Current Events > Police Fire 96 Shots in 41 Seconds, Killing Black Man During Traffic Stop

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/10/dexter-reed-shooting-video-chicago-police/

Paywalled.

Details?

Turns out the driver opened fire at officers first.
Family is upset why plain clothed officers responded.

Reminds me of a recent story posted here where the guy was gunned down by police and they just kept shooting and shooting his body as it layed in the street. It went on quite awhile. It was an insane amount of rounds after he was clearly dead.

As family and community members mourn 26-year-old Dexter Reed, a police oversight agency and Cook County prosecutors are investigating.

Heres a deeper look:

GRAVE CONCERNS
Videos and documents released this week by the Chicago Office of Police Accountability paint a harrowing picture of what happened during the March 21 traffic stop.

But about a week ago, the oversight agencys leader expressed grave concerns about the officers actions in a letter to Police Superintendent Larry Snelling.

Fullscreen button
Police Shooting Chicago Things To Know
Police Shooting Chicago Things To Know
Provided by The Associated Press
Officers in an unmarked police car stopped Reed for not wearing a seatbelt, according to COPA. But things devolved quickly as he appeared to refuse officers commands and didnt immediately leave the SUV, according to video.

Expand article logo Continue reading
Reed fired first, according to COPA, leaving an officer with a wrist injury. Then four officers fired 96 shots in a span of 41 seconds, including after Reed exited the vehicle, fell to the ground and lay motionless. One officer alone fired 50 shots.

Based on the totality of the available evidence, COPA has grave concerns about the officers ability to assess what is a necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of deadly force, COPA Chief Administrator Andrea Kersten wrote in an April 1 letter obtained through a records request.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/deadly-chicago-traffic-stop-where-police-fired-96-shots-raises-serious-questions-about-use-of-force/ar-BB1lpSW0

ShineboxPhil posted...

Turns out the driver opened fire at officers first.
Family is upset why plain clothed officers responded.

NGL plain clothes policing should be super illegal.

cjsdowg posted...

Reed fired first, according to COPA

Uh... huh... forgive my reluctance to buy this narrative.

Even if the suspect fired first, 96 shots would still be crazy excessive. No mention of being in an heavily armored car and even a hypothetical bulletproof vest wouldn't have held out for that long. So why was one dude firing 50 shots.

All of that is under the assumption that the police report is 100% accurate, which I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to.

DnDer posted...

Uh... huh... forgive my reluctance to buy this narrative.

Umbreon posted...

Even if the suspect fired first

He does, there's a video in there.

Still way beyond the pale.

So if he fired first he deserved to die?

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

NGL plain clothes policing should be super illegal.

I'm onboard with this sentiment.

All anyone needs is a polo tee, wraparound sunglasses, and an LED bar in your window to fake out until it's too late.

To easy to pretend.

GuerillaGorilla posted...

So if he fired first he deserved to die?

Well, what else do you want the police to do, get killed themselves?

If someone shoots at you, would you just stand there and let them shoot you? No, of course you wouldn't.

Of course the number of shots fired is going too far, I'm not disputing that, you have to neutralise any threat.

Fair. Criminal with illegal gun fired first.

Police in street wear should not be a thing. He he was stopped for not wearing a seat belt. And pp trust the cops here?

He got robocopped.

cjsdowg posted...

He he was stopped for not wearing a seat belt.

He was stopped for being a minority. Laws like that are a pretense to target people least likely to be able to afford challenging fines and/or arrest.

DnDer posted...

He was stopped for being a minority. Laws like that are a pretense to target people least likely to be able to afford challenging fines and/or arrest.

I agree with the terms real reason he was stopped. I was just pointing using their bullshit reason nothing about this stop should have happened

cjsdowg posted...

I agree with the terms real reason he was stopped. I was just pointing using their bullshit reason nothing about this stop should have happened

Nice.

Thai doesn't surprise me. My cousin is going through police training right now. One of his trainers gave him a F on officer safety because he had his tazer out instead of his firearm. They are being treated to do this.

shooting 96 times is insane and potentially could have hit an innocent bystander but the guy getting killed himself is fair, next if he actually fired first. cops should be fired as the one that fired 50 rounds would have had to reload or change weapons which is just absurd overkill

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You have four guns on you, all behind cover. Cops or not, there's no way you're shooting yourself out of that situation.

Except they were cops. And you fired on them first, as shown in the video.

What a colossal dumbass.

If anything, I'll take this as another reason why access to guns should be restricted. Because nobody as stupid as the driver should be allowed to own one.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/00a5a3ce.jpg

I think hes dead, my dear

Sry4PartyRockin posted...

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You have four guns on you, all behind cover. Cops or not, there's no way you're shooting yourself out of that situation.

Except they were cops. And you fired on them first, as shown in the video.

What a colossal dumbass.

If anything, I'll take this as another reason why access to guns should be restricted. Because nobody as stupid as the driver should be allowed to own one.

You know, just because you restrict access to guns, that doesn't stop people from getting them...

ShineboxPhil posted...

You know, just because you restrict access to guns, that doesn't stop people from getting them...

Semi-automatic handguns were the weapon of choice for underworld figures and prices have risen from $2000-$4000 to more than $15,000 (Aus)

No but it certainly helps putting it well, well beyond their price range.

I see people saying stuff about cops in ain't clothes and I could agree to a regular traffic stop and on duty. But if serious shit is happening and a off duty cop just happens to be there I'd want them to still do their job.

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I see people saying stuff about cops in ain't clothes and I could agree to a regular traffic stop and on duty. But if serious shit is happening and a off duty cop just happens to be there I'd want them to still do their job.

He wasn't wearing a safety belt.

There was an article on how a Canadian police department has bade like 137 million over the last 11 years on paid leave for police officers the other day.

cjsdowg posted...

He wasn't wearing a safety belt.

I mentioned I agree for stuff like a traffic stop but people where saying it should be illegal. I feel some circumstances should be fine. Wasn't talking about this one but let's use this one. Say a off duty cop happened to be there when thr shooting started I wouldn't be opposed to him getting involved

Sufferedphoenix posted...

I mentioned I agree for stuff like a traffic stop but people where saying it should be illegal. I feel some circumstances should be fine. Wasn't talking about this one but let's use this one. Say a off duty cop happened to be there when thr shooting started I wouldn't be opposed to him getting involved

You think people off duty should be able to just start firing? It was a 96 second event. That means there would be no time or chance to properly inform the off duty cop of the situation.

FolkenRawr posted...

You think people off duty should be able to just start firing? It was a 96 second event. That means there would be no time or chance to properly inform the off duty cop of the situation.

I meant if he was just there purely coincidental.

But that's why I didn't wanna use this situation I meant more like a off duty cop was in a store and saw a armed robbery in progress

That said I think a cop should carry his badge and staff I'd even off duty