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.
Why are undercover cops pulling over a guy for not wearing a seat belt to begin with? Unfortunately, we're still waiting for an answer to that.
That's an easy answer, they profiled him as a drug dealer and looked for any pretext to stop him. Instead of doing real police work like developing leads and stopping someone because they have probable cause to believe they're transporting drugs. But that's not sexy and adrenaline inducing.
Isn't failure to wear seatbelt a secondary offense? I believe you cannot be pulled over for it, only cited for it during a legitimate traffic stop.
Depends on the state.
Got pulled over in Utah because my adult passenger wasn't wearing his seatbelt correctly. There was no other pretense for it and there have been ad campaigns making it clear that officers will pull you over for that reason and only that reason.
If a bunch of people in plainclothes rushed my car with guns drawn I'd think I was being robbed.
This comment doesn't make sense to me. Even if he did think he was being robbed, he's outnumbered four to one, and they already have guns drawn.
Opening fire isn't a winning strategy even then.
So police can act with the professionalism of criminal organizations, got it
Of course. All cops are criminals. Every single cop has at bare minimum been an accomplice and an assaultant. Most are also thieves, murderers, and/or rapists.
You wanna know who's trafficking kids? Who's bringing in the day's big moral panic drug? Who's selling illegal guns?
Always the cops. Literally every time.
No, they are not capable of that level of coordination discretion rationality discipline or community ties.
I'm curious how you reached that conclusion?
Because you're saying they can behave the same way without facing consequences?
When did I say that?
I have a feeling you're playing dumb for engagement, because truly no one can be as clueless as this. I suspect everyone else feels the same which is why your question is being ignored. Most of your post history is similarly unaware. There will be no further reply.
Didn't answer the question, of course.
is laying down to let them shoot and rob you the winning strategy?
Between that and dying, it's the better of the two.
being shot often entails dying.
I didn't say otherwise?
Hey, take it up with the person who laid out the idiotic scenario.
You mean like Charles Kinsey?
I said nothing about pulling a gun nor firing. Only what I would think if a bunch of people ran up with guns.
And we're going to ignore the context of the article you're commenting on?
I don't have any idea what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, I imagine we'll disagree.
The police must have been very scared!
Only the bravest cowards join the police force.
The audio isn't all that clear but i heard a returning: "what is going on?" And a lack of an answer followed by excessive firearm usage.
I have a feeling this person, same as the black guy from another video that refused to stop as he was convinced cops came to execute him and decided to pull into a gas station first...kinda knew what was going on by the energy the cops give off.
If you want someone to co-operate you pull them over, explain the situation and there would be no need for firearms. But if you charge someone like wild bulls wanting to make a kill, people are gonna know...it's instinct.
I'e also seen this in a video where a guy got shot in his own house where two cops were yelling opposite commands and killed him for not co-operating, the worst part was when he knew he was fucked because they didn't have their shit together. He was asking for clarity and bang bang bang...definitely cleared it up tho, but that shit ain't right.
Stop murdering people, please.
Oh no, cops are trained to yell different orders so you can't cooperate.
It's... Instinct... To shoot at police? I'm sorry but I'd honestly want anyone who's instinct is to shoot at law enforcement to be executed on the spot.
These weren't uniformed police.
If a bunch of plain clothes people charge at me with guns I'm not going to assume they're police and cooperate.
Call a cop to your house to help your disabled kid? Theyre dead. Call a cop to do anything and some innocent person or dog is going to end up dead. Cops are criminals.
Makes sense people are going to defend themselves against legal execution gangs.
It is fucking sad and predictable how many people there are in this thread that defend the cops here.
You dont get a prize for being the bestest bootlicker.
You sure its a prize they want? Maybe they just like the taste? Maybe they enjoy pig dick every day for breakfast.
The prize is being kicked in the teeth slightly later than everyone else.
Well you do. You get shot after all the other easy targets. (Still before the insurgents in the hillsl
You also don't get a prize for calling for the execution of cops, and I'm seeing a lot of it in this thread.
Today's reminder on cop behavior comes from John Oliver - NSFW language:
https://youtu.be/Wf4cea5oObY
You'd think with all the shooting they do cops would be better at shooting things. A hundred rounds for one dude? Even if he was an actual threat that's a huge waste of money. Ammo is expensive.
Not expensive enough. As the Chris Rock joke goes, maybe if bullets cost $10k per round we wouldn’t have so much needless gun violence.
Unlimited budgets, they can't care.
He did fire at the police, you know. Pretty sure that counts as an actual threat.
He fired at a group of dudes in civilian clothes driving regular vehicles telling him they were cops. Guess what more than tripled from 2019 to 2021 and continues? Car jackings and armed car jackings.
They allege this was for a seatbelt. Weapons drawn for a simple traffic stop?
Plainclothes officers, especially, should not be approaching people with a weapon drawn.
This is exactly why the "defund the police" movement is so popular.
Traffic cops do not need to be armed.
Traffic stops should also be initiated by marked cruisers. If needed, plainclothes cops can assist, but they shouldn't be the first contact.
I'm not stopping for an unmarked without being on the phone with 911 to make sure they're a real cop.
Growing up, we had a string of assaults in a podunk city that was perpetrated buy some guy(s) who bought some blue/red lights and a siren. Hell, for a while even the cops were saying not to stop outside of a well lit area at night...
The problem is cops will shoot you for doing that too.
Well, hopefully getting shot in a well lit area means they can't suppress the footage like they've done so many other times...
Specially traffic cops on a ego trip thinking they are playing Miami Vice
The vehicles had lights and sirens, and the officers were wearing body armour that identified them as police.
The idea that he thought this was a carjacking just isn't feasible.
Plainclothes police and unmarked cars should not exist (outside of, potentially, planned and warranted sting operations)
You are literally the only one defending these thugs. Just stop it.
Not so feasible that even the 60 minutes show not so long ago did a episode/piece just about a wave of robberies that their method was using police cloths, sirens on their vehicles bought on Amazon.. This must be common enough for 60 minutes show to do a piece on it, and I bet people who seen it sure think it's a thing that is happening. Not that I'm blaming 60 minutes, just saying that it's common enough for a national tv show to pick on it for a piece.
Maybe... I still remember the national news piece about D&D being evil, and the national furor over satanic cults existing inside of day cares that had plenty of news coverage. Fearmongering isn't a new millennium thing, it's just gotten prolific due to the ease of the internet.
Swirl it a little, slosh it around and swallow it mate. You must like the taste.
Lol.
Nearly 100 shots. Either they really suck at hitting targets, or they really like shooting people.
20 rounds in a Glock mag, five officers, basically all five of them put an entire mag into the guy.
I probably would too, if someone was shooting at me.
You don't expect a trained soldier to shoot all the rounds when he is being attacked for multiple reasons. For other reasons you should also expect that a trained police officer shoots in the best possible way. All agents firing all the rounds in the mag sounds like panic too me, and if it is then cops should be better trained. One thing is how we civilians would react, another thing is how a professional that has a license to kill acts. And men with license to kill panicking and firing all the rounds sure isn't professional.. so why we admit that can say "oh I'm my case I would do the same.". They are professionals, they should act professional, they NEED TO BE professional or else shouldn't carry a arm and a licence to kill.
Have you heard of suppressing fire? Soldiers fire a huge amount of ammunition without hitting anything.
And as other commenters have pointed out, it's not panic, it's a strategy, keep firing until the threat is down.
So you're telling me that State-condoned violence is managed by people who are not better trained than a rando on the Internet.
“Wear your seatbelt to be safe or we’ll shoot.”
“He’s putting himself in danger! Open fire!”
I wish we lived in a world where we could readily believe this statement.
Rather than assuming that they probably shot their own officer in their excitement.
Pretty sure the cameras that they were wearing caught the first shot being fired.
Also the angle of attack of the shot that hit the officer could point back to where the shot came from.
Still not good enough for our narrative.
Elaborate?
Yeah this sounds like an execution.
I guarantee that cop on the far side either shot himself in the wrist or got shot by a coworker.
this is a firing squad
keep doin them guns murica, they solve all the problems
eventually
CBS video here: https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/QmTTSAar7HQSdLDULmg2VQMMwgj3RtWjALVLyLzHG9xJyz
Does it have audio for you?
No, strangely enough.
Thanks for the direct video link! Makes me want to download it for some reason.
If random ARMED men ever Approach me I'll be sure to NOT fight back in case they are Cops who can LEGALLY kill me!
No mention in the Lemmy summary of this post of who shot first?
it was the acorn.
Its never excusable for police to shoot.
A police life is worth less than anything else.
I do agree they chose to put their lives on the line so should accept the risk before putting other civilians at risk. I also think police should generally be unarmed, because it'd force them to de-escalate and not give them the ability to easily end lives.
That said, never? There are times where it's OK. Even the most civilian friendly police forces in the world still occasionally see the need to shoot someone. There are people who just need to be stopped before they cause more harm.
No mention in your bio that you're unable to read the article before commenting?
I did actually, which is why I came back and made my comment on this post.
I'm purposely criticizing the person who made the summary of the post, as it tends to indicate trying to direct a conversation in a certain way, without expressing all the summary facts.
Why would surrounding a vehicle with gunmen who get out of an unmarked vehicle be a proper response to not wearing a seatbelt?
Imagine if we just sent the ticket to their house and didn't hold up traffic with the dash/rear cameras like a speed trap would do. No officers in danger, no people feeling in danger.
Unmarked vehicles in themselves are questionable. 5 officers in 1 vehicle.. strange
Woah there. The full charge was "not wearing a seatbelt while black".
This is standard procedure for such crimes.
Man, they're really out there enforcing the laws against DWB, huh?
I never said any of that.
All I stated was that the summary was crafted in such a way as to not present all the available facts to the readers.
My understanding is a police officer was shot first, by the driver. None of that was mentioned in the summary.
Do I believe the police forces throughout the nation have a huge problem that need fixing? Absofuckinglutely.
But we're not going to fix things if we don't look at the whole truth of a situation, and only the partial truth.
I never said you said those things, I said them. That's why I used the term imagine. Sorry if you thought I was trying to pick at your words.
I know. Your response wasn't matching what I said. Thanks for clarifying.
It's alright, we are getting down voted both for having a civil conversation with possible opposing views (haven't discussed) lol
That's what a summary is tho ... simply a portion of the whole.
The complete story is in the article. Therefore read it first before commenting.
It's supposed to summarize the whole, not just one part that makes one side look favorable.
I did. This is a second time I'm telling you that now.
No, it is not simply a portion of the whole.
I sincerely hope you are an AI or a child because you're demonstrating an incredible lack of awareness here.
Edit: imagine disputing this, Jesus christ you people are dumb.
Nah, now I just think that people advocating for police reform are fact manipulators and don't tell the whole story.
You were never going to care in the first place, so what you apparently only just now think does not matter.
Right wingers love this tactic, “Oh Id totally care about X issue but [some minor nitpick] now i wont”
The post description is a bit biased. Reed fired on the officers first. Without that fact, this is terrible. With it, it's terrible but understandable (to an extent).
You're not reading, there's no evidence he shot at all just that there was a gun recovered and a police department who for years ran an illegal blacksite interrogation prison claims he fired first.
Who to believe.. who indeed.
Understanding there is no clear footage showing he fired first, and I'm not saying I believe one way or the other, but it will be interesting to see the full set of bodycam footage. OP left this out of the overview.
Preliminary evidence which is officer testimony, they go over this.
Not true. See other responses.
There's no evidence, they say ballistics, which are collected and determined by whom? The police, is police testimony, I'm sorry you don't understand the nuances of the language used.
Have you actually read any other article? Let's pick one of thousands: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/dexter-reed-chicago-police-shooting-family/
Bad.
Real bad.
Also bad. Read that first sentence a few times. Even the family realizes there are plenty of things wrong with what happened that deserve swift rectification without focusing on the one element there appears to be evidence from.
Do you understand what COPA is? Do you understand they are civilian, and not the police?
Another one: https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/09/us/dexter-reed-chicago-police-shooting-video?cid=external-feeds_iluminar_google
I'm 100% for reform, but either you're down the echo chamber and refuse to read, or you're trolling. Either way this is the last bit of education from me.
Point to one piece of evidence in that story that is not based on testimony.
In fact every quote you've provided makes it more clear there is no evidence.
Ed: your source
Tell me, if a lawsuit is successful who pays? The city does! So who has a inherent bias? The city!
You've clearly never been to Chicago or pay attention to its policing.
They don't have 4 agencies and a consent decree because they're super honest or good at their jobs.
If I had to guess, they pulled Reed over because thought he had something illegal in the car. The just used the seat belt as an excuse to pull him over and attempt to establish probable cause for a search of the car.
That is probably supported by this:
As well as the fact that, even after a cop had emptied his magazine, Reed still managed to start driving away.
I'm normally an ACAB guy, but the video makes it look like they were justified in continuing to fire, especially if it's true that Reed fired first.
In that video they already had guns out and pointed at him. A group of unmarked "cops" shouldn't be allowed to draw weapons and surround your car on a seatbelt violation. The second they all showed up with weapons drawn I would consider his shot self defense.
They shouldn't even be approaching the car until a uniformed officer is on scene to vouch that these aren't just some Proud Boys (or any similar group of wanna be paramilitary out LARPing) playing cops.
Cash money says they were some Proud Boys being cops.
The police always claim they were shot at first. The number of times I've heard that and it turns out the police shot themselves and then murdered someone makes me very hesitant to believe that without clear video of it.
there is literal video in the linked article of him shooting first.
There's police off camera. You want people to believe the police? Release all the footage. This wouldn't be the first time they released only the footage that shows them in the best light.
Another angle isn't going to show anyone else shooting first. This isn't the George Lucas cut.
this video has more angles: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/traffic-stop-shootout-chicago-police-dexter-reed-escalate/ of course you could have been there and he could have looked at you and said 'I'm going to shoot the police first' and you would have witnessed him doing it and you'd still be saying the exact same things right now.
You're right this isn't Hollywood. So why would you try to sell me that highly edited cut as evidence? That's not a video it's a slideshow with people talking over it.
Edit to add - this is what we need to see.
He was surrounded by unmarked people with guns drawn and pointed at him as soon as he rolled down his window. Plain clothes officers should not be surrounding people with guns drawn for a "seatbelt" violation. I would say he felt like his life was at risk, and use of force was completely justified here.
These cops murdered him, and should be charged as such.
100 shots from five cops is …. Actually fairly reserved.
20 rounds a piece, a Glock 19 9mm, with the 19 round mag… that could easily have been dumped inside of 15-20 seconds, faster if they didn’t care to aim.
Cops are trained, that when they start shooting they don’t stop shooting until either the target hits the pavement or makes it very obvious they’re no longer a threat. (Which, is why you see cops dump full mags into kids.) there is no “wing ‘em and they’ll give up.”
Once a cop decides to use lethal force… its over.
I have no idea of the particulars- and I’m making assumption that the cops murdered another kid. But that headline is not nearly as excessive as they want you to believe. (Though “cops shot kid” should get you angry!)
You're saying that like it's the way they should be trained.
The very fact that they are shooting children over and over again doesn't suggest to you that maybe this is the wrong sort of training?
I ain't defending it.
I completely agree with your assessment that they absolutely need better training- one of the things is spending increased focused on deescalation and soft skills- time-wise,
one unfortunate reality is there are people who would fire out of that car at cops. looking into it it's at least plausible that the guy shot first. Not ... that I trust the narrative. Dirty cops get protection from the others. who knows who shot first.
all I was trying to point out is that, a hundred rounds fired by five cops, isn't actually all that much.
You can see glass blow out from the right hand side of the vehicle before the body cam officer starts shooting, it definitely looks like the vehicle occupant fired first.
Yeah.
nsfw warning, but here’s the COPA release.
They have every body camera involved in it;starting from before they get out of the car (but no audio until they do.)
It’s pretty clear that Reed shot first.
Their pretext for pulling him over doesn’t make sense, though. One, all the windows were tinted, and it’s special tactics cops- there’s a lot of maybes here but you don’t send these guys for routine traffic stops.
Going by the way they approached the vehicle, they knew something was likely to happen.
That does make some sense, once the decision to use lethal force has been made, you use it until it has worked. Police do carry nonlethal weapons as well.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/nnqk4b/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-non-lethal-weapon-1021
What would you prefer, they asked politely, and gave up when people declined?
You're right. There's no middle ground between asking someone politely and giving up when they decline and emptying an entire clip into their chest.
No middle ground at all.
Maybe some type of weapon that, if used correctly, can immobilise or incapacitate someone without doing any lasting harm?
Ah yes, this imaginary weapon that will always be used correctly and never on anyone with a heart condition or anything like that.
I don't know how cops even survived before "non-lethal" weapons were invented. I guess they just shot every criminal every time. Either that, or it was just cop murder constantly. I don't even know how there were any cops.
They hit people with sticks, that's how.
You mean they had to get close to a criminal? They had to actually be brave and take risks?
Police still do carry batons, by the way. It's much easier to do that when the other guy doesn't have a weapon, of course.
I'm honestly not sure what your point is here, police can and do use pepper spray and tasers quite often, but not when the person they're approaching is likely to have a firearm.
Seems to me they use their guns a lot of times when the other guy doesn't have a firearm...
Not when they have no valid cause to fire even once FFs!
Sø you're saying that, at least some of them emptied their mag and then RELOADED to keep shooting for no good reason? That's what you call fucking RESERVED??
First of all, that's horrible. That's murder.
Second of all, it's pretty damn hard to "hit the pavement" when you're seated inside a car trying in vain to not be murdered!
Barricading yourself inside his car unarmed wasn't obvious enough?
It's plenty fucking excessive and even WITH your disclaimers at the end, you're still minimizing absolutely insane behavior and dismissing it as "reserved". That's fucked up and you should probably reevaluate some things..
First of all, you should probably watch the video in the article. Or any of the other videos that came out.
Of special note is the cop at the front passenger window getting shot. those were the first shots fired. You, uh, sure, you want to insist he was "unarmed"? or perhaps you're suggesting the cop buddies just didn't like him?
in the cbs segment on it... the ex-cop-talking head makes an excellent point: the pretext for stopping was total bullshit. For one, those windows are heavy tint. you can't see inside. For another, special tactics teams are not used for "routine traffic stops". unless it's an exceedingly slow day. (and it's chicago. no such thing as a slow day.)
it doesn't pass the bullshit test. but in the videos released of the shooting... cops got shot first. I'm surprised they didn't turn the truck into scrap. And yes. that's fucked up.
You mean the ones carefully curated by the cops to make them come off as well as possible? No thanks. I never watched the campaign videos of Joe Arpaio or Eric Adams and I'm not going to start watching pro-cop propaganda now.
No evidence of where that sho came from. Could easily be a cop with bad aim, yes. I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to the murder victim, not the murderers.
"I'm not trying to defend murderers, BUT.." 🙄
So you’re full of shit spouting your own propaganda. Okay.
Have a nice life living in a fairy tail where the only monsters are cops.
Nope. Just not automatically trusting the story of cops because I'm not an idiot.
Have a nice life living in a fairy tale where cops aren't monsters and haven't proven themselves as inherently untrustworthy as the IDF, Newsmax or Russia Today.
I think I’ve been very clear about my skepticism.
I’m not trusting the cops for shit. Watch the video. If you want skip the talking heads, go to twenty-five seconds in the video on this article. That’s just before the first shots start. You see a cop get shot.
Those were the first shots fired.
Is it curated? Probably. Their pretext is full of shit, no question.
But not who fires the shot. Could be another cop. Could be a randomly passing lunatic. Could be Rahm Emanuel or Chicago Bears punter Trenton Gill for all we know.
You're acting like a bullet hitting a cop is in itself incontrovertible evidence that their victim shot first. It's not.
And you’re acting like it’s not evidence at all.
I accept there’s missing information here. Things we don’t know. A lot of this is going to depend heavily on the real reason the cops targeted him. I doubt very much either of us will really know. And I’m very confident they didn’t pick a random black guy.
You seem incapable or unwilling to doubt the narrative you’ve already decided is the Truth™️.
As for who fired the first shot, the cops didn’t go active until after the cop gets shot. The more or less full body cam videos of every cop Are released there. Including the cop that gets shot (arm/wrist. You can see the blood on his left hand.)
Not of anyone in the car shooting, like you keep pretending it is.
Rule number one of everything cops release to the public: if there's anything significant missing, it's extremely likely that it's missing on purpose because it contradicts their narrative.
Does Trenton Gill even have an alibi? 😛
Because they're trigger happy and murdering people makes them feel powerful, probably.
Proving once again that you've learned nothing from previous similar incidents.
Says the one who trusts cops without evidence 🙄
According to cops who have proven no such thing.
And again, I never said I don't believe that the cop got shot. I just won't take a notoriously untruthful and manipulative group of people at their word on WHO shot him.
And unfortunately they seem to be making that decision before they even arrive on the scene.
They were certainly prepared to make it, and considering how short the trip was- like they got in the truck, rolled up and rolled out on the guy.
There’s something else here. It wasn’t a seatbelt beef, and it wasn’t an accident.
Rule 1 with talking to police in a car is always keep both hands on the stearing wheel at all times or keep you hands whare the officer can see them if in passenger or back seat rule 2 is always comply with the officer even if you are in the right and he is wrong take your Battle to the court Room the odds are better and you don't end up like Swiss cheese cause you reached for some chewing gum and the cop mistakes it for a loaded fire arm
Fuckin hell Eddie, did they shoot your punctuation too?
https://abc7chicago.com/dexter-reed-chicago-police-shooting-body-camera-video-copa/14637195/
From the video: The 26 year old was already facing illegal gun charges and if the cops found the gun he'd be going back to jail.
At least one clearly had a vest on marked POLICE
It's very likely they ran the plates, knew he was up on weapons charges, saw him not wearing a seatbelt and used that as a pretence to pull him over. End of the day he was a criminal doing criminal things who shot a cop first.
It seems like one of them was marked, but I can't tell if that vest had the same text on the front from the video.
I mostly agree with this, but still, there's some room to doubt that he knew they were cops.
Doesn't matter the reason they used he broke rule 1 keep your hands on wheel and rule 2 comply when asked he could of brought that up in court
Hard to bring anything up in court when you're dead. The cops know this.
It doesn't matter, but you're kind of avoiding the things that matter here. The other texts I highlighted show that he couldn't have known that they're actually police officers (I am assuming your rules don't apply to gangs) so he had no reason (according to this article) to comply.
When you can't tell that someone is a cop, the "rules" for handling a cop don't matter to you.
Super cool to need specific rules to not die when interacting with local law enforcement. Totally normal.
He shot at the cops. They fired back. What's to understand?
According to additional information, they were in an unmarked car and not uniformed officers. So for all intents and purposes, a random group of people.
How do you expect someone to react to a seemingly random group of people approaching a vehicle and demanding they get out? Sounds like self defense in that context.
We need all the information, with body cam video. Police have lied about these situations before to protect their shitty decisions. Their report cannot be trusted by itself.
In Humboldt Park which has had car jackings more than triple for the last few years.
You mean like the bodycam video that it's in the article? The one that clearly shows at least one of them wearing a vest that has 'POLICE' written on it while they repeatedly tell him to unlock and open the door? and after being told multiple times to unlock and open the door, saying he will, so the cops on the drivers side all back off to let him out and then he starts blasting at the one on the passenger side?
There was absolutely no confusion at the point when he started shooting that they were cops.
You can buy those patches on Etsy. Get a police car, get someone in their actual uniform. They're the one that engages the driver with commands. Not this mob style shit they're doing.
Wow. I think it'd be hilarious to see you in court claiming you shot at a police officer because you thought they were fake. Bonus points if you mention etsy.
I guess if they actually were fake, you'd have a point. Kind of like when cops shoot at people who they think are armed.
It's not winning a court case we're worried about. It's not knowing it's the police and getting killed because you thought you were being attacked.
The police have a duty to protect and that should include how they conduct themselves.
No they don't.
This guy clearly knew they were police, which is why you see so many apologists claiming that you can buy fake cop things online. They legitimately think that's a rational belief; assume the people pursuing criminals aren't actually police.
I'm glad the real world is a bit more rational than what goes on here.
If they don't have a duty to protect then they're just a well funded gang and they should be disbanded; by force if necessary. And if the world is so high minded and rational why are there so many stories of criminals disguising themselves as cops?
Not really. If police departments just sit around and do nothing, then the communities funding them would (hopefully) do something different after enough crime goes unpunished. This isn't a guarantee, but is typically what happens in Western societies.
We've already experienced life without cops. It was called CHAZ and it wasn't long before the upstanding citizens inhabiting it started murdering each other over petty things like respect and material goods.
Like it or not, without cops real criminals would have their way with you. This is because you can't fight and you don't own guns. That means anyone who can fight or has a gun can take what they want from you because you can't defend yourself. All the mental health care in the world won't stop them or protect you.
It's a pretty simple concept, but reality tends to get warped if you just believe whatever is upvoted on these forums.
Ah yes because the only options are an official gang that can do whatever it wants and Anarchy. There's nothing at all between the two and the cops are the only thing protecting us from the horrible no good criminals. Sure thing buddy.
What patch? The guy in the car was up on illegal weapon charges and illegal carrying a weapon. He didn't shoot because he didn't know who they were. He shot because he didn't want to go back to jail.
The one you so ably pointed out. And if our prisons are so bad people would rather die than go back we should probably fix that.
Would rather die? He would rather fight than be punished.
Damn, seeing how you guys twist facts and argue in bad faith really puts things into perspective than me.
Most of ya'll are too removed from reality to ever be brought back. These forums are just your containment zones, lol.
Nobody in the criminal world thinks they're going to shoot at police surrounding them and come out alive. He didn't think he was getting into a fight and then going to prison again.
Lol. You speak for all criminals in all instances? Nobody has ever won a shootout with the police?
I guess that's what makes you removed from reality, lol. Thanks for proving my point.
Nice loaded language! It really makes it seem like this guy has a 6 star wanted level rather than being pursued by 2 cops in an unmarked vehicle.
This is why rational people do not take you seriously.
Did you watch the video? It was 4 cops, one to the right front, two to the left front, and one to the left rear. That's not a scenario in which you successfully shoot your way out. And I didn't say nobody ever won, I said with the police surrounding them.
Great. It's also not a scenario where a rational person would think they're fake cops.
So we can debunk the notion that he was acting in self-defense because he didn't know they were cops. He'd rather take his chances in a shootout than the guarantee of prison and the cops were justified in killing him.
It's funny watching your rhetoric defeat itself.
lmao, you don't have an argument except to make a declarative statement and act as if it's the truth. You're not debunking shit, the military and criminal gangs use the same tactics because they work. That's not going to tell you it's the police.
Is it really that hard to just have a single uniformed officer and a single properly marked vehicle be there?
That doesn't appear to be a patch. Unless the prison comes with 24 hour massage and blow job service, very few criminals are ever going to want to go to jail. There is no fixing that. Maybe instead of trying to defend someone who would rather shoot at cops than face his illegal actions you could spend that effort teaching people like that not to be like that.
Face what actions? Why was he stopped in such an aggressive manner again? A seatbelt?
And no the choice isn't torture or blowjob.
This is the rational response, but there are plenty of irrational children here whose growth has been stunted by these forums.
These are police vehicles, with lights and sirens, you can see them in the video. That's not easy to fake.
They're unmarked, any lights and sirens are low profile stuff in the grille or passenger compartment. And yeah you can buy them.
And you get in a massive amount of shit if you have them on your vehicle, too.
Yeah, but that hasn't stopped people. That's why it's important for police to not blur the line. Even one actual police car with one officer in their full uniform would remove the ambiguity.
I don't think it's realistic this person didn't know these people were police, if it was a rival gang or dealer etc, they would have simply opened fire on him without trying to get him out of the car.
He knew they were police, and he knew he was in trouble.
Robbers, including ones going after drug money have impersonated police. You don't know what they want, this isn't Hollywood where gangs are in a 24/7 war. You don't even know if he was in a gang.
I'm aware, Al Capone quite famously did it.
It's pretty unlikely they'd pull a stunt like that in daylight, and in such a public place though.
You apparently get in a massive amount of shit of caught without your seatbelt too, yet here we are.
This wasn't really about the seatbelt, the police knew what was going to happen. You don't have four people with guns drawn for that.
"The police knew what would happen when a squad came out of an unmarked car wearing plain clothes brandishing guns..."
Well, they at least hoped.
They had bulletproof vests marked as police, and the car had lights and sirens
I'm seeing one guy with a vest that said "police" and he wasn't the one at the door.
Unmarked cars generally have lights though.
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?
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.
🤡
🥾 😋
Random people? Unmarked cars put on lights to pull people over
The other day a car that was very obviously not a cop lit up some lights and ran a red light I was stopped at. Turns out you can just buy lights.
https://www.amazon.com/XRIDONSEN-Emergency-Flashing-Windshield-Ambulance/dp/B0B3RY1VQ3/
True. So...you'd start shooting too?
It’s hard to say how you’d react when you’re surrounded by seemingly random guys “shouting profanities” at you, pointing weapons. The cops almost certainly escalated the situation completely unnecessarily. As they are wont to do. If you read the article, it very much sounds that way.
Their excuse is he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt. It isn’t clear how the situation went this way, but they apparently didn’t announce themselves as police, and when he rolled the window up they pulled their guns and shouted at him.
Tell me how you’d react.
And tell me honestly what you think would be more dangerous: a bunch of cops escalating this exact situation, or car jackers trying to force him out of the car? Honestly, it seems like the situation with the cops is more dangerous.
I don't believe you, but okay.
Putting spotlights or emergency lights on your car is highly illegal.
So because something is illegal nobody does it?
It's definitely a deterrence.
Go ahead, argue you thought they were fake cops in court. See how well that works for you out in the real world.
You'd have point if they were actually fake cops.
Thank god all the laws have deterred people from breaking them. Like drugs, speeding, murder, changing lanes without signaling, running a red light, shoplifting. Those things never happen because theyre illegal! Why didn’t we think of this solution to crime before.
You're right.
Laws are pointless and have no effect.
My bad.
But you’re trying to bring the “well it’s against the law and laws are deterrents against law breaking so how likely is it that happened” argument into the conversation. Our point is that means nothing to someone breaking the law.
And you’re also saying this like it matters to someone who might’ve thought their life was in danger. The kid very, very well might’ve been thinking these people were going to murder him.
OUR point is the cops need, need, need to be so much better than that. Arguing against that point is foolish. Hence, we think you’re being a fool.
Plain clothes officers in an unmarked car with guns drawn on him for a seatbelt violation. How is somebody supposed to differentiate them from any other gang calling themselves "police"?
He shot in self defense. Period.
https://abc7chicago.com/dexter-reed-chicago-police-shooting-body-camera-video-copa/14637195/
More information here, from the video narration:
The 26 year old was already facing illegal gun charges and if the cops found the gun he'd be going back to jail. He didn't shoot in self defence. He shot because he was a criminal afraid to go back to jail.
When did you gain your psychic powers? I'd like to talk to my dead grandparents.
Clearly you already live in a fantasy world if you think a criminal illegally possessing a weapon simply shot out of 'self defence' when faced with returning to jail. No one was running up on him when he shot. They were backing off, clear as day in the video. The mental gymnastics people will go through to defend violent criminals is absolutely sad.
Interesting that someone claiming to know a dead person's motivations and thoughts accuses me of living in a fantasy world.
I notice that you didn't accuse the person who claimed he fired in self defence of having psychic powers. Maybe if your bias was so blatant I wouldn't take everything you said as a giant trolling joke.
"You didn't say anything to them, therefore what you said to me is not valid" is very poor reasoning.
It would be if I'd never seen you before, but given how many times I've run across you, it's pretty spot on.
And the psychic makes another pronouncement from the spirit world.
We can easily infer from the evidence we have.
He shot at plain clothes police officers with an unmarked car that didn't announce themselves as police in the video I saw, but they turned their video on after the encounter started.
We're talking about trying to murder another human. Stop dehumanising them.
Nearly 100 shots. Cops love shooting people. Stop treating them as anything more than State-sanctioned deviants.
Wow it's genuinely disturbing that so many people here think attempting murder is an appropriate response to getting pulled over. Yeesh people.
Wow it's genuinely disturbing that so many people here think a SWAT team of an appropriate response to someone not wearing a seatbelt. Yeesh people.
You really shouldn't be surprised, this place is worse than Reddit in that regard.
You're free to not be here.
And yet, here I am.