle. Nobody has said the police vehicle violated the law. They did say the lights were poorly adjusted. You are making up details when there is no documented evidence they existed. Unless you have a test report that says the light height was measured and violated the Michigan DMV’s specifications.

          That said, the lights were clearly brighter than most other cars, and Frost was flashed by 2 other drivers. Given he drove past a lot of cars, clearly not everyone thought he had his high beams on. He stopped two other drivers who flashed their high beams and informed them they were violating the Michigan law by doing so.

          He stopped a third driver and informed him of the same thing. That driver acted suspiciously and did not cooperate. He broke the law, lost his temper while getting arrested, attacked the officer, and was shot.

          The number of cops killed by psychopath drivers is not comparable to the number of drivers killed by psychopathic cops on a routine stop.

          All Cops are lethally dangerous. They are armed. And Frost was incredibly polite. If Guilford had concerns that Frost wasn’t a real cop or was dangerous, he simply had to call 911. He didn’t, he called his girlfriend, he lied to the officer, broke the law by refusing to comply with the officer’s legal requests. Guilford got himself killed by a good cop. It’s a tragedy, but the responsibility for it is skewed so dramatically towards Guilford, that I can’t see any action being taken against Stg Frost. I would have no worries at all if Sgt Frost pulled me over.

          1. Jerry Vinikoff

            DoctorDad67, Or is it not me but only you who are making up details? What “test report”? You did not cite any law or implementation to back it up. I think unless you can do that and have a “test report” that says Sgt. Frost’s lights (that your presented were“poorly adjusted” and “clearly brighter”) were measured and not violating MDMV specifications per your details, then I maintain my claim he broke 257.700(b) as amply evidenced by statements on the bodycam and phone recordings. That would mean Sgt. Frost’s breaking the law is what started the whole incident. That law I cited verbatim does not mention the test report and details you brought up as a requirement, so I have to ask you where that comes from?