What's wrong with the Dexter Reed story in Chicago?... Everything.
By
comments and news from net, Posted in Police-&-Firefighting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHhiS91geA
What is the purpose of undercover plain clothes police TAC squads in metro areas? To prevent crime and detect crime. So they're on the lookout for illegal gun possession, stolen cars, etc. And they use the BROKEN WINDOWS policing concept to do their work. You know what that is, right? The concept that stopping ppl to investigate small crimes many times leads to uncovering big crimes. So jumping a turnstile, driving beyond the speed limit, walking the sidewalk with an open bottle of liquor, failing to wear a seat belt, driving swervy down the road.... All these things are responded to for investigation because the TAC SQUAD cops want to check and see if there might be larger crime beneath the smaller one. Hence, it's most likely this is what was transpiring in the Dexter Reed case. The kid looked very young. He had an appearance that easily could have been that of a 14-year-old. So seeing him drive down the street could have aroused suspicion that he might be in a stolen car. The fact he didn't have a seatbelt on was used as leverage to check him out. Check age and driver's license. And maybe see if any illegal drugs in the car, or weapons. Whatever..... So the news tells us he was 16 years old. Thus the gun he held was not a legally possessed gun. When he was pulled over, he probably went into a state of fear and panic, fearing he was on his way to jail for illegal gun possession. So he didn't want to go to jail. So in his panic state of mind, he decided to fire some shots, scare the officers back, and hopefully be able to speed off and out-run pursuing cops. Sadly, this kid was lacking in sensible thinking, and he handled every second of his last few minutes alive --badly and wrongly. When he rolled his window back up --that triggered police fears he might have a gun and might fire on them. They ordered him out of the car right away. He balked. They backed up. He began firing and got off several rounds. Whether he intended to injure a cop or just fire rounds to scare them is unknown. He might have just fired wildly, not seeking to hit someone. But he really was a clueless kid. They had hemmed his car in, so he could not drive forward. And if he backed up, he would be backing up into police gunfire. So after a failed attempt to drive forward, he jumps out. But, he does NOT scream that he's coming out and to stop shooting. If he did, and they had stopped shooting, and he came out with hands up and tossed the gun on the ground -he might be alive. But he didn't -he just ran. Well police have to protect themselves. He did not throw a gun down, and even if he did, maybe he had something else in his boot. Since he did not effect SURRENDER behavior, he was still a lethal danger to them, so they had to gun him down.... And as for the charge of excessive force, that's nonsense. If you're a COP and someone is shooting at you, when you fire back, you shoot to kill -not to wound. You shoot to kill because the person firing on you might kill you if you don't extinguish them first. No officer is trained to shoot for the mere hope of wounding. That's a dumb strategy. When you shoot to protect yourself, you shoot to kill. Period. So very literally, what was just etched out in the speculative narrative here, is probably the actual story. But demonically corrupted Chicago pols, local activists, and MSM's lousy journos --are trying to turn this into an anti-cop excessive-force storyline. Because they are uninformed about police procedures, and are wickedly brainwashed, pathetically unthinking, knee-jerk propagandists....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of5DGL52-Ts
..