The shooting death of Dexter Reed by police in Chicago has captured the attention of the mainstream press, and they aren't exactly being honest in their coverage of the incident. Desperate for a new George Floyd, perhaps because it's an election year, news outlets are shamelessly misleading about the incident. 

RELATED: The Latest Desperate, Ghoulish Attempt to Turn Nex Benedict Into George Floyd

In March, Reed was pulled over and approached by police. Body cam footage shows one officer asking him to roll the window down and then attempting to open the door after Reed tried to roll the window up. It's at that point that shots ring out and the officers are seen running away to take cover. A gunfight ensues and with Reed stumbling out of the car, the officers discharge their weapons again.

While the press has reported that the officers fired "96 times" as a way to sensationalize the situation, 11 of the shots were actually from Reed, with his initial burst striking an officer in the arm. He can be seen bleeding on the extended body camera footage. 

Misinformation about the situation began to be reported immediately, including from Reed's family. 

"If he was supposed to get pulled over for a traffic stop, why do they have four guns pointed at him? He was scared. And after he was already on the ground there, they still put him in cuffs instead of checking to see if he's breathing. They shot to him 96 times and reload the clip three times," Reed's sister Porscha Banks said during a Tuesday press conference.

As the footage clearly shows, guns were only pointed at Reed after he refused to comply and started to roll his window up. The officer who was conducting the stop first approached the vehicle in a normal manner. Seeing Reed's gun through the window may have prompted him to draw his weapon. There's also the fact that Reed was out on pre-trial release for a variety of violent felonies related to a shooting he allegedly committed. Did the officers run his tag and know who he was? That could be another reason the officers were overly cautious in drawing their weapons after Reed refused to comply.

Released body cam footage of Dexter Reed shooting reveals he open fired on police officers before getting shot dead at traffic stop.

pic.twitter.com/yqFgouW1pC

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) April 11, 2024

Regardless, you would expect a family member to defend their loved one. What shouldn't be expected is for the press to be so incredibly irresponsible in its reporting. 

This framing from the mainstream media is the exact type of irresponsible reporting I highlighted in my book about the 2020 BLM riots.

Like the rioters who faced little accountability back then, the media faced zero consequences for their role in fanning the literal flames. pic.twitter.com/vgVIgbDd1n

— Julio Rosas (@Julio_Rosas11) April 11, 2024

Reading those headlines, you would never know that Reed fired and injured an officer before police fired upon him. Instead, the perception being pushed is that an unarmed black man was unjustly shot and killed. For context, the injured officer was black. 

The bodies of the stories are no better. For example, The Washington Post's write-up doesn't mention that Reed opened fire first until the 8th paragraph. 

The crucial fact that Reed fired on police officers first, injuring one, is not even mentioned until 8 paragraphs into the @washingtonpost article by @GuinnessKebab (Jennifer Hassan). This is how the article begins, with a dishonest & inflammatory narrative that police were just… pic.twitter.com/04xt4EgfC8

— Christina Pushaw 🐊 🇺🇸 (@ChristinaPushaw) April 10, 2024

Much is being made about the number of times the officers fired and the fact that Reed no longer had the gun once he exited the vehicle. Both points are incredibly misleading. Once a suspect opens fire and strikes an officer, any expectation that the use of force will be limited goes out the window. At that point, the mission is to neutralize the deadly threat fully. No officer is going to count the number of shots they fire in the heat of the moment to make it look better for the press. Further, there would have been no way to know whether Reed was still armed or not after he exited the vehicle and began to move around it. That is hindsight that has no place in a fair analysis of what occurred. 

I have written many pieces criticizing the police over the years. My position has never been blind support but to judge every incident based on its own set of facts. This was a justified shooting by every metric, yet one would be forgiven for speculating that members of the press want violence to occur in response to it. Why else would they go so far to cover up what actually happened?