Police Fire 96 Times At Driver After Pulling Him Over For Seat Belt Violation

Body cam footage released Tuesday of a traffic stop in Chicago gone horrifically wrong is calling into question the official story told by police on the scene. Five plainclothed Chicago police swarmed 26-year-old Dexter Reed’s car on March 21, pumping 96 shots into his vehicle after Reed apparently fired at officers. However, the officers’ body cam footage tells a very confusing story.

It’s Time The Nissan Altima Got Some Respect | Jalopinions

For instance, why did it take five plainclothed officers in tactical vests with guns drawn jumping out of an unmarked car to swarm a vehicle for a seatbelt violation? Why were officers shouting at Reed right from the start? Why did the officers from across the street feel the need to empty their weapons and then reload? And did Reed really shoot first? After reviewing the video, it’s unclear both to us and to other news outlets, like CNN. Reed’s family also find the entire situation confusing:

Reed’s uncle Roosevelt Banks said he would panic in that scenario.

“If I was in that situation, I would be terrified. I wouldn’t know how to … react other than to protect myself,” Banks said after watching the police footage.

“After he was shot up … you added clips to your gun? That is nothing but plain murder to me.”

But the president of a Chicago police union, the Fraternal Order of Police Chicago Lodge #7, defended the officers’ response.

“Of course we have a clear defense of our officers’ actions,” John Catanzara Jr. wrote in an email to CNN.

Frankly, I’d be pretty freaked out too if five people in civilian clothing swarmed my vehicle with guns drawn. Within the 90-second interaction, 41 seconds are taken up by the hail of gunfire directed at Reed.

See also A Warning to Hurricane Ian Policyholders About Loss Mitigation Versus Loss Prevention—A Sue and Labor Clause Analysis Can an insured recover costs to prevent a loss under a property insurance policy? If a loss occurs, can an insured recover the costs to reduce or mitigate damage from further damage? The answer is to read the full policy terms to make this determination. Generally, property insurance policies have terms which follow maritime and inland marine forms which require the policyholder to take steps to reduce or mitigate a previous loss and usually pay costs to do so. It is much less likely that a policy will reimburse fully for the costs to prevent a loss from occurring—but read the policy carefully. This issue involving a sue and labor provision was discussed by the Florida Supreme Court. Following prior case precedent interpreting the sue and labor clause, the court explained that: “An insured has the duty to exercise the care of a prudent, uninsured owner to protect insured property so as to minimize or prevent the loss for which the insurer would be liable. The purpose of the sue and labor clause is to reimburse the insured for those expenditures which are made primarily for the benefit of the insurer to reduce or eliminate a covered loss.” Did the sue and labor also pay for costs to prevent a loss? Not in that policy: “…Zurich correctly contends that the Sue and Labor clause in the Swire-Zurich policy is specifically applicable only after an actual loss has occurred or is occurring. Because Swire was acting to prevent a potential collapse of the building, and no actual loss had occurred, the $ 4.5 million expended by Swire is not recoverable under the policy’s Sue and Labor clause. …the policy’s Sue and Labor clause applies only in the case of an actual, covered loss. Any other conclusion would result in the Sue and Labor clause becoming the primary coverage provision of this contract without regard to the content of the contract or the coverage it was designed to provide. The reasoning suggested by Swire is certainly logical, to the effect that the preventive measures may have conferred a benefit upon the insurance company. If the Sue and Labor clause had been worded differently or if it had included language concerning the prevention of loss, the conclusion may have been different.” Hurricane Ian victims should be aware of property insurance provisions which require a policyholder to repair and take action to prevent further loss or damage. With soon to be Hurricane Nicole about to strike Florida, these provisions are important duties. Policies may also provide benefits to take these emergency and temporary repairs before the winds and rains of Hurricane Nicole cause further damage. Thought For The Day “You can never protect yourself 100%. What you do is protect yourself as much as possible and mitigate risk to an acceptable degree. You can never remove all risk.” Kevin Mitnick

Video released of fatal Chicago police shooting of Dexter Reed

Multiple agencies within the Chicago area responsible for monitoring police actions are investigating the incident.