Dexter Reed's shooting is no comparison to killing of Laquan McDonald

Laquan McDonald, who didn’t have a gun, was shot 16 times and killed by then-Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke in 2014.

Five years later, two CPD officers who followed protocol and didn’t have their guns drawn were shot by Emonte Morgan during a traffic stop. Officer Ella French died, and her partner, Carlos Yanez, who had his right eye removed and still has a bullet lodged in his neck below his right ear, still faces challenges as a result of his injuries.

Sadly, Dexter Reed was shot and killed by police officers when he was stopped for a traffic violation last month, and some people have started comparing the shooting to the Laquan McDonald murder. Reed fired at the officers first, shooting a police officer and prompting them to fire back.

In an active shooting situation, when officers witness one of their own being shot and the perpetrator continues to shoot, those officers, who are fighting for their lives, don’t have time to have a meeting about how it should be handled. After French and Yanez were shot, can we understand why the officers who stopped Reed reacted as they did?

Reed turned this traffic stop into a violent incident.

Civilian Office of Police Accountability Chief Administrator Andrea Kersten, responding to the 96 shots fired by the officers, has “grave concerns about the officers’ ability to assess what is a necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of deadly force.”

What about the unnecessary, unreasonable force used by Reed when he fired 11 times and shot one of those police officers, instead of complying with the order to roll down the car window? Why has there been so little attention in the media on the officer who was shot? Was Reed’s shooting of this officer an inconvenient truth? Because of this omission, often making police “the enemy,” many police have left the CPD and the remaining officers are overworked.

Ever since the injustices of McDonald, George Floyd being murdered by police in Minneapolis, and many others, police everywhere have been put on notice. With all the carjackings, murders, muggings, robberies, etc., Chicago police have their hands full. However, we don’t need police to go off the deep end instead of serving and protecting. We need to see the whole picture and strive for balance in our response on both ends.

Jean Scott, Irving Park

Seat belt violations are no reason for police stops

The Humboldt Park shooting between a driver and police raises one serious question: Why is it a crime to merely drive a vehicle without a seat belt on? What possible harm can this cause anyone else?

Wearing seat belts may be a good idea, but the idea that police can peer into a car to see if the seat belt is on is chilling. This applies to seat belt checks also.

Actions by some drivers certainly warrant arrest. Drunk driving is No. 1. Keeping young children strapped in the rear seat is also sound advice.

Some say using the seat belt law is the only way police can stop certain people. To that, I say they must not have any other good reason to do so. Lest anyone think I am condoning the driver for shooting police, I will say that I am a normal Republican who will vote for Donald Trump again.

Steven J. Bahnsen, South Commons

Which issues will drive voters?

Many registered voters do not follow federal politics closely simply because they are busy or maybe it all feels rather remote. However, if they do vote in the November presidential election, I wonder how many of them will be, in effect, single-issue voters. Will they be more angry about higher costs for food and gas (and vote for Trump) or will they be more angry about the chaos and fear around restrictions and bans on reproductive health care (and vote for Biden)?

Mary F. Warren, Wheaton