Welcome, frosstyx. Good to see someone out about that profession here, and good to have someone with whom an exchange on certain topics could be mutually beneficial.
I don't like the idea of a 1-mode light, because cops have the ugly and indimitating habit of shining flashlights directly in peoples' eyes... for extended periods of time, too.
This is something guys learn in boy scouts not to do. And, I mean, by accident. Pullover cops do this to regular people on purpose. To me, it borders on harrassment. No, it IS harrassment in my opinion. If any bloke came up to me with a powerful flashlight and cornered me and wouldn't take that light out of my face, it would be harrassment, maybe battery?, although no touching is required. Certainly wouldn't be appreciated. At scout camp, boys knew better than to shine their stuff at me, and I endeavored to teach them some courtesy and restraint on the topic.
I think cops do this for several reasons: one, so you can't see their face. They want to see yours, they want theirs to be obscured. Kind of a CYA thing, I figure--if they never know who you were, and can't recognize, you, even better. Another, your vision is going to be impaired if you then try to attack them. However, that also means your vision isn't going to be all it would've been when you skiddadle after he decides to not tow your vehicle. Another thing is it humiliates the driver, because they have to look up at the cop's invisible face in a sea of darkness outside the dazzling white spot. It's like he's tempting you to complain about the light being in your eyes, and how rude that is, and thus an impairment upon civilized conversation. Normally, humans, if they can't see the person talking to them, will look away, even if dialoging. However, we suspected perps and mere mortals often have heightened manners while being pulled over by a guy with a gun, handcuffs, a faster car, and a radio to lots of his buddies. So, at least I pretend the light stuck in the eyes doesn't bother me (the only time i ever would), and pretend I can see his face just fine. And have "eye contact" with the faceless master. Whatever you call it (safety, abuse), it's humiliating and unpleasant, even painful.
Reader, have you ever had a cop shine a big Mag-Lite in your face from a couple feet away or less? Remember how bright that was? That was probably only 36 to 50 lumens, MagLites' standard brightness (varies with batteries, i think). Either way, a pittance compared to 18650 flashlights discussed here. An XM-L can do 800 lumens and beyond. That's just downright dangerous. Many manufacturers warn to not shine in the eyes. Even eyesight sensitivity being logaritmic isn't gonna do much. Sure, that MagLite was probably focused. But most LED flashlights today have a reflector and clear lens which produces a hotspot of its own.
Another thing: it's harder to use a Surefire knock-off to bash someone's skull in than a Mag Lite. I remember in the 80's they used to (may still) sell rear battery tube extenders made out of solid metal, specifically for the purpose of weaponizing your MagLite. That was used mostly by LEO's. More officers carry pepper spray now though.
As for recommending the L2P, ironically that is the one which does not come with the otherwise-ridiculous crenelated bezel. This is one application I'd want to have that bezel... especially if I used a holster, which I probably would. I'm sure many would be happy to donate their own :) .
So yeah, if you're going to be dazzling people in a premeditated way, stay away from that 1-mode XM-L and do your neighbors and countrymen a favor. (Manafont now sells an Ultrafire 5-mode, and 2 different Ultrafire 3-mode drop-ins.) Work your job so as to project that "mild government" so often refered-to and hoped for in the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers and discussions of our founding fathers. Would it be in any way productive to request that LEO's stop participating in highway robbery? Total conflict of interest, where their agencies are funded in part by the bounty they reap off of mundane traffic tickets. Which themselves are door-openers to searches of persons and possessions. They are now apparently training dogs to sniff around your vehicle, and alert every time, even if there is nothing, and never has been, any contraband in your car. Ask me how I know.. Just watch when it happens to you, reader. They reward the dog immediately when he alerts (whether they find something later or not). Which gives them "probable cause", and permission to enter your vehicle, and they claim they're not violating your civil rights. If they don't find anything, there's no apology, even if they or the dog damages your car. The attitude is that something must be or must've been in there, so--tough luck, as if you kind of deserved it anyway, since you didn't get caught. We've handed over the weighing of our 4th Amendment (which comes to you by grace of the Anti-Federalist Papers, btw) to animals! Animals which only care about biting on a rubber toy as their sole pay.
We didn't learn anything about Prohibition in the 20's. The solution remains worse than the problem. The only difference is modern-day Prohibition has been far more destructive in its unintended (or perhaps intended, or at least financially interesting) consequences. That, and in 1919, Congress chose the wrong drug-and therefore associated ethnic & social groups-to pick on.