A chilling scene unfolded on a Chicago train this week, a horrifying act of violence that has left a young woman critically injured. A man, identified as Lawrence Reed, allegedly doused a 26-year-old woman in a flammable liquid and set her ablaze, screaming obscenities as she desperately fought to extinguish the flames.
Witnesses bravely intervened, managing to put out the fire and provide initial aid to the victim, who was subsequently hospitalized with severe burns. The attack, captured in harrowing accounts, paints a picture of deliberate cruelty and a terrifying ordeal for those present.
But this brutal assault wasn’t a random act. It was a tragically foreseeable consequence, a direct result of a decision made within the Cook County justice system. A decision that prioritized leniency over public safety.
Lawrence Reed was no stranger to the law. He had been arrested a staggering 49 times prior to this horrific incident. His record was a clear indication of escalating violence and disregard for the law.
Just weeks before the train attack, in August, Reed was arrested for allegedly assaulting a security worker. During the hearing, a Cook County assistant state’s attorney issued a stark warning to Judge Teresa Molina Gonzalez. They explicitly stated Reed’s extensive criminal history and predicted his next offense would “likely be violent.”
The attorney argued that even electronic monitoring wouldn’t be sufficient to protect potential victims, fearing another “vicious, random, and spontaneous attack.” The plea for caution was direct and urgent, based on a pattern of dangerous behavior.
Despite this clear and compelling warning, Judge Molina Gonzalez released Reed on an ankle monitor. Her justification was a dismissive claim: “I can’t keep everybody in jail because the State’s Attorney wants me to.”
This single decision, this apparent disregard for the potential consequences, allowed a known offender to remain free. Now, a woman is battling for her life, and a community is grappling with the aftermath of a preventable tragedy.
The question now looms large: what will it take to hold accountable those who prioritize the freedom of violent criminals over the safety of innocent citizens? Is it time to consider the prosecution of judges who demonstrably fail to protect the public?
