Chicago Woman Set on Fire in Horrifying Train Attack

Lawrence Reed had no business being on. the streets given the his violent. criminal history and his pending. criminal cases. >> This is a story that is going to get you. angry. [music]. A 26-year-old woman has just been. identified as the victim who was set on. fire in a horrific random attack on a. Chicago train. As Bethany [music] McGee. fights for her life, the suspect, Lawrence Reed, remains behind bars. at. least for [music] now, a man with dozens. of prior arrests who is out on [music].

pre-trial release for another violent. crime. We have learned new details. [music] about his apparent extensive. criminal history, and we are going to. break it all down with a Chicago trial. attorney. Welcome to Sidebar, presented. by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Real quick before we jump into all this. 180 but affects I don't know everybody. Open enrollment is happening again. You. know what that is comparing the. exploitative premiums, the fine print of. health insurance. It is chaos. It is.

chaos. Here's the good news. Crowd. health, our sponsor, they're different. Why? Crowd's members, they fund each. other's bills directly. This is a real. thing. If something big happens, you pay. the first 500. The crowd funds the rest. They have a track record of handling. major events, including bills over $1. million, which gives you the confidence. that you need. Plus, you get access to. lowcost prescriptions, testing, high-quality doctors, and look, with ACA. subsidies expiring, premiums, they're. going to skyrocket. And so far, members. have saved over 40 million. So, this.

open enrollment, take your power back. Join Crowdalth to get started today for. $99 for your first three months using. code sidebar at joincrowalth.com. Crowdalth is not insurance. You can opt. out, but this is how we win. Join. crowdhealth.com. I'm not going to lie to you. I am. pissed. I am pissed. Okay, I don't. usually say this, but this is a case. where I'm gonna have an attorney on in a. minute to try to explain it to me. because I don't understand. I don't. understand how this happened and I don't. understand how the person who is accused.

of committing this heinous attack was. out. Okay, we are tracking this case out. of Chicago on a Blueline train that is. just as horrifying as it is baffling as. it is frustrating. A 26-year-old woman, Bethany McGee, was just riding home. She. was minding her own business. She was. looking at her phone. And in an instant, her life was changed forever for. seemingly no reason when a stranger. poured gasoline on her and set her on.

fire in a completely unprovoked alleged. attack. She was engulfed in flames for. over a minute. and the criminal. complaint. When you read this, it lays. out the chilling premed steps that her. alleged attacker, Lawrence Reed, that. ones that he apparently took, and it was. all caught, you guessed it, on tape, just 20 minutes before this apparent. ambush surveillance video allegedly. shows him at a gas station appearing to.

pay the cashier and then pumping. gasoline into a bottle. And what makes. this tragedy so infuriating is that it. was likely preventable if this is all. true. At a press conference, a federal. agent revealed that this suspect was a. known danger. Lawrence Reed had no. business being on the streets given the. his violent criminal history and his. pending criminal cases. Reed had plenty. of second chances by the criminal. justice system. And as a result, you.

have an innocent victim in the hospital. fighting for her life. Now, we've. obtained and we've gone through the. entire federal criminal complaint. We're. going to break down exactly how this. attack unfolded minuteby minute. We've. also dug into that lengthy criminal. history, the number of prior arrests, the chances that this guy was apparently. given. It angers me. I again, it angers. me. It's angering a lot of people out. there. I think it's going to stun you. when you hear about this. So, again, I'm. going to have an attorney on to try to. make sense of this. This all began with.

a purchase at a convenience store. According to the federal criminal. complaint, at 9:03 p.m. on November. 17th, surveillance cameras at a Chicago. sitgo gas station captured 50-year-old. Lawrence Reed. He walked in, appeared to. pay a cashier, and then took a small. bottle to a pump and filled it with. gasoline. 20 minutes later, the scene. shifted to underground. A CTA Blue Line. train was pulling towards the Clark and. Lake Station, and on board was. 26-year-old Bethany McGee. She was.

seated scrolling through her phone, her. back to the rest of the car. And what. you are about to see are the actual. surveillance images from inside that. train. This was filed in the United. States District Court. Yes, we're. talking a federal charge here charged. with one count of committing a terrorist. attack or other violence against a mass. transportation system in the Northern. District of Illinois. We were going to. we were going to talk about that charge. But going back to the evidence here, go. back to the photos. They purportedly.

show the attack unfolding in horrifying. realtime progression. Unbeknownst to Bethany, Lawrence Reed. was also on that train standing at the. far end of the same car. And according. to the complaint, bottle in hand, he. allegedly walked directly toward her and. without a word, he allegedly took the. cap off and dowsed her head and body in. gasoline. When he seemingly tried to. light her on fire, Bethany fought back, fleeing to the front of the train car. Reed allegedly chases her, lit the.

bottle itself on fire as she ran to the. back. He closed in again, and this time. he allegedly used the flaming bottle to. set her completely ablaze. He then. apparently stood and watched as she. became engulfed in flames. And when the. doors opened at the station, a burning. Bethany stumbled under the platform and. collapsed. It was only then that. bystanders rushed to help, finally. smothering the flames. First responders. rushed her to the hospital. Severe,

severe life-threatening burns. Reed, meanwhile, apparently simply stepped off. the train and walked away. He was. arrested on Tuesday, November 18th. And. the very next day on November 19th, that. is when Reed made his initial court. appearance. And according to the court. order, Reed repeatedly refused an. attorney, stated his intention to plead. guilty, the judge had to explain that. she would not accept a plea at this. time, and based on the government's oral. motion, the judge scheduled a formal. detention hearing. The following day,

Thursday, November 20th, prosecutors. filed their formal motion for detention, laying out their argument that Reed was. far too dangerous to be released. The. court thankfully agreed, ordering him. detained, stating that no conditions. would ensure the community's safety. And. look, to be clear, I say this, I'm an. attorney. He's innocent until proven. guilty. But when we go through this. evidence, it is strong evidence, okay? The backbone of this entire case is the. federal criminal complaint. It is a. 13-page document that lays out the.

government's evidence in meticulous and. I will tell you often disturbing detail. I want to go through some of the key. passages that form the core of this. case. So, first the complaint. establishes the alleged premeditation. It states that just 20 minutes before. the attack, surveillance video shows the. suspect at a gas station. And let me. read directly from the document. Quote, "Reed arrived at the sitgo wearing the. same clothing as he wore when he lit. victim A on fire about 20 minutes later. Additionally, Reed entered the.

convenience store attached to the gas. station, appeared to make a payment to. the cashier, and then relocated to a gas. pump, and filled a small container with. gasoline." Now, let's look at the attack. itself because the complaint describes. the moments inside that train car with. chilling clarity. It reads, "Reed stood. up from his seat while holding a bottle, walked through the car, and approached. victim A, who was seated with her back. towards Reed. Reed then took the cap off. the bottle and poured a liquid from the. bottle all over the victim's head and.

body. Reed then attempted to ignite the. liquid. Now, maybe the most harrowing. part is the persistence. I mentioned. this before, but when the victim fought. back and ran, the complaint details what. happened next. Reed then picked up the. bottle that was now on fire, approached. victim A and lit victim A on fire using. the bottle. Reed then ran to the front. of the train car and stood watching. victim A as her body was engulfed in. flames. And finally, after his arrest, the complaint reveals a shocking detail.

about his demeanor. It notes that while. in transit to the detective division, quote, Reed made repeated spontaneous. and unprompted utterances specifically. yelling burn be and burn alive B. You. have to imagine if it's not even just. the the officers who are going to be key. witnesses to that body cam footage, dash. cam footage, and there are more critical. and frankly disturbing details that are. embedded in this complaint that we. haven't discussed yet. I'm going to keep. reading. The complaint also details the.

immediate aftermath on the platform. It. reveals a crucial and for many, by the. way, an infuriating detail about the. response inside that train car because. it states, quote, "Victim A, who was. almost fully engulfed in flames, attempted to extinguish herself by. rolling on the ground of the train car. The train then stopped the Clark and. Lake Street Blue Line platform, and. victim A, while still on fire, was able. to exit the train before collapsing on. the train platform where she was tended. to by individuals on the platform. Now, according to the official complaint, she. received help only after she managed to.

get herself off the train and onto the. platform. And furthermore, the complaint. provides a critical forensic link. because when Reed was arrested, he was. apparently wearing the same clothes that. he had on during the attack. But. investigators didn't just note his. clothing. They documented that he had. quote fire related injuries to his right. hand. They also apparently found a key. piece of evidence on him, a CTA transit. card. The complaint notes that the. card's transaction history shows it was. used to board a Blue Line train at.

Kedian and Congress at approximately. 9:04 p.m. So that's just 1 minute after. he was seen leaving the gas station. So. to help us break down the potential. legal strategy here, if there is one, the seemingly very powerful evidence. that's laid out in this criminal. complaint and more, I'm joined right now. by Chicago trial attorney Andrew Scott. Andrew, thank you so much for taking the. time. Even before we get into the legal. aspect of this, as somebody from. Chicago, I got to ask you, this blue. line, is this a safe line? Do you see.

crime here? Have you ever seen anything. like this before, you know, on that. particular line, on that particular. train? Um, I mean, for for all of us who. are not in Chicago, tell us. >> Uh, I would say of all of the Lines, the. blue line is probably the most safe. you. know, was considered the most safe. I've. never seen any sort of attacks on the. blue line. I know a lot of people have. I've certainly never even heard of an. attack of this magnitude on not only the.

blue line, but any of the the CTA Lines. So, this is this is a pretty shocking. experience for everyone in Chicago. >> Yeah, it is. Shocking is the right word. Disturbing is another word. Um really. sick. Really sick. I mean, this. complaint. >> disgusting. Yeah, this complaint. methodically connects the gas station to. the train platform to the attack. There. is this, you know, CTA card I mentioned. before. I have to ask from a defense.

attorney point of view, does this feel. relatively airtight by the prosecution. You also couple that with his alleged. demeanor, right? these uh uh the these. spontaneous utterances after the arrest, you know, burn, bleep, his uh chaotic. behavior in court. We'll talk about. that, too. But does it seem like. everything is pretty much of an airtight. case? I'm not really sure where a. defense attorney would go here. >> Yeah, this isn't going to be the type of. case where you try to argue that he.

didn't commit the crime, right? You've. got everything on video. So, the the the. strategy here is going to be one of two. strategies. either they're going to try. to make some sort of insanity defense, which good luck with that, but based on. what I've seen so far from this. defendant, there might be some juice. there, and then after that, it becomes. attempting to reduce the amount of time. your client is going to spend in prison. Now, this isn't a death penalty case, and al although he's been charged in.

federal court, there is still a a. federal death penalty. So, it's not the. type of case where you're going to be. trying to spare, you know, your client's. life, but this is this is the type of. case that you take on and as an. attorney, you you realize that your. defendant, your your client, I should. say, you realize that your client is. guilty. You're giving your client their. constitutionally mandated best defense. that you can give to help them out here. It's an airtight case for the. prosecution.

>> For sure. For sure. I mean, if you talk. about premeditation, if you talk about. intent, the idea of captured on. surveillance footage, filling up a gas. bottle, wearing the same clothes, going. onto the platform, going onto the train, allegedly doussing her, lighting on. fire. It's caught on surveillance. You. maybe have key eyewitnesses as well, and. then arrested wearing uh the same. clothes. You mentioned a potential. insanity defense. Look, I mean, talk to. us about that because this is just a.

random sinister act of violence that. makes absolutely no sense. And when I. say that, you do wonder aside, you know, someone could have mental health issues. for sure, but that doesn't mean that. they're entitled to a successful. insanity defense. What do you think. there might be there that's something. that a defense attorney can work with? >> Well, you're going to have, like you. said, mental health issues. And if you. look at this person's background, it's. very clear that this person has pretty. severe mental issues. And you're right, does that mean that they're going to.

have a a viable insanity defense? No, that does not mean that. You know, just. because someone has mental health issues. doesn't mean or, you know, even severe. mental health issues doesn't mean that. they can't appreciate the wrongness of. their actions. And that's going to be. the high bar that they're going to have. to the defense attorneys are going to. have to tackle here is as crazy of an. attack as it seems, it's also pretty. hard to make the argument that this. person didn't methodically plan out this. attack and obviously, you know, the.

argument obviously knew that what they. was doing was something that was was. wrong, that there was wrongness to these. actions. I think one of the things. that's sort of fascinating about the. world that we live in today is. everything is on camera now. And he he. is probably on camera from arriving at. the gas station to his entire walk to. the L station to everything. So they're. going to be able to the prosecution is. going to be able to show every step of. the way on this case most likely. And.

that is go people are going to the. juryy's going to be able to watch that. and say you know what is going on here. They're going to be able to see his. movements. They're in a lot of places. they're going to be able to see what he. actually says and they're going to be. able to in by watching the crime. tackle make a decision on whether this. person appreciated the wrongness of the. crime. And I don't think at the end of. the day I don't think it'll be. successful. >> And I want to get into the federal. charge here and the fact that he has. been hit with a federal charge. Um, and.

we'll talk about that. But you put all. the legal [clears throat] discussion to. the side for a second and the shocking. footage and the evidence. It is. important to remember who is at the very. center of this tragedy. The victim, 26-year-old Bethany McGee. For days, she. was known to the public only as victim. A. But as Newsweek reported, she has. been identified as Bethany McGee, a. young woman whose life was brutally. interrupted. We have learned that. Bethany was a Purdue University. graduate, an animal lover, a churchgoer.

Her social media indicates that she's. close with her parents and her brothers. Her father, Dr. Gregory McGee, is a. professor of biblical studies at Taylor. University. It's a Christian college in. Indiana. Her family has released a. statement saying, "We would like to. thank everyone for their prayers and. well-wishes as our daughter receives. care for injuries sustained earlier this. week. We are so grateful for the. excellent care and support of the burn. team at Stroger Hospital. We will not be. providing updates at this time. and ask. for her and our privacy as we focus our. attention on her and her recovery. Now,

Andrew, let's talk about the human. impact here because now that we know a. little bit more about Bethany and we're. trying to grasp what happened to her and. what her life is going to be, how does. that humanize this case for a potential. jury? And if you are a defense attorney, do you say to yourself, do you say to. your client, "This is not going to be. good for you." the minute the jury sees. what happened to her, this is going to. be a problem for you.

>> You're going to say that to your client. You're going to say that this is going. to be a massive problem for you. And. there's a variety of reasons. First of. all, like you said, she's a 26 year old. woman. Um, there are people, a lot of. the people who ride the L every day, which is going to be part of your jury. pool, by the way. There's going to be. plenty of people riding the L every day. that are on your jury pool are going to. be people who look and feel just like. her. um you know, people who are younger. professionals coming in from various. neighborhoods in the city. There's going.

to be people on that jury that are going. to say that could have been me. Um but. the other side of it too or another. aspect of it too, burns are horrific. injuries. I was trying to get as much of. an update as possible as to the severity. of her burns, but and there isn't really. a good one out there as far as I've. seen, but I've handled burn cases before. from a civil litigation side and I can. tell you they're horrifying. There are. months and months in the hospital. There's skin grafts involved. There's. there's pain that's unlike any pain that.

you can imagine. And then there's. scarring, too, depending on and. depending how badly she was burned and. where she was burned, where that. scarring might be. So, it's it's a. horrible case that, you know, a jury is. going to be able to put themselves in. the shoes of that victim and then. they're going to see these these. horrible injuries. I mean, everyone's. burned themselves before, and you think. about how bad that little burn you get. when you pull something out of the oven. feels for a few days. Now, imagine that. all over your entire body. And imagine.

that, you know, imagine being in that. for weeks. >> It I it's it's difficult to grasp. It's. difficult to understand. I It's hard to. understand. And you know the journey. that she now has to go through after. everything that she just went through, the journey that she has to go through, it's really really unthinkable. And I I. got to say, you know, I I am wishing her. a speedy and successful and healthy. recovery because as shocking as this is,

this is a new reality that she has to. grasp. And and I it makes it go back to. the family, right? How does a victim's. family navigate this kind of trauma? How. do they navigate the the media attention. that's being brought to this case? Because it is being talked about in all. different re in all different circles, right? There's the political aspect, there's the criminal justice aspect, there's the legal aspect. It's just a. shocking story. How does a family how. does the victim's family navigate. something like this? >> I feel terrible for the victim's family. First of all, because their loved one. has to go through this and they have to. experience it with her. But the amount.

of attention that this case is going to. get is going to exacerbate that pain. They're going to have people talking. about this this case for weeks on cable. news shows. It's going to be all over. the internet and they're going to be. fighting misinformation. They're going. to be fighting their privacy. You know, most people when they experience a. tragedy, they want privacy and they're. not going to get any, which is horrible. So, it's a very difficult situation for. the family. I really feel for them. >> Yeah. Um, and by the way, the US. attorney stated that she was quote.

minding her own business [snorts] when. this happened. So talk to me about this. charge, right? You might read this and. say, "Okay, what are the state charges. that he's facing?" No, he's hit with. this federal charge committing a. terrorist attack against a mass. transportation system. That was very. deliberate to charge him with that. because it carries life in prison. Were. you surprised that he's charged with. that federal crime? And how do you prove. something like that? I was a little surprised that he was. charged with a federal crime, but then.

when you realize that it it's on a mass. transit system, that that makes it more. likely that they're going to be charged. with a federal crime, right? How do you. how do you prove that case? You know, how these statutes are generally written. is they're written so the prosecutors. can win these types of cases. [clears throat]. And if you look at how the how the how. the statute's written, you look at the. evidence, I I really think that it's. going to be a very difficult situation. for. the defense to get any sort of a not.

guilty on this case. I would also be. shocked if this case ends up going to. trial. Now, there's always the wild. card. We've seen or heard of some of how. this this defendant has acted in court. You can't force your client to take a. plea deal. So, he might insist on a on a. trial and he it might be the type of. case where this guy might run through. multiple defense attorneys and end up it. might end up being the type of case. where he ends up representing himself. because he seems that completely. unhinged.

So, this is a this is an awful case for. a defendant a defense attorney to try to. win or try to navigate. Like I said, the. the person who ends up taking this case. isn't taking this case for money. They're not taking this case to win. they they're taking it with the passion. that they're going to say, "Okay, this. person, despite the fact that he's. guilty, deserved a a fair trial and I'm. going to make sure that they get it.". >> Do you think, and I'm going to get into. this in a minute, what his prior. criminal history was, do you think he's. charged at the federal level to make. sure that there is absolutely no chance.

that he ever gets out? >> I'm not sure about that. I I think that. the the the charges sort of happened. fast enough to where there was sort of. the the incident occurred, everyone was. shocked and the indictment came down. I. think a lot of it has to do with the. fact that it occurred on a mass transit. system and that that's what makes it a a. charge where federal charges are. available. Um. I I I don't know if the the idea is this. is put on this so to make sure that he.

never gets out. Now, that's a to your. point though, um, in Illinois state. sentencing, you know, if he were. sentenced to, you know, aggravated. battery, which is what this would these. charges would be in in state court, even. if it were max severe penalty, he would. basically get out 50% of the time, depending on how, you know, how he is in. jail. >> What about attempted murder? >> Attempted murder could be he he's not. going to get he could get, right? He.

could be charged with attempted murder. Um, and again, he would probably not see. a life in prison. It could be, you know, it still would be what people would be. charged on this case or the the. sentencing that he would get on this. case on the state level would be the. type of reaction where people go, that's. not enough. And. >> you have to factor in the fact that, like I said, he gets 50%. He gets. credit. So, he's only going to end up. serving half that sentence. On a federal. level, he'll serve 85% of whatever. sentence he gets. And that that is a big.

a big part of this is that even if he. gets, you know, 10 years or 20 years or. 25 years or. >> this is life in prison. This charge is. life in prison. Yeah. So. >> it could be life in prison. >> It could be. But you're saying if even. if it's life in prison, there's a chance. he could get out before at a federal. level. >> It it depends on whether he's granted. parole or whether it's life without. parole. Um and that would be, you know, I I would have to look at, you know, that that would be a decision for the. judge. you know, he he could what what. could happen here is he could have an.

eligibility for parole in 20 25 35 years. or something like that. You know, assuming would he, you know, we can't. predict the future. He could go in and. he could get completely rehabilit. rehabilitated and be fixed and then, you. know, in 35 years be granted parole or. he could be what we think he's going to. be and end up spending the not getting. that parole. >> And look, he's 50 years old. But here's. here's the point. Here's the point. The. reason I've asked you, well, are they. charging him at the federal level to. make sure he never gets out? Let's talk. about his criminal history because if. the details of this attack leave people.

asking how on earth could something like. this happen, let me tell you that the. answer may lie in a staggering number. that has ignited outrage that has. demanded a hard look at the criminal. justice system. The number is 72. So. according to court records, Lawrence. Reed has been arrested at least 72 times. over the past 30 years. I want to break. that down. So, according to a motion for. detention that was filed by the. government, of those 72 arrests, Reed. has approximately 15 convictions and.

eight of those are felonies. His felony. convictions include arson, criminal. damage to government supported property. valued over $500, drug trafficking, drug. possession, and a felony traffic. offense. So, I want to focus on the. arson because it is a direct precursor. to this alleged attack. Right. The. motion details an April 2020 crime where. CTA workers saw Reed walking with two. red gas cans. He apparently approached a.

window of the James R. Thompson Center, the state government building in. downtown Chicago, poured liquid from the. cans near the window and ignited it, causing a fire. For this act, he was. sentenced to probation in Cook County. The criminal damage convictions are also. telling. So, one involved him damaging. two CTA train windows. Another involved. damaging a computer that was property of. the Cook County Department of. Corrections. For these, he also received. probation. Now, to the moment that makes. the case so infuriating at the time of.

this attack, Reed was already facing a. violent felony charge. According to. reporting from CBS News Chicago, in. August, he was charged with aggravated. battery causing great bodily harm for. allegedly striking a social worker at. the McNeel Hospital. The Cook County. State's Attorney's Office objected to. his release, arguing he was a danger. But you had a judge who ended up. releasing him on electronic monitoring. And according to the motion for. detention, another judge later modified. the order, loosening his monitoring.

restrictions. And the federal motion. notes that at the time of the CTA. attack, Reed was required to be at home. under curfew. Andrew, I really only have. one question. How is this possible? Well, the answer comes down to a few. things. You know, a lot of his arrests. and convictions are related to property. damage crimes. They're not related to. harming other people. And that's why he. was out or was out from those types of. charges. Those are whenever you're. damaging property over hurting people, you're going to be charged with you're.

going to be given less time in prison or. less time in jail. The. >> 72 arrests don't matter. >> Well, 72 arrests, but it's 15. convictions. You know, that's what it. comes down to. That should be the number. people are focusing on. 15 convictions. is too many convictions, by the way. It's a lot of convictions. And eight. felonies is a lot of felonies. But it. comes down to can you put someone in. jail for the rest of their life for. destroying a computer or setting a fire. to property? And I think on the on the. scale of things, a lot of people if they.

were looking at this, not considering. what he did here, would say, "Okay, well. that's probably not a life imprisonment. charge." Now, the attack on a social. worker is a particularly interesting. charge, and I'm somewhat surprised that. he was actually given uh the ability to. bail out because those charges whenever. they're involving um professionals, so. to speak, that those tend to carry a. higher amount of weight. You know, they. tend to be aggravated battery cases. because that's someone who is a social.

worker was someone who was trying to. help him, was in their professional role. when they were injured. And that usually. adds an aggravation factor which you. sometimes can be used to deny someone. probation. >> or and or excuse me, not probation, to. deny somebody bail under the bail act. >> And for whatever reason, a Cook County. judge didn't see didn't see that way. So, so when people read this and they. say, "Wait a minute, he got probation. even after his criminal history, gets. released even after all this, does there.

need to be a change in the law in. Chicago?". I I don't know the answer to that. because the problem is with this type of. case, it's it's random enough and it's. not as if he had the type of violent. history that you could have predicted. that he would commit this type of crime. on a person. So the the bail act or the. the bail reform act in Illinois did a. lot of good things and a lot of people. don't realize that. You know to not hold. somebody in in jail for an offense that.

they effectively can't pay to get. released. is problematic. And what a lot of people. don't realize is all bail is is it's a. monetary hurdle to getting out of jail. You don't go to jail until you're. convicted of a crime. So if me and some. billionaire are both arrested for the. same crime and they set our crime, they. set our bail at a million and I can't.

pay that million dollars, but the. millionaire or the billionaire can pay. that million dollars, the billionaire. goes free and I don't go free. Who's. more dangerous in that situation? You're. not making an abject. You're not making. an objective decision on who's more. dangerous. You're making an objective. decision on who can afford to get out of. jail before they are convicted. Now, both people who whenever you get out on. bail, you still have to face trial and. you can still be sentenced to prison.

after the trial and that's completely. unrelated to to bail. So it comes down. to the fact that you are innocent until. proven guilty and you are only held. before you are innocent and to be until. you're proven guilty based on certain. conditions. >> But look again this you you mentioned it. before there is a question here of why. he was released if you're talking about. a potential danger to the public or. repeat offender. Look in the wake of. this attack I want your perspective. In. the wake of this attack, federal. authorities, they held a press. conference to formally announce the.

charges. And you had US attorney Andrew. Bros, who went to the podium to. immediately shut down any speculation. that this was anything but a random. predatory attack. >> I've seen reports that there was an. altercation or that there was a some. kind of uh uh of uh of some kind of. disagreement or argument that took. place. Uh those statements are. inaccurate and false. She was on her. phone. Then you had ATF special agent in. charge Chris Ammon who took the. microphone and connected Reed's past.

directly to this present tra to this. present tragedy in honestly the most. blunt terms possible. >> Lawrence Reed had no business being on. the streets given the his violent. criminal history and his pending. criminal cases. Reed had plenty of. second chances by the criminal justice. system and as a result you have an. innocent victim in the hospital fighting. for her life. Because of the swift. action of CPD, ATF and our law. enforcement partners, there will be no. other chances for Mr. Reid. Thank you.

>> Andrew, we just heard this really. stunning audio from the ATA the ATF. agent. From your perspective in the. Chicago legal community, is it unusual. for a federal official to so bluntly. condemn the second chances that a. defendant received in the state court. system? And what does that signal to you. about the federal government's approach. here? >> It's absolutely unusual. And it what it. does is it tells you that this is the. type of shocking case that has gotten. the the feds involved. And when the the.

federal government is involved. prosecuting people, when the DOJ is. involved in prosecuting people, they do. not lose. They do not mince words. They. are about as serious and as buttoned up. as it as it becomes. These are the best. prosecutors that exist and they that's. how they get to this level. So for him. to come out here and and make these sort. of statements, a lot of it is, you know, in my opinion, somewhat political, but a. lot of it has to do with the absolute.

shock of what we what we witnessed here, what happened to this poor woman. But. he's not wrong. I mean, look, here's the. thing. The judge in the August case. released him over the prosecution's. objections and reportedly stated, quote, "I can't keep everybody in jail." What. is this? a situation where there's just. not enough room to to house everybody. and that's a reason why somebody like. Reed is let out. Yeah, I hear you. He's. innocent until proven guilty. I say it. all the time, 100%. But with that. criminal history and given what he's.

accused of doing here where the evidence. is so strong, people are not going to. want to hear that. And and the question. becomes, is that the case? There's just. practically not enough room in Chicago. housing facilities to to house somebody. who's accused of a crime like this. Does. that mean I can't keep everybody in. jail? What does that mean? >> Yes. You know, first of all, you can't. keep everybody in jail for a variety of. reasons, you know, and I think that. first of all, they have to make the the. decision, the judge has to make the. decision, how likely is this person to.

be a a threat to other people. And when. the judge made that decision, they they. did not think that this person would. commit this type of crime. Now, does that decision look absolutely. terrible in hindsight? Yeah, it looks. horrible. It looks absolutely horrible. and I would imagine that this judge has. a a very strong chance of not being. retained the next time that they are up. for reelection and but the human aspect. of it too. I'm sure this judge feels. absolutely terrible about what happened. here and that that's a decision that.

that judge made that judge made on based. on you know a a court call that was in. front of them that it was hundreds and. hundreds of cases hundreds and hundreds. of motions. The judge only had a certain. amount of time to read everything they. could about this case and and made that. decision. And guess what? It was a bad. decision. >> Look, there are no easy answers to this. It's incredibly frustrating though. It. is incredibly distressing and it is so. sad. It is so tragic. And I just will.

full circle here. Our thoughts, our. prayers, our wellw wishes are with this. young woman, her family, and I hope she. has again a successful, healthy. recovery, and this family gets the. privacy that they need and hopefully the. justice uh that she's entitled to. Uh. Andrew Scott, thank you so much for. taking the time. Really appreciate it. >> Thank you so much. I'll see you soon. >> And that is all we have for you right. now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank. you so much for joining us. And as. always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you.

should get your podcast. You can follow. me on X or Instagram. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak [music] to you next time.