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.
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.
Elaborate?
I guarantee that cop on the far side either shot himself in the wrist or got shot by a coworker.
Today’s reminder on cop behavior comes from John Oliver - NSFW language:
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.
is laying down to let them shoot and rob you the winning strategy?
Between that and dying, it’s the better of the two.
You mean like Charles Kinsey?
being shot often entails dying.
I didn’t say otherwise?
shoot and
Hey, take it up with the person who laid out the idiotic scenario.
So police can act with the professionalism of criminal organizations, got it
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.
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.
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.
Its taking the bastards with you. Or trying to take one at least. A last heroic act is worth a salute at least, if he actually did draw first, or even had a gun.
Are you genuinely describing shooting at police as “heroic”?
Yikes.
Anything that gives us one less cop gives us a better world.
Brain-washed lol. Go to your local precinct and say that, I dare you.
So your rebuttal is to suggest that they’re violent thugs who kill at the slightest provocation and have no regard for human life or ability to talk shit out?
Supporting my point?
They really didn’t think that reply through, did they?
You seem to have gathered that the murder victim shot at the police. Unless you have another source, you are clearly not reading the linked article. It states that no footage shows that the victim ever shot, or had a gun in possession. States that he had no gun on or around him when they cleared the slumped body. The did however find a (most likely planted) gun in the car later. Do you need a class on reading comprehension or something?
If they were all a specific kind of white guy, I’d assume I was being lynched and take as many as I could
Does it have audio for you?
Thanks for the direct video link! Makes me want to download it for some reason.
“Wear your seatbelt to be safe or we’ll shoot.”
“He’s putting himself in danger! Open fire!”
He shot at the cops. They fired back. What’s to understand?
“Mmm… cop’s boot” (You on the Internet)
Me’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.
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.
We can easily infer from the evidence we have.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The police have a duty to protect
No they don’t.
It’s not knowing it’s the police and getting killed because you thought you were being attacked.
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?
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.
You apparently get in a massive amount of shit of caught without your seatbelt too, yet here we are.
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.
This is the rational response, but there are plenty of irrational children here whose growth has been stunted by these forums.
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.
Face what actions? Why was he stopped in such an aggressive manner again? A seatbelt?
And no the choice isn’t torture or blowjob.
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.
In Humboldt Park which has had car jackings more than triple for the last few years.
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.
You really are grasping at straws here.
it looks like they boxed him in with their vehicle.
Yes.
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.
You can buy those lights online, btw, Dr Strangelove
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.
Bye Felisha.
Which is highly illegal.
Better tell the criminals, they wouldn’t want to break the law.
The cop-hate among ya’ll is insane.
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?…so is shooting someone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well you do. You get shot after all the other easy targets.
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.
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.
Yeah this sounds like an execution.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
Once a cop decides to use lethal force… its over.
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.
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 ør 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.
In all, the city spent $295 million to resolve lawsuits alleging more than 1,000 Chicago police officers committed a wide range of misconduct — including false arrest and excessive force — in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, according to WTTW News’ analysis. Through the end of November, the city spent $62.3 million in 2023 to resolve police misconduct lawsuits.
The police don’t care, those lawsuits come out of taxes.
Yup. The city didn’t pay for shit. The citizens of Chicago did. I say make cops pay for lawsuits out of their pension funds. Watch this shit turn around real fast.
Cost of doing business.
this is a firing squad
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.
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.
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/
Specifically, COPA is uncertain how the officers could have seen this seatbelt violation given their location relative to [the] vehicle and the dark tints on vehicle windows
Bad.
Body camera footage shows one officer fired at least three shots after Reed fell to the ground, but was still moving.
Real bad.
While the Reed family’s attorneys did not directly address COPA’s assertion that it appears Reed fired first, they suggested he feared for his life when five plainclothes officers surrounded his vehicle pointing weapons. They also said the officers never announced themselves as police during the incident.
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
"Review of video footage and initial reports appears to confirm that Mr. Reed fired first, striking the officer and four officers returned fire,” the office [COPA] said.
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
It was not immediately clear from CNN’s review of bodycam footage who fired first.
The Civilian Office of Police Accountability (COPA) is an independent city agency which has the authority to investigate allegations of police officer misconduct and police shootings.[28] It can make recommendations about disciplinary action and department policy, but cannot take such action itself.[27][29] COPA was created in 2016, replacing the former Independent Police Review Authority.[29]
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.
