October 22, 2015
(ANTIMEDIA) On a snowy Michigan road in February, Eaton County Sheriff’s Sgt. Jonathan Frost killed seventeen-year-old Deven Guilford by shooting him seven times at point-blank range. Guilford had been driving to his girlfriend’s house from a church basketball game. As the cop passed him, the teen thought the other vehicle had its high beams on, so he flashed his own to signal that.
Exercising his “blue privilege” to retaliate with coercion over petty aggravations, Frost pulled Guilford over. The teen verbally objected to the cop’s escalating commands. Soon, Frost shot Guilford with his stun gun, and very quickly after, shot him to death with his handgun. The fatal encounter, up until right before the shooting, was recorded both by Frost’s body cam and Guilford’s mobile phone.
In June, a county prosecutor cleared Frost of all charges, accepting the cop’s dubious allegation that Guilford had attacked him in a life-threatening manner in the seconds between the Taser shot and the first gunshot. Guilford’s parents are now suing.
During the stop, Guilford asked “Am I being detained?” and made other remarks typical of individuals trying to argue in defense of their rights.
Frost later claimed that he interpreted these statements as red flags suggesting the teen might be a “domestic terrorist.” Frost claimed he feared, when Guilford got on his mobile phone, that he might be calling in reinforcements from his local militia. The kid was calling his girlfriend. As Reason Magazine reported, “Frost said he had received a bulletin about the threat the sovereign citizens’ and militia movement posed to police officers.”
According to CNN, “The prosecuting attorney’s report references a recent police bulletin that warned officers about such threats.”
That is how much of a police state America has become. Vocal defense of one’s own rights is seen as “extremism” and the behavior of a “terrorist.” And murdering a boy who was possibly physically defending his rights is deemed a tragic, but ultimately justified act.
Cops have long been trained by their departments to be paranoid, as if cop-killers were lurking around every corner. This has only accelerated with recent propaganda about a phony “war on police.” And it has proven fatal to many victims of police violence, especially since it is mixed with an “officer safety uber alles” mentality and the knowledge that cops can literally get away with murder thanks to their “qualified immunity.”
The Federal government has also long contributed to the police paranoia problem, especially since 9/11. The most recent bout of fear mongering by the Feds may have been a decisive motivating factor in Jonathan Frost’s depraved decision to escalate with and then murder Deven Guilford.
Police paranoia over Americans who assert their rights will probably only worsen in the near future, as the Justice Department announced last Thursday it will “pivot” toward treating “anti-government” groups as an even greater threat than ISIS. A new “Domestic Terrorism Counsel” was created just for this purpose. A DOJ official listed “anarchy” as among the “despicable beliefs” that would be targeted.
Is this announcement being accompanied by another police bulletin: one with dire warnings about young people quoting Murray Rothbard on the Non-Aggression Principle or sporting a bumper sticker with a circle-A or a voluntaryist V?
Whatever your political beliefs, be on the safe side and avoid contact with cops as much as possible — or you just may run across one as brainwashed, paranoid, homicidal, and cold-hearted as Sgt. Frost.
This article (Did a Paranoid Cop Gun down a Teen Because of Fear Mongering by the Feds?) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Dan Sanchez and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email email@example.com.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us