Why the 'seat belt violation' question is important
Why the 'seat belt violation' question is important
The community demands honestly and transparency from the police, not perfection
To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.
Eric Zorn is a former opinion columnist for the Chicago Tribune. Find a longer bio and contact information here. This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above. Paid subscribers receive each Picayune Plus in their email inbox each Tuesday, are part of our civil and productive commenting community and enjoy the sublime satisfaction of supporting this enterprise.
Tuesdays at 11:30 a.m. I talk with WGN-AM 720 host John Williams about what’s making news and likely to be grist for the PS mill. The WGN listen-live link is here.
Yes, it matters what Chicago Police say about why officers pulled over Dexter Reed
All of the initial reports about the fatal encounter between Dexter Reed and the Chicago Police Department — in which Reed injured an officer with a gunshot and then ended up dying in a hail of police bullets — said that police had pulled Reed over because he wasn’t wearing a seat belt.
The Civilian Office of Police Accountability first reported the seat belt story in its news release last Tuesday, two and half weeks after the incident. In a letter to police Superintendent Larry Snelling obtained by the media, COPA Chief Administrator Andrea Kersten wrote that “it is uncertain how the officers could have seen this seat belt violation given their location relative to Reed’s vehicle and the dark tints on Reed’s vehicle windows.” She added, “This evidence raises serious concerns about the validity of the traffic stop that led to the officers’ encounter with Reed.”
Snelling pushed back at a news conference Friday. Here’s WGN-TV’s account:
“Those who are putting that information out there to the media are doing so irresponsibly,” Snelling said.
According to Snelling, that is because the five tactical, plainclothes officers who made the stop have not yet been interviewed.
“So without those officers being interviewed, and having something concrete that is written, where these officers gave a statement as to why they gave a traffic stop occurred, we can’t speculate on that,” Snelling said.
I tell you what’s irresponsible: Not having all the basic information ready for the public 19 days after the fact. It if wasn’t a seat belt violation, then why did the officers pull him over? And if it wasn’t a seat belt violation, then where did COPA get the idea?
A review of the seat belt claim based on a short surveillance video from two blocks away from the shooting shows why the story seems cooked up after the fact. At the 16 second mark of the video, which I first saw posted by the CWBChicago crime blog, the light turns green for three vehicles stopped at an intersection facing away from the camera. Reed’s SUV is the second car in line:
Not until the 29 second mark, below, does the Chicago Police SUV enter the screen from the left, at 90 degrees from the direction Reed is traveling in.
At the 31 second mark, below, the police vehicle, nearly half a block behind Reed, makes a left turn and begins pursuit.
At 36 seconds, the police vehicle overtakes the car trailing Reed:
And at 43 seconds we see the police vehicle cutting off Reed just past the next intersection, bringing him to a stop where the altercation occurred that left Reed dead and one police officer wounded.
When I posted about this on Twitter and asked how in the world officers could have seen a seatbelt violation under these circumstances, the inevitable right-wing indignati weighed in:
@FlagelloMagoo4: You think this is a game that criminals should be allowed to win. You asshole.
@Antonio72675353: With robberies and other crimes spiking as we go into summer, people like Eric Zorn are upset by the fact that a guy out on bond for a gun crime is out riding around with another gun and who shot at police, got himself killed. I’m having trouble processing that train of thought.
@RayDonovanII: Eric, why are you so hell bent on standing up for convicted criminals who shoot at police?
@BossPennyP: Eric Zorn is always looking to fuck the police officers. These big talking libs wouldn't last a day as a police officer. A terrible human being.
@SweetMelissa606: How the fuck do you not care about the cop that was shot?
I’m not “standing up” for Reed, who made a fatal error in judgement thinking he could shoot his way out of being boxed in by five police officers. Nor am I looking to “fuck” the officers involved. My critics here either have forgotten or never knew that I was the only mainstream journalist in town to have urged caution in rushing to judgment against Officer Eric Stillman, who shot and killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo after a foot chase down a Little Village alley in March, 2021. I wrote:
I believe that it’s the sacred duty of not just a newspaper columnist but of a citizen to take a step back when emotions are high and to say,“wait a second…”
What do we know to be true here? And what do we just think might be true?
Before we convict a police officer of murder in the court of public opinion, shouldn’t we apply the same tests of fairness and make the same demands for evidence that we would if we ourselves were ever to be accused of a crime?
Citizens don’t expect perfection from police officers, who have a tough job that demands split-second decisions.
What they do expect, though, is honesty and transparency when encounters go wrong, as this encounter did. Were they acting on a tip? Did they recognize the vehicle from some earlier altercation? Was Reed under surveillance? Was this a fishing expedition for illegal guns and so was the seat belt story just a cover?
One of my few defenders on Twitter, @SimonMDoughty, wrote “I don't understand why they can't say ‘We had him under observation: we know his history and we had reason to believe he would have a gun on him, which we believe is reason enough to apprehend him.’ Everything that followed would be easier to accept, almost.”
A lack of trust in the police might well have been why Reed chose to try to shoot his way out of trouble rather than do the calm, sensible thing, which was to cooperate with lawful orders. We are beyond lucky that the one wounded officer was not gravely injured.
Reflexive defense of police actions is just as toxic as reflexive criticism, which we’ve also seen in the aftermath of the release of the videos.
We have not seen any violent street protests or, really, significant protests of any kind. And I credit Mayor Brandon Johnson for getting out into the community, listening to the concerns of residents and saying many of the right words.
I can’t help but think how recent history might have been different if then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel had gotten out in front of the Laquan McDonald murder in 2014 and quickly demanded answers and transparency.
Notes and comments from readers — lightly edited — along with my responses
The police killing of Dexter Reed
BB. — Dexter Reed’s death or grievous injury was a foregone conclusion once he fired his gun at a police officer. Such a response defies all logic yet happens time and again. What makes compliance and living to fight the circumstances of the situation so abhorrent that death or serious injury become preferable outcomes? Why would a man who only had allegedly committed low level offenses think that killing or injuring an officer would make anything better? Even if a young man thinks the odds are against his seeing justice done, he would still have his life.
Zorn — When adrenaline is pumping, citizens as well as police officers can make tragically wrong decisions. I don’t know if instruction in how to conduct oneself safely during a police stop is part of the high-school curriculum, but it should be. These lessons should also be reinforced through public-service campaigns fronted not by police officials but by respected entertainers, athletes, faith leaders and others.
Brett Garrison — Please remind every one about Ella French, the young police officer who was killed in a traffic stop on the South Side in 2021. The public needs to know the police mindset going into these situations. Heavily tinted windows only add to the officers nervousness. Certainly the sight of a gun will send them into a self defense frenzy.
Zorn — Yes. It might be that one of the reasons officers fired so many shots was that they couldn’t be sure whether or not there was another armed person behind those tinted widows.
Marc Martinez— That traffic stop obviously had nothing to do with a seat belt. Police tactical units use pretexts to stop people they believe are involved in more serious crimes. Pretextual stops can be prohibited, but if they are we should expect a reduction in police effectiveness, as it will take more time and effort to get to the point where they can obtain warrants or observe serious criminal activities.
The link you posted to a police how-to training video was good, but it was based on the assumption that the citizen would fairly quickly comply with orders. When someone like Reed is stopped and refuses to comply, then what? In this instance, police might have been able to just wait him out. But there are lots of instances of people trying to drive away, hitting cars and police on the way.
I have no problem with police killing someone that shoots at them, but the way this group fired 96 shots in a residential neighborhood concerns me for how they might have wounded bystanders or even each other.
Zorn — A thorough, fearless “how could we have done this better?” review is certainly in order.
Abortion and the consequences of ‘sin’
Chris Agos — I’m a long time listener of “The Mincing Rascals” podcast and a liberal thinker, but I think you’re getting it wrong when you accuse anti-abortion Republicans of being animated by a dislike of others having sex for fun.
You should consider switching to, "they don't like others to have sex without consequences."
The thought of people sleeping with whomever they want without having to think what can come from that really gets the right riled up. They believe in personal responsibility. And it's all about making sure people don't get off scot free. They want to make sure people feel the burden of what their carefree attitudes can bring.
So they're not against fun sex, it's more diabolical than that. They're against people doing it without having to pay for it.
I think framing the argument this way may win you back some folks who are turned off by the opinion that the right is against sex for fun. I know you're not running for office and don't need to please anyone, but I wish the podcast continued success and that comment made even me wrinkle my nose.
Zorn — Sex without consequences is sex for fun, but I hear you about my phraseology. I don’t mean to imply that anti-abortion rights people don’t enjoy the intimacy and pleasure of sex or that even most of them eschew conjugal relations outside the context of procreation. Catholics who oppose contraception yet practice the rhythm method, to wit.
The notion that sex should be consequential — risky for those who don’t want to conceive — is baked into a lot of moral strictures. And it’s rooted at least in part in the observation that sex itself is often emotionally consequential and should be engaged in seriously rather than frivolously.
I don’t happen to think it’s anyone else’s business what kind of sexual activity consenting adults engage in, and a preoccupation with what others do in the bedroom — a desire to control and limit it — seems undeniably connected to the movement against abortion rights.
Jo A. — I believe that most women favor abortion rights in most or all cases even in states where abortion is all but banned because pregnancy is much more complicated than most men understand. I had an abortion because I very much wanted a child but had a non-viable pregnancy that would have endangered my future fertility if I’d waited for a miscarriage.
Tom T. — It is so annoying when anti-choice folks think abortion is only about ending an "oops" pregnancy. Abortion is healthcare and in the big picture it benefits families.
How to describe die-hard Trump supporters?
Rick Weiland — I hope former President Donald Trump’s upcoming encounters with the legal system result in massive fines and some prison time. But why does somewhere around half of the electorate range from grudgingly to rabidly supportive of him? Is it just that half the country is racist / fascist / nuts? Or is it something more complicated?
Will Trump’s going away — through the legal system or by just not living forever — change this? Given the existence of folks like Florida Gov. Ron De Santis, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, etc. I fear not. Never mind Trump. How does this get repaired?
Jake H. — I vote for "more complicated." Many of his supporters are surely completely ‘round the bend. Many will vote for him because he can be relied upon to push a traditional conservative Republican agenda, as he did last time. Many, including many of that last group, probably think he gets a bum rap from the hysterical mainstream media, and they warm to, as they see it, the entertaining cut of his jib.
Many others, I suspect, like him because he represents a giant middle finger against what they see as so much bullshit -- the "progressive urban elite" that wants open borders, no guns, no police, no jails, no cars, no genders; spits on religion; teaches kids they're racists; and wants to control everyone's lives, like in the pandemic.
The good news is that a whole lot of people don't have very strong views, and they're subject to persuasion. How to repair? The Democratic Party needs to get its populist mojo back. I'm not one of those who thinks populism is a dirty word when it amounts to doing the non-crazy stuff most people want and rejecting the actual crazy stuff that turns them off. The thing about a two-party system is that the rational thing for both parties to do is to strive to become a majority party. The GOP is falling down on that job. Trump's coalition isn't big enough, which, along with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, is a gift to Democrats. But the Dems seem to lack the leadership, vision, acumen, and courage to run with these gifts.
Tar Trump with every unpopular Republican position — he wants to end abortion, end social security, end Medicare, end health care, end unions, befoul the air and water and hand gobs of money to rich assholes so they can bankroll his bail.
Look who controls him. Tell a story that makes him the ringleader and/or useful idiot of an evil cabal, which he is. Steal ownership of his issues. When he was in charge, illegal immigration kept on coming like gangbusters, he just restricted *legal* immigration of top-level people in tech and health that benefits our economy and keeps us strong, so they're going to other countries instead. Dumb. He wants to weaken American defense and national security. He wants to defund the police when it comes to the police who go after rich tax cheats. He wants to replace unionized police with rent-a-cops. He doesn't want to go after terrorists who mean to harm us, and did deals with the Taliban. He's for inflation, which under his stupid trade ideas, would increase one gazillion percent.
What's worst, though, is that he has no honor. He spits on honor, on American heroes. He resents them because he was a draft-dodger who never had an ounce of courage or patriotic feeling in his life. He doesn't care about this country or what it stands for, or anything but his own ass. He cheats his way through life and cheated his way through his presidency, and, if he doesn't get his way, he throws a lethal riot and holds up the Bible, which, by rights, should burst into flames in his greasy grasp.
The "courage" piece requires a shitload of Sister Souljah moments that puts the radical left in its place, the fringe. It worked for Clinton and can work again. When you're out of step, when you really are going too far, you've got to forcefully show that that's not you. That means a whole lot more than saying "fund the police" at the state of the union.
My "word cloud" for reclaiming Democratic populist mojo would include God, country, freedom, service, prosperity, opportunity, fair shot, common sense, little guy. I don't know. Just spit-balling.
Zorn — Jake’s description of how the right characterizes the far left is fairly apt though the characterization itself is wildly misleading. The vast majority of Democrats believe in controlled immigration, common-sense gun restrictions, effective policing and incarceration policies, a serious but not extreme approach to ameliorating the effects of climate change, respect and full rights for LGBTQ people and the teaching of accurate history, however unflattering to our national pride it might be.
I do think Trumpism will be far weaker without Sleepy Donald. It takes a certain devious charisma to generate a movement such as the one he’s created. It’s astounding that he’s been able to do so while shattering so many political norms.
Counterpoints?
Bob E — You wrote that “Informed news consumers tend to enjoy different points of view, even those that differ from their own.”
Enjoy? No. Informed news consumers tend to seek out opinions contrary to their own to further inform themselves, or, in some cases, to allow their opinion to be changed. It's obvious that you and I and other Picayune Sentinel readers are committed to reading opinions with which we disagree, but not to enjoy them.
Also: Many thanks for including links to Steve Chapman's commentaries. Though I remain a Trib subscriber, I often forget to look for Steve's occasional op-ed pieces. You and I agree that his writing is great.
Zorn — Maybe “appreciate” would have been a better word. I really do like to hear from smart, civil people who have different views from mine and I don’t like the echo chambers on, say, MSNBC or Fox.
As for Chapman, yes. One of the smartest, most thoughtful pundits anywhere. On the rare occasions that I disagree with his conclusions, I deeply admire — yes, even enjoy! — his carefully researched and clever arguments.
Ya gotta see these tweets!
Here are some funny visual images I've come across recently on social media. Enjoy, then evaluate:
As a banjo player myself, I’m allowed to pass along banjo jokes.
Vote for your favorite. I’ll share the winner in Thursday’s main edition.
Usage note: To me, “tweet” has become a generic term for a short post on social media. And I will continue to call the platform Twitter if only to spite Elon Musk:
There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!
Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers.
Contact
You can email me here:
I read all the messages that come in, but I do most of my interacting with readers in the comments section beneath each issue.
Some of those letters I reprint and respond to in the Z-mail section of Tuesday’s Picayune Plus, which is delivered to paid subscribers and available to all readers later Tuesday. Check there for responses.
If you don’t want me to use the full name on your email or your comments, let me know how you’d like to be identified.
The pro-police people getting wound up about this are mischaracterizing the whole thing, It's not about being anti-police. Most people have no problems with the police when they are properly doing doing their jobs. It's not about defending the guy that got shot. I noticed that no one is questioning why tactical plain clothes police were making a traffic stop. Isn't that normally done by uniformed police in marked vehicles? Was a traffic stop the real reason? 96 shots? Yes, the guy should not have shot at them. But I wonder how many people reading this live in a neighborhood where stopping your car for the wrong people could get you killed? I want the protesters to look at something else. The police are always good guys when going after others. What if it were you? I am a senior citizen from the south side of Chicago. I can't count the number of times I have heard people complain about police pulling them over rather than going after people for serious crimes. 96 shots? What if some of those bullets had kept going and killed innocent people merely going about their daily business? What I am saying is that there is a middle ground here. I am all for the police when they are protecting me and taking dangerous people off the street in a legal manner. When they don't do it the right way, that is something else.
The idea of schools teaching how to conduct oneself when detained by police is intriguing. It could be very good and save lives, but I a afraid it would be another circus of a "debate". Teaching people to know their rights and how to enforce them, would certainly be seen as teaching them how not to get caught for crimes they have done. Imagine the reaction from MADD if schools told kids how to avoid taking a roadside breathalizer test when a cop tells them to do it?