Videos show Chicago police fired nearly 100 shots over 41 seconds during fatal traffic stop
apnews.com
Plainclothes Chicago police officers fired nearly 100 gunshots over 41 seconds during a traffic stop that left one man dead and one officer injured, according to graphic video footage a police oversight agency released Tuesday.
Five officers from a tactical unit who were in an unmarked police vehicle surrounded an SUV last month driven by Dexter Reed, allegedly for failing to wear a seatbelt. Video shows the 26-year-old Black man briefly lowering a window and then raising it and refusing to exit the vehicle as more officers arrived, yelled commands and drew weapons.
You are viewing a single comment
And people being ambushed generally don't have time to check if their attackers unmarked vehicle has emergency lights.
You can very clearly see the lights in the video, there's no way this person didn't realize they were dealing with police.
Why else would they have pulled over?
Yeah, we can see the lights from the video's perspective, that doesn't prove Dexter saw them. If we're going off what the video shows, it doesn't look like they pulled him over, it looks like they boxed him in with their vehicle.
Yes.
You really are grasping at straws here.
You can buy those lights online, btw, Dr Strangelove
You didn't answer the question. Why would the guy have pulled over?
Because the most prevalent armed gang will kill you if you don't.
The real problem is the gang member was out of his colors, so it was impossible to tell which group of murderous thugs was actually involved.
So he knew they were police?
Fry squinting
Which is highly illegal.
Are you trying to say that he would be justified if he saw the lights because he could've thought they were fake?
The cop-hate among ya'll is insane. Really puts into perspective the kind of person that frequents these forums too much.
Better tell the criminals, they wouldn't want to break the law.
Let's have a quick reality check here:
What was the crime?
How many police were involved?
How armed were the police?
Is that proportional to the crime?
🤡
Suspected for illegal possession of a firearm, which I think any reasonable person would agree warrants an armed response.
Nothing in the article about an illegal firearm.
I suppose if "suspected of having a firearm" justifies this kind of response, then police are always justified using this kind of response because who knows if they have a legalally obtained firearm?
I mean, they were right weren't they?
Was it illegally obtained? Or did he have the right to carry it?
I'm confused, where are we on the 2nd amendment, do people have the right to guns or not?
Some of the other commenters have said he had a record, and was not permitted to have a firearm.
The officers definitely came expecting trouble.
For the reason of, according to the police, him not having a seatbelt on.
If the police are that scared of someone not wearing a seatbelt, maybe just let him dive without a seatbelt. Seatbelt laws are for your own safety, and by all appearances he's safer driving without a seatbelt than he is being pulled over by the police.
You don't seriously think the seatbelt is why there were five armed officers, do you?
Are you saying the police are LYING about why they pulled him over? Why would they do that?
I bought a light wand from Walmart and one of the functions is red and blue flashing lights. You can also use an app on your phone, I remember some kids getting in big trouble for messing with people using one.
…so is shooting someone.
Yup, he really shouldn't have fired at police.
Bye Felisha.
🤡
🥾 😋