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. //

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. //

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? //

PetePatriot
4 minutes ago
The classic response to the question of why were so many rounds fired comes from Polk County, FL Sheriff Grady Judd who told reporters:

"'I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had,' Judd said. 'We were not going to take any chance of him shooting back.'"