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.
The police must have been very scared!
Only the bravest cowards join the police force.
Today’s reminder on cop behavior comes from John Oliver - NSFW language:
No mention in the Lemmy summary of this post of who shot first?
No mention in your bio that you’re unable to read the article before commenting?
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
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.
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.
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.
brief statement or account of the main points of something.
No, it is not simply a portion of the whole.
Therefore read it first before commenting.
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.
I wish we lived in a world where we could readily believe this statement.
The Civilian Office of Police Accountability said preliminary evidence showed Reed fired first, injuring an officer in the Humboldt Park neighborhood on the city’s West Side.
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.
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:
The Civilian Office of Police Accountability said preliminary evidence showed Reed fired first, injuring an officer in the Humboldt Park neighborhood on the city’s West Side. Then four officers returned fire, shooting 96 rounds.
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.
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.
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!)
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.”
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.
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.
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.
100 shots from five cops is …. Actually fairly reserved.
Not when they have no valid cause to fire even once FFs!
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.
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??
Cops are trained, that when they start shooting they don’t stop shooting until either the target hits the pavement
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!
or makes it very obvious they’re no longer a threat
Barricading yourself inside his car unarmed wasn’t obvious enough?
not nearly as excessive as they want you to believe
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.
First of all, you should probably watch the video in the article. Or any of the other videos that came out.
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.
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?
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.
it doesn’t pass the bullshit test. but
“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.
So you’re full of shit spouting your own propaganda. Okay.
Nope. Just not automatically trusting the story of cops because I’m not an idiot.
Have a nice life living in a fairy tail where the only monsters are cops.
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.
You see a cop get shot.
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.
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?
Plainclothes Chicago police officers fired nearly 100 gunshots over 41 seconds during a traffic stop that left one man dead and one officer injured
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.
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.
Plainclothes Chicago police officers
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.
End of the day he was a criminal doing criminal things who shot a cop first.
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
Doesn’t matter the reason they used
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.
Hard to bring anything up in court when you’re dead. The cops know this.
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.
Unmarked cars generally have lights though.
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.
These are police vehicles, with lights and sirens, you can see them in the video. That’s not easy to fake.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
True. So…you’d start shooting too?
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.
We can easily infer from the evidence we have.
Wow it’s genuinely disturbing that so many people here think attempting murder is an appropriate response to getting pulled over. Yeesh people.
You really shouldn’t be surprised, this place is worse than Reddit in that regard.
“Mmm… cop’s boot” (You on the Internet)
We’re talking about trying to murder another human. Stop dehumanising them.
