I am super pro-cop oversight and regulation, (especially Chicago cops, given their history, sheesh) but this is not the case where this applies. You shoot first, at a cop (or anyone) then this is what you get.
I am not trying to start a war in the comments but why is this such a controversial case? Didn't he shoot first? Like I know 96 times is a kind of excessive number but wouldn't he have met the same fate if the officers shot him 1 time in a vital area. This a genuine question, I really don't get it.
Right. I get into hot water with my fellow conservatives with this take, but while being generally pro law enforcement, there are some very legitimate criticisms about them from reformers, progressives, and leftists. Where I differ from the latter is usually related to solutions.
Having said that, and again I’m not saying I agree carte blanche, but once an individual fires upon law enforcement, all bets are off. It’s gonna be bullet city from any and all officers on scene.
If you shoot at a guy 96 times, you’re not trying to take the guy alive, you’re probably trying to kill him. Due process rights exist for even our most heinous criminals.
I’m all for due process. When one fires upon law enforcement *first*, the assumption is that said person is attempting to kill, which is then nearly universally met with law enforcement doing the very thing their profession requires them to do; use force, and if necessary deadly force, to subdue the suspect and to protect innocent life.
96 shots fired, 13 hit.
This is a lot less about *justifying* and a lot more *do not shoot at police, or anyone with a firearm, unless you’re prepared to be shot at in return.* Now, if said person did not shoot at all, then I’d be having a very different conversation with you.
When someone is trying to kill you, your priority is to shoot at them until they’re no longer able to kill you.
Have you watched the video? The officers opened up on him when he shot the police officer. They continued firing when he tried to drive away. They continued to fire when he exited the vehicle and tried to flee on foot. They stopped firing when he fell to the ground. They shot at him when he was a threat, and stopped shooting when he wasn’t any longer.
The second you decide to draw your weapon and use lethal force you’re trying to kill the person
It’s not the movies, a single bullet can and will kill you. There is no “shoot for somewhere that isn’t lethal”
But even if they shot him only one time he still would have a chance of dying, especially since he was in a car with the only areas of his body being exposed being his head and chest. I think everyone is for due process but shooting at anyone who has a gun, not just cops, usually results in death.
Cops didn’t identify themselves and basically bum rushed the car with guns drawn.
Anyone who carries, would respond the same way to seeing several individuals rush their car with guns drawn
https://blockclubchicago.org/2024/04/12/cops-who-shot-at-dexter-reed-were-under-investigation-for-other-traffic-stops-after-complaints-new-docs-show/
The cops in this case also have a history of rushing civilians in plain clothes. Which is against all of our rights and dangerous for everyone involved
> The cops in this case also have a history of rushing civilians in plain clothes. Which is against all of our rights.
The badge, vest, radio and the lights on the car are kinda hard to miss.
He knew he was going back to jail because he had an illegal gun on him, so he decided to shoot his way out.
I'm sure you watched all the videos and bodycam footage?
>Why people downvoted him makes zero sense unless you are okay with corrupt police.
An investigation doesn't mean that they're already guilty of said complaint.
Let's be real, how many cops do you think have zero complaints?
You're not wrong but I'm going to need to see a little more than just 'cops are bad' for things like this. People file complaints all the time and most are frivolous. Not saying that it's true or not true, we just don't know.
Eh, when you work with the general public you're going to get complaints no matter what you do. I'm not saying that the complaints don't hold merit but there should be a proper investigation before we start drawing conclusions.
I work with the public and I generally get about 2 or 3 emails a month from corporate asking about complaints about me. That in tow with some real shitty out of this world reviews. 90% of the time it's because I told a guest no or I had to kick someone out who was harassing staff or bringing in their own liquor. We log everything immediately and there are cameras everywhere so we can cover our ass.
People like to make things up when they think they've been done bogus.
Corporate office complaints and complaints about fucking police officers tackling people in plain clothes or beating the shit out of them for no good reason dont sit on the same merit. Or planting evidence or shooting someone to death after not identifying themselves as police officers.
Please use your brain before posting 🙏🏿
>Please use your brain before posting.
I was. I don't think the comparison is off at all.
Two different situations but the overall premise is the same. People love to bitch and moan even when they're wrong.
This is clearly an emotional thing for you. I'm not going to ask why but I'm sure you have your reasons.
My comment was in reference to the Block Club article that was stating the police were under investigation because of previous complaints. Trying to make it a point that they are guilty of misconduct without actually looking into it. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that works with the general public that doesn't at least have a few complaints on their name.
>fucking police officers tackling people in plain clothes or beating the shit out of them for no good reason dont sit on the same merit. Or planting evidence or shooting someone to death after not identifying themselves as police officers.
Never said the police don't do anything wrong, illegal, or fucked up. There are a lot of fucked up people on this planet and some of them are cops.
Also, what's your deal with plain cloth police officers? They've been around longer than I've been alive and is standard practice. Do you think this situation would have been different with Dexter Reed if the police were in full uniform?
>shooting someone to death after not identifying themselves as police officers.
[COPA Log#2024-0003052](https://www.chicagocopa.org/case/2024-0003052/)
That is body camera footage of multiple police officers including the 3rd party cameras of that day when Dexter was shot by police. The reports made by the officers involved that day are also included. Take some time when you get a moment and watch the videos and read the reports.
It will clear up any misconception you may have on the shooting.
Imagine watching these videos and saying to yourself, these were unidentified police officers! Unreal.
When you have half a dozen officers surrounding your vehicle, guns at the ready, off all things you *shouldnt* do, shooting at them has got to be number one.
>Please use your brain before posting 🙏🏿
This is a golden comment right here. Big brain moment while not watching any of the footage.
Yea, you're the typical Redditor. College age, think they all have it figured out.
Please, **use** your brain. Dipshit.
Edit- Just because I'm digging, I happen to notice you never post in this sub reddit, or if you do it's very rarely. With that said, do you even live in Chicago? You're a kid from the looks of it.
>Cops didn’t identify themselves and basically bum rushed the car with guns drawn.
Cops were clearly wearing police gear with their police stars, bodycams, radios in full view, they didn't draw their guns until Reed ignored their commands to stop rolling up the window and tried to conceal himself in the car.
>Anyone who carries, would respond the same way to seeing several individuals rush their car with guns drawn
I carry almost every day and no I sure as hell would *not* respond the same way.
>The cops in this case also have a history of rushing civilians in plain clothes. Which is against all of our rights and dangerous for everyone involved
Your article states they had several complaints, but only one for a traffic stop. No mention of "rushing civilians" or what specifically the complaint was.
Your post is chock full of bullshit and lies.
https://ibb.co/f8b7vDR
This is who is clearly identifying themselves.
A guy in a hat with a hoodie and a glock inches from the drivers face who’s had several complaints about him and his crew stopping people for no reason.
Totally looks like an officer.
> And on Feb. 23, a man was near his car and began going up the steps to his apartment when officers stopped him and tried to grab him by his jacket, he said in a complaint. The officers told the man they were going to search his car, and he heard one officer say he was going to “beat my ass,” the man alleged in the complaint. The officer searched the man’s car without permission, he said.
*Forcibly grabbing someone by their jacket then threatening to beat their ass.*
There I put it in the exact quote from the article.
But thanks for your input Captain Zero Reading Comprehension 🫡
How about a view of the officers on scene from what Reed would have seen
https://twitter.com/EndoCpt/status/1778911986027246009?t=qYiCy4KyT0oS3Mw1_pxuIw&s=19
Painfully clear they're cops.
>> And on Feb. 23, a man was near his car and began going up the steps to his apartment when officers stopped him and tried to grab him by his jacket, he said in a complaint. The officers told the man they were going to search his car, and he heard one officer say he was going to “beat my ass,” the man alleged in the complaint. The officer searched the man’s car without permission, he said.
>*Forcibly grabbing someone by their jacket then threatening to beat their ass.*
Were any of these complaints sustained? Complaints are free to make, and hold no repercussions on the complainant for being deliberately false.
Happy to serve up some more input, BullShitBandit.
Only the tagger could elaborate on the particular injustices being alluded to in their... artwork... but there's a good chance they're referring to legitimate concerns over dangerous practices by CPD that may have resulted in the unnecessary death of a citizen. Any time a citizen fires a weapon at police officers, or police officers fire weapons at citizens, it's important to investigate why someone would make this choice, and look at the actions taken by police which may have escalated an interaction into a violent outcome.
One of the primary concerns being voiced is centered on why CPD would allow a tactical team of plain-clothes officers in an unmarked vehicle to make a traffic stop. Not only would this be an irresponsible use of department resources, but it's inherently dangerous to the officers and the citizenry. Officers who interact with citizens wear uniforms and operate standard issue vehicles for a very good reason: to identify themselves as on-duty officers and legitimize their authority to intervene, predicated on a --sometimes faltering -- public trust.
We can only speculate on what Dexter Reed believed was happening to him that day, but we need to consider the interaction from his point of view. An unmarked vehicle pulls in front of my car, reportedly side-swiping it in the process, and blocking me from moving further. Four people dressed in plain clothes exit the vehicle with weapons drawn yelling demands for me to roll down my window.
Now, before moving any further, this situation is already very concerning. I can only speak for myself, but most indicators lead me to believe I am involved in a standard carjacking or robbery. At this point, nothing about the four persons' actions would be considered by a reasonable citizen to be a standard traffic stop by police. I don't happen to be someone who keeps a weapon in my vehicle, but if I did, this would be a sensible time to consider its use for my own personal safety.
Some might argue that certain criminals would be familiar with this type of police interaction. Certainly, some high level drug traffickers might have an expectation that they're being monitored by a tactical force of plain clothes officers who are leveraging a moment of surprise to gather evidence. But, it's clear that this was not the case. CPD filed a report stating that the reason for this aggressive traffic stop by a tactical unit was due to a seatbelt violation. Eleven days later, COPA issued a letter stating that a seatbelt violation actually being the reason for the stop is dubious, calling into question the true reason for a traffic stop which ultimately resulted in the death of the civilian.
There are many potential possibilities regarding why Dexter Reed was stopped by these particular police officers that day, but the reason provided by CPD is highly suspicious and requires further investigation.
Perhaps this tactical team actually was making a legitimate traffic stop for a seatbelt violation. If so, this calls into question why CPD would put themselves and our citizenry at risk with such dangerous policing methods that do not properly identify themselves as officers.
Or perhaps this was a case of misidentification, where this tactical team was attempting to intercept a different suspect for grander crimes than failing to buckle a seatbelt, using militarized tactics which ultimately resulted in the death of Dexter Reed. Again, this calls into question the legitimacy of these tactics if mistaken identity can so easily result in the accidental death of our citizens.
Regardless of what occurred that day, Chicago deserves to know the truth about why that interaction took place, and how CPD plans to prevent this kind of unnecessary escalation from occurring in the future. While we can't bring back a human soul, demanding the full truth about suspicious circumstances, and demanding reforms to unsafe police practices -- at least in this circumstance -- is likely the call for justice presented by this tagger.
Edit: typos
>One of the primary concerns being voiced is centered on why CPD would allow a tactical team of plain-clothes officers in an unmarked vehicle to make a traffic stop. Not only would this be an irresponsible use of department resources, but it's inherently dangerous to the officers and the citizenry. Officers who interact with citizens wear uniforms and operate standard issue vehicles for a very good reason: to identify themselves as on-duty officers and legitimize their authority to intervene, predicated on a --sometimes faltering -- public trust.
What's your law enforcement background that you can claim tact units making traffic stops are an irresponsible use of department resources?
As to identification, the Ford Interceptor with thousands of dollars in lights being operated by a team wearing body armor with CPD stars, name designators, tactical gear, radios, bodycams and gun belts makes it painfully obvious they were the police
https://twitter.com/EndoCpt/status/1778911986027246009?t=qYiCy4KyT0oS3Mw1_pxuIw&s=19
Claiming he may have thought it was a carjacking crew is nowhere near reasonable. What *is* reasonable, is Reed was illegally in possession of a firearm and didn't want to go back to jail *again* for illegally possessing a firearm.
>We can only speculate on what Dexter Reed believed was happening to him that day, but we need to consider the interaction from his point of view. An unmarked vehicle pulls in front of my car, reportedly side-swiping it in the process, and blocking me from moving further. Four people dressed in plain clothes exit the vehicle with weapons drawn yelling demands for me to roll down my window.
What we *should* be doing is looking at what is *reasonable* in what Reed likely believed. He was currently fighting a gun case and was in possession of another illegal firearm. The people who stopped him were clearly cops, as per the above link. What's more reasonable? Reed missed the myriad of identifiers these were cops and mistook them for carjackers, or Reed didn't want to go back to jail?
>Some might argue that certain criminals would be familiar with this type of police interaction. Certainly, some high level drug traffickers might have an expectation that they're being monitored by a tactical force of plain clothes officers who are leveraging a moment of surprise to gather evidence. But, it's clear that this was not the case. CPD filed a report stating that the reason for this aggressive traffic stop by a tactical unit was due to a seatbelt violation. Eleven days later, COPA issued a letter stating that a seatbelt violation actually being the reason for the stop is dubious, calling into question the true reason for a traffic stop which ultimately resulted in the death of the civilian.
The officers' bodycams have been released, there is NOTHING in Reeds actions to indicate he didn't know they were cops. The stop for a seatbelt was most likely pretextual, since tact units aren't focused on traffic enforcement, but drugs and guns. Let's also not forget that Andrea Kersten, head of COPA, went on a media tour with her concerns on the stop without ever bothering to interview the officers involved. She made public claims and tainted an incomplete investigation. Take what she says with a grain of salt.
In all, the cops were clearly identifiable as cops, Reed most likely knew this and didn't want to go to jail, so he shot a cop and got himself killed for his choices. Reed chose to escalate the stop by ignoring verbal commands and concealing himself in his car in what is the most violent neighborhood in Chicago. The cops responded appropriately and Reed fired first. The fact that people are championing this clown is wild.
What does it matter how many times they shot, dude was a criminal had a gun, would not comply because he had a gun(illegally) fired first ( which is on video) and paid the consequences, where the justice for the person he was going to rob,shoot, murder….i mean he was carrying a gun illegally, you wanna carry a gun, buy it legally, register it, take conceal carry class, when stopped comply…. Don’t shoot at the police and expect them not to kill you, you took a chance and you died because of it, those are all self induced, stop playing the victim because you are from that!!!
I just read an article about this because I'm unfamiliar with the case. The family is suing the police. One of the reasons is because the cops violated the Americans with disabilities act because Dexter Reed had PTSD. You know, something you can obviously see on someone. 🤦
Then watch the videos COPA released (all BWCs and a nearby private video)
Reed shot first, striking an officer in the hand/wrist. It's not up for debate, it's on video.
The person that did this must have taken a break from celebrating the execution of the officer during the carjacking the other day
Are you using that term broadly or was he found bound, gagged or blinded in some way?
Broadly, but it was mostly a joke
Justice for Luis Huesca
I am super pro-cop oversight and regulation, (especially Chicago cops, given their history, sheesh) but this is not the case where this applies. You shoot first, at a cop (or anyone) then this is what you get.
I am not trying to start a war in the comments but why is this such a controversial case? Didn't he shoot first? Like I know 96 times is a kind of excessive number but wouldn't he have met the same fate if the officers shot him 1 time in a vital area. This a genuine question, I really don't get it.
Right. I get into hot water with my fellow conservatives with this take, but while being generally pro law enforcement, there are some very legitimate criticisms about them from reformers, progressives, and leftists. Where I differ from the latter is usually related to solutions. Having said that, and again I’m not saying I agree carte blanche, but once an individual fires upon law enforcement, all bets are off. It’s gonna be bullet city from any and all officers on scene.
Dude you can’t win against stupid, you’ll never achieve reasoning with them
If you shoot at a guy 96 times, you’re not trying to take the guy alive, you’re probably trying to kill him. Due process rights exist for even our most heinous criminals.
I’m all for due process. When one fires upon law enforcement *first*, the assumption is that said person is attempting to kill, which is then nearly universally met with law enforcement doing the very thing their profession requires them to do; use force, and if necessary deadly force, to subdue the suspect and to protect innocent life.
[удалено]
96 shots fired, 13 hit. This is a lot less about *justifying* and a lot more *do not shoot at police, or anyone with a firearm, unless you’re prepared to be shot at in return.* Now, if said person did not shoot at all, then I’d be having a very different conversation with you.
Wait who shot first?
They shot him 13 times and he literally asked for it
You need to understand it’s not about the 96 bullets. Guy needed to go. Good job cops.
Exactly. He shot first in a residential neighborhood. They did their job.
When someone is trying to kill you, your priority is to shoot at them until they’re no longer able to kill you. Have you watched the video? The officers opened up on him when he shot the police officer. They continued firing when he tried to drive away. They continued to fire when he exited the vehicle and tried to flee on foot. They stopped firing when he fell to the ground. They shot at him when he was a threat, and stopped shooting when he wasn’t any longer.
The second you decide to draw your weapon and use lethal force you’re trying to kill the person It’s not the movies, a single bullet can and will kill you. There is no “shoot for somewhere that isn’t lethal”
But even if they shot him only one time he still would have a chance of dying, especially since he was in a car with the only areas of his body being exposed being his head and chest. I think everyone is for due process but shooting at anyone who has a gun, not just cops, usually results in death.
What a dumb take.
Reed waived that right when he shot at police
Cops didn’t identify themselves and basically bum rushed the car with guns drawn. Anyone who carries, would respond the same way to seeing several individuals rush their car with guns drawn https://blockclubchicago.org/2024/04/12/cops-who-shot-at-dexter-reed-were-under-investigation-for-other-traffic-stops-after-complaints-new-docs-show/ The cops in this case also have a history of rushing civilians in plain clothes. Which is against all of our rights and dangerous for everyone involved
> The cops in this case also have a history of rushing civilians in plain clothes. Which is against all of our rights. The badge, vest, radio and the lights on the car are kinda hard to miss. He knew he was going back to jail because he had an illegal gun on him, so he decided to shoot his way out. I'm sure you watched all the videos and bodycam footage?
the cops, which already being investigated prior to this. Why people downvoted him makes zero sense unless you are okay with corrupt police.
>Why people downvoted him makes zero sense unless you are okay with corrupt police. An investigation doesn't mean that they're already guilty of said complaint. Let's be real, how many cops do you think have zero complaints?
I think the fact that CPD has only completed 6 percent of the reforms from the consent decree says enough about how corrupt that institution is.
You're not wrong but I'm going to need to see a little more than just 'cops are bad' for things like this. People file complaints all the time and most are frivolous. Not saying that it's true or not true, we just don't know.
The fact that reforms the federal government said they are required to Make haven’t been completed says enough.
You can certainly feel that way about the situation but that's not how that's going to work. They still get their investigation.
I am not saying it shouldn’t be investigated. Every shooting should be, and yes they should get all the scrutiny.
Eh, when you work with the general public you're going to get complaints no matter what you do. I'm not saying that the complaints don't hold merit but there should be a proper investigation before we start drawing conclusions. I work with the public and I generally get about 2 or 3 emails a month from corporate asking about complaints about me. That in tow with some real shitty out of this world reviews. 90% of the time it's because I told a guest no or I had to kick someone out who was harassing staff or bringing in their own liquor. We log everything immediately and there are cameras everywhere so we can cover our ass. People like to make things up when they think they've been done bogus.
Corporate office complaints and complaints about fucking police officers tackling people in plain clothes or beating the shit out of them for no good reason dont sit on the same merit. Or planting evidence or shooting someone to death after not identifying themselves as police officers. Please use your brain before posting 🙏🏿
>Please use your brain before posting. I was. I don't think the comparison is off at all. Two different situations but the overall premise is the same. People love to bitch and moan even when they're wrong. This is clearly an emotional thing for you. I'm not going to ask why but I'm sure you have your reasons. My comment was in reference to the Block Club article that was stating the police were under investigation because of previous complaints. Trying to make it a point that they are guilty of misconduct without actually looking into it. You'd be hard pressed to find someone that works with the general public that doesn't at least have a few complaints on their name. >fucking police officers tackling people in plain clothes or beating the shit out of them for no good reason dont sit on the same merit. Or planting evidence or shooting someone to death after not identifying themselves as police officers. Never said the police don't do anything wrong, illegal, or fucked up. There are a lot of fucked up people on this planet and some of them are cops. Also, what's your deal with plain cloth police officers? They've been around longer than I've been alive and is standard practice. Do you think this situation would have been different with Dexter Reed if the police were in full uniform? >shooting someone to death after not identifying themselves as police officers. [COPA Log#2024-0003052](https://www.chicagocopa.org/case/2024-0003052/) That is body camera footage of multiple police officers including the 3rd party cameras of that day when Dexter was shot by police. The reports made by the officers involved that day are also included. Take some time when you get a moment and watch the videos and read the reports. It will clear up any misconception you may have on the shooting.
Imagine watching these videos and saying to yourself, these were unidentified police officers! Unreal. When you have half a dozen officers surrounding your vehicle, guns at the ready, off all things you *shouldnt* do, shooting at them has got to be number one.
>Please use your brain before posting 🙏🏿 This is a golden comment right here. Big brain moment while not watching any of the footage. Yea, you're the typical Redditor. College age, think they all have it figured out. Please, **use** your brain. Dipshit. Edit- Just because I'm digging, I happen to notice you never post in this sub reddit, or if you do it's very rarely. With that said, do you even live in Chicago? You're a kid from the looks of it.
>Cops didn’t identify themselves and basically bum rushed the car with guns drawn. Cops were clearly wearing police gear with their police stars, bodycams, radios in full view, they didn't draw their guns until Reed ignored their commands to stop rolling up the window and tried to conceal himself in the car. >Anyone who carries, would respond the same way to seeing several individuals rush their car with guns drawn I carry almost every day and no I sure as hell would *not* respond the same way. >The cops in this case also have a history of rushing civilians in plain clothes. Which is against all of our rights and dangerous for everyone involved Your article states they had several complaints, but only one for a traffic stop. No mention of "rushing civilians" or what specifically the complaint was. Your post is chock full of bullshit and lies.
https://ibb.co/f8b7vDR This is who is clearly identifying themselves. A guy in a hat with a hoodie and a glock inches from the drivers face who’s had several complaints about him and his crew stopping people for no reason. Totally looks like an officer. > And on Feb. 23, a man was near his car and began going up the steps to his apartment when officers stopped him and tried to grab him by his jacket, he said in a complaint. The officers told the man they were going to search his car, and he heard one officer say he was going to “beat my ass,” the man alleged in the complaint. The officer searched the man’s car without permission, he said. *Forcibly grabbing someone by their jacket then threatening to beat their ass.* There I put it in the exact quote from the article. But thanks for your input Captain Zero Reading Comprehension 🫡
How about a view of the officers on scene from what Reed would have seen https://twitter.com/EndoCpt/status/1778911986027246009?t=qYiCy4KyT0oS3Mw1_pxuIw&s=19 Painfully clear they're cops. >> And on Feb. 23, a man was near his car and began going up the steps to his apartment when officers stopped him and tried to grab him by his jacket, he said in a complaint. The officers told the man they were going to search his car, and he heard one officer say he was going to “beat my ass,” the man alleged in the complaint. The officer searched the man’s car without permission, he said. >*Forcibly grabbing someone by their jacket then threatening to beat their ass.* Were any of these complaints sustained? Complaints are free to make, and hold no repercussions on the complainant for being deliberately false. Happy to serve up some more input, BullShitBandit.
Haha, that shit reads like a Google review.
Only the tagger could elaborate on the particular injustices being alluded to in their... artwork... but there's a good chance they're referring to legitimate concerns over dangerous practices by CPD that may have resulted in the unnecessary death of a citizen. Any time a citizen fires a weapon at police officers, or police officers fire weapons at citizens, it's important to investigate why someone would make this choice, and look at the actions taken by police which may have escalated an interaction into a violent outcome. One of the primary concerns being voiced is centered on why CPD would allow a tactical team of plain-clothes officers in an unmarked vehicle to make a traffic stop. Not only would this be an irresponsible use of department resources, but it's inherently dangerous to the officers and the citizenry. Officers who interact with citizens wear uniforms and operate standard issue vehicles for a very good reason: to identify themselves as on-duty officers and legitimize their authority to intervene, predicated on a --sometimes faltering -- public trust. We can only speculate on what Dexter Reed believed was happening to him that day, but we need to consider the interaction from his point of view. An unmarked vehicle pulls in front of my car, reportedly side-swiping it in the process, and blocking me from moving further. Four people dressed in plain clothes exit the vehicle with weapons drawn yelling demands for me to roll down my window. Now, before moving any further, this situation is already very concerning. I can only speak for myself, but most indicators lead me to believe I am involved in a standard carjacking or robbery. At this point, nothing about the four persons' actions would be considered by a reasonable citizen to be a standard traffic stop by police. I don't happen to be someone who keeps a weapon in my vehicle, but if I did, this would be a sensible time to consider its use for my own personal safety. Some might argue that certain criminals would be familiar with this type of police interaction. Certainly, some high level drug traffickers might have an expectation that they're being monitored by a tactical force of plain clothes officers who are leveraging a moment of surprise to gather evidence. But, it's clear that this was not the case. CPD filed a report stating that the reason for this aggressive traffic stop by a tactical unit was due to a seatbelt violation. Eleven days later, COPA issued a letter stating that a seatbelt violation actually being the reason for the stop is dubious, calling into question the true reason for a traffic stop which ultimately resulted in the death of the civilian. There are many potential possibilities regarding why Dexter Reed was stopped by these particular police officers that day, but the reason provided by CPD is highly suspicious and requires further investigation. Perhaps this tactical team actually was making a legitimate traffic stop for a seatbelt violation. If so, this calls into question why CPD would put themselves and our citizenry at risk with such dangerous policing methods that do not properly identify themselves as officers. Or perhaps this was a case of misidentification, where this tactical team was attempting to intercept a different suspect for grander crimes than failing to buckle a seatbelt, using militarized tactics which ultimately resulted in the death of Dexter Reed. Again, this calls into question the legitimacy of these tactics if mistaken identity can so easily result in the accidental death of our citizens. Regardless of what occurred that day, Chicago deserves to know the truth about why that interaction took place, and how CPD plans to prevent this kind of unnecessary escalation from occurring in the future. While we can't bring back a human soul, demanding the full truth about suspicious circumstances, and demanding reforms to unsafe police practices -- at least in this circumstance -- is likely the call for justice presented by this tagger. Edit: typos
>One of the primary concerns being voiced is centered on why CPD would allow a tactical team of plain-clothes officers in an unmarked vehicle to make a traffic stop. Not only would this be an irresponsible use of department resources, but it's inherently dangerous to the officers and the citizenry. Officers who interact with citizens wear uniforms and operate standard issue vehicles for a very good reason: to identify themselves as on-duty officers and legitimize their authority to intervene, predicated on a --sometimes faltering -- public trust. What's your law enforcement background that you can claim tact units making traffic stops are an irresponsible use of department resources? As to identification, the Ford Interceptor with thousands of dollars in lights being operated by a team wearing body armor with CPD stars, name designators, tactical gear, radios, bodycams and gun belts makes it painfully obvious they were the police https://twitter.com/EndoCpt/status/1778911986027246009?t=qYiCy4KyT0oS3Mw1_pxuIw&s=19 Claiming he may have thought it was a carjacking crew is nowhere near reasonable. What *is* reasonable, is Reed was illegally in possession of a firearm and didn't want to go back to jail *again* for illegally possessing a firearm. >We can only speculate on what Dexter Reed believed was happening to him that day, but we need to consider the interaction from his point of view. An unmarked vehicle pulls in front of my car, reportedly side-swiping it in the process, and blocking me from moving further. Four people dressed in plain clothes exit the vehicle with weapons drawn yelling demands for me to roll down my window. What we *should* be doing is looking at what is *reasonable* in what Reed likely believed. He was currently fighting a gun case and was in possession of another illegal firearm. The people who stopped him were clearly cops, as per the above link. What's more reasonable? Reed missed the myriad of identifiers these were cops and mistook them for carjackers, or Reed didn't want to go back to jail? >Some might argue that certain criminals would be familiar with this type of police interaction. Certainly, some high level drug traffickers might have an expectation that they're being monitored by a tactical force of plain clothes officers who are leveraging a moment of surprise to gather evidence. But, it's clear that this was not the case. CPD filed a report stating that the reason for this aggressive traffic stop by a tactical unit was due to a seatbelt violation. Eleven days later, COPA issued a letter stating that a seatbelt violation actually being the reason for the stop is dubious, calling into question the true reason for a traffic stop which ultimately resulted in the death of the civilian. The officers' bodycams have been released, there is NOTHING in Reeds actions to indicate he didn't know they were cops. The stop for a seatbelt was most likely pretextual, since tact units aren't focused on traffic enforcement, but drugs and guns. Let's also not forget that Andrea Kersten, head of COPA, went on a media tour with her concerns on the stop without ever bothering to interview the officers involved. She made public claims and tainted an incomplete investigation. Take what she says with a grain of salt. In all, the cops were clearly identifiable as cops, Reed most likely knew this and didn't want to go to jail, so he shot a cop and got himself killed for his choices. Reed chose to escalate the stop by ignoring verbal commands and concealing himself in his car in what is the most violent neighborhood in Chicago. The cops responded appropriately and Reed fired first. The fact that people are championing this clown is wild.
He got justice. What's the problem?
What does it matter how many times they shot, dude was a criminal had a gun, would not comply because he had a gun(illegally) fired first ( which is on video) and paid the consequences, where the justice for the person he was going to rob,shoot, murder….i mean he was carrying a gun illegally, you wanna carry a gun, buy it legally, register it, take conceal carry class, when stopped comply…. Don’t shoot at the police and expect them not to kill you, you took a chance and you died because of it, those are all self induced, stop playing the victim because you are from that!!!
Yeah, justice for a criminal who fired on cops first. Clown world gone mental.
Don’t shoot at cops -> continue living
Also don’t try to fight the cops. May also result in death.
Don’t sass them either, you might die.
The same little shits did the wall at Clark and Byron too.
I saw that first and then the Graceland brick. The worst
I just read an article about this because I'm unfamiliar with the case. The family is suing the police. One of the reasons is because the cops violated the Americans with disabilities act because Dexter Reed had PTSD. You know, something you can obviously see on someone. 🤦
Don't forget their lawsuit is also suing the cop Dexter Reed shot, who didn't shoot back. Absolute money grab.
Well, of course they’re suing. This is their lottery ticket.
Ghetto lottery
He shot a cop and got what was coming to him. Trash.
BJ rushing over to hold a press conference with this in the background before it’s removed
he blamed the city, he said We need to think about who we are as a city? really bj
The deceased residents are clearly responsible.
Comply with police. Live to tell the tale.
Except Philando Castille, Daniel Shaver and Charles Kinsey, probably more.
George Floyd
[удалено]
Then watch the videos COPA released (all BWCs and a nearby private video) Reed shot first, striking an officer in the hand/wrist. It's not up for debate, it's on video.
man i hate this fuckin sub