Nordstrom’s Shooting Victim Filed Repeatedly For Help With Police


A law student at the University of Chicago was shot dead in a Nordstrom’s store on Michigan Avenue in Chicago on Friday. Twenty-two year old Nadia Ezaldein was killed by her ex-boyfriend, thirty-one year old Marcus Dee after what witnesses say was a heated argument. After killing Ezaldein in front of shoppers, Dee turned the gun on himself.

Family members told reporters that the two had been broken up for about a year, though Dee reportedly tried to contact her family and even googled them, according to one family member. They say Dee was mentally abusive to Ezaldein and her brother stated: “It was like months and months of psychological torment. I would say there was a lot of emotionally traumatizing phrases and words.”

Police reported that Dee had been accused of physical assault on Ezaldein seven months ago, cracking her ribs. The report also detailed that Dee had punched her in the jaw and put a gun in her mouth. Ezaldein had also filed reports with police pertaining to Dee in the weeks before her death. Dee allegedly sold drugs and weapons. Yet, protection orders were repeatedly denied by court officials, including Cook County Judge Caroline Kate Moreland.

It was Ezaldein’s 22nd birthday.



About the Author

T.S. Walker
T.S. Walker is a freelance writer and a voracious reader, who enjoys simple things, laughter with loved ones, and wide open spaces.

24 Comments on "Nordstrom’s Shooting Victim Filed Repeatedly For Help With Police"

  1. To borrow what you said: I don’t give a damn if it sounds lazy to you. It’s a fact; and while you are free to have your own opinion, you can’t make up your own facts. I’m done arguing with you.

  2. Joe Fucile | 12/10/2014 at 1:59 PM |

    While it may be a proactive approach, I believe that DUI checkpoints are a violation of the 4th amendment and lazy policing by the departments. I do not want them to arbitrarilly have the ability to check for a crime with no probable cause for a crime having been committed any more then I want them to have the ability to shut down a neighborhood, force people out of their homes at gunpoint and search with no warrent as they did after the Boston Marathon bombings.

    They cast a wide net hoping to catch an offender while interferring with everyone elses freedoms with no probable cause. Is it alright to violate the rights of 300 individuals in order to catch 1 ? I live in Minnesota and they do not allow those stops here but have been involved in 2 cases where I called the police and followed drunk individuals to get them off the road before they harmed anyone, didn’t require police fishing for an arrest; all it takes is for the community to be involved to address the problem.

    As to the security checkpoints; it is the owner of the property that has enacted the list of prohibited items, not pro-active policing. I do not have an issue with property owners making sure that prohibited items do not enter the premises they own, I just do not trust the police to make those types of decisions out of the legal bounds they are supposed to be enforcing. I avoid those areas that would have me disarmed without providing for my protection, I have other things I can do. Couple questions for you though, does the mere presence of a weapon infer that it will be used in an unlawful manner? Is it alright for the police to come into your house and search without a warrant if they believe there is an issue in the area where you live that can be addressed in such a manner ?

  3. What do you have to say about things like drunk driving checkpoints? Is that not a proactive approach to stopping people from killing someone while driving drunk? Surely they aren’t waiting around for the accident to happen before taking them off the streets. Security checkpoints at public events prevent people from bringing dangerous items into a venue. Sounds like a proactive approach to stopping violent crimes if you ask me. You’ll obviously be the first line of defense when protecting yourself, but to say cops aren’t proactive in their protection is absurd. Sure they might have to arrest them for one thing, but it’s done with the intentions of stopping a more serious chain of events and crimes before they can happen.

  4. So the government is the enemy of the people is it? Not in a democracy that functions properly and regulates the behaviour of the economy properly instead of letting the powers in the economy regulate it (sound familiar to you does it?) Just because the American political system is bought and paid for by a few media moguls, agricultural, military, oil and financial industry groups doesn’t mean the rest of the world sat back and let their democracies crumble into a 1% v the people battle.
    In civilised countries the people control the government and not the other way round like America so by describing free education as a government scheme to control the masses is completely wrong. It’s preparing the society we all contribute to, for the future not let the backward religious extremists brainwash the kids who will be running things when we are old and retired in the way that WE THE PEOPLE want not WE the Churches, Corporations, Banks, Arms Manufacturers, Pharmaceuticals, Aggribusiness etc etc who currently pay YOUR elected officials to make decisions ON YOUR behalf.
    As for saving anyone I think you over estimate not to mention neglect to mention the profits made by America during the war. I am pretty sure the Russians, Chinese, Indian and other British Commonwealth nations would disagree with this warped view on history. Don’t forget it was the RAF destroyed the Luftwaffe before the ‘mericants decided to join in. I know its tough but don’t over estimate America’s importance in the world. It’s a country being brought to its knees by the 1% squeezing the rest of the people for their last penny or ounce of sweat so they can keep the power and their markets working for them and the country can go to ruin.
    Well done there for sitting back and letting the uber rich screw your country up while you all keep looking inwardly blaming the poor and the minorities for the troubles when they are the ones with no power. Not very smart looking from the outside but as long as you get to play with your guns you’re happy as a pig in sh1t as it doesn’t affect you in your little world.

  5. Joe Fucile | 12/06/2014 at 2:54 PM |

    Free education, you’re a special kind of stupid aren’t you Nothing is free from the government, they take from those that produce to offer those services. Now be a good little serf, make sure your chains don’t weigh too heavily on you and keep your opinion and yourself out of our country’s business; we don’t need you.
    For that matter we should leave the rest of the world to it’s own devices, why should we be involved in saving any of you clowns anyways. maybe Germany will get you the 3rd time round.

  6. Shiprex | 12/06/2014 at 1:23 PM |

    Congratulations you guessed I wasn’t American perhaps the correct spelling of English words rather than the lax and lazy way you lot have bastardised the language. At least the rest of the world uses the correct one when learning it as a second language but that’s because the cultural attachment that comes with your way doesn’t wash with the educated masses of humanity.

    By PUBLIC School I take it you mean free education system that is used in more countries internationally than any other then yes you got that right as for the rest of your analysis you’re light years away (that’s a distance and not a time just in case your American home school course covered Astrology as more apt than Astronomy)

    So your accusation I don’t care about people dying when in fact it seems that in every country where guns are free to access (widely available with little to no register of who owns what or regulation of ownership through regular checks by authorities) the homicide rate is higher by factors of 4 or 5. I use the stats provided by national statistics compiled by United Nations (you’ll come away with some socialist/communist/liberal etc retaliation that is actually referring to representatives of the rest of the world which is obnoxious in the first instance but also ignorant in its use as you are likely using US Right Wing Religious {superstiton in other words} fundamentalist media as the source of your bigotry). SO actual HARM is where I look to see how guns affect society and nothing to do with the NON use benefits apart from the HUGE profits that weapons manufacturers make from selling the myth that around every corner there is a bogey man about to take some material object from you or who is waiting to do some despicable act to you (funny how you never question WHY this would be the case in the first place just meekly accept that this is how it is and therefore you MUST own a gun and more guns than you can actually use at one time. I put it to you that it is YOU who have this HOLLYWOOD delusion about guns and that the West Is Not wild anymore. It’s over the Injuns lost and the white settlers took over and exploited everyone who went to and was there. Still going on if you look from an objective pov.|
    Also your assertion that a black market would open up is bogus. Where is this black market in other countries that banned civilians having guns? Even in countries where it is possible to own a gun the take up is very low. Those same countries also have lower homicide rates but that you’ll counter with OTHER Crimes that may be higher but nowhere near the levels of times 4 of 5 greater than WHAT you must regard as just another crime (homicide I mean here) and by doing so you reaffirm that it is YOU who do not care about life or death as you’d put robbery, burglary, assault on a similar level as that of killing someone which is at the lowest hypocritical and hideously wicked at the higher extreme.

    Only paranoia fed by that Fundamentalist Christian/Judeo Right Wing media empire that controls what gets into your homes by way of media will keep you gripping onto your tools of death. If you want protection against crime get decent police and provide a society that eliminates the NEED for people to commit crime but you’ll say what that would make everyone have what they need and the medieval way of might is right will have to change to value everyones contribution more equitably and the wealthy will have to SHARE their wealth and power ….. HELL NO THATS commie libtard blah blah blah talk
    I want my gun because it makes me feel good. More death around me but I feel good to have it. Tell that to the parents of kids killed in the next mass shooting (it’s always a mentally derange person somehow getting their hands on guns isn’t it nothing to do with guns giving them a huge kick and thrill to end the lives of others at a whim).
    Afraid of guns ? NO I’ve seen what they do to people (civilians MEN always) who have them to other people (civilians WOMEN CHILDREN ELDERLY and MEN) who don’t and it’s why civilians shouldn’t have them. So until you can take the people from the gun then the violence will stay.

    How are you being held responsible by having your lethal weapon taken from you? This thing is dangerous just like drugs though they aren’t able to harm so many people in a short time frame.

    It’s a sad state of affaits you’re all so attached to tools of death.
    No different to having an obsession about killing whether for fun, revenge or self defence. Which reason determines the mental health state of a person?
    Show a country where guns have reduced violence and I’ll show you 10 where violence is lower where guns ARENT in the hands of civilians.

  7. Joe Fucile | 12/06/2014 at 9:31 AM |

    Yes, I believe that police can only take a reactionary role to crime, taking criminals off the streets only occurs after the individual has committed a crime for which they can be charged. The first line of defense has always been and will always be, god willing, the citizens.
    I posit to you this, can you imagine what society would be like if police were allowed to be proactive; I mean truly proactive? Not by addressing community watch groups, gun buy backs, etc.; I mean they are allowed to profile individuals and charge them for having the possibility in committing a crime and remove them from society before they commit a crime?

  8. Joe Fucile | 12/06/2014 at 9:22 AM |

    Well, took awhile to ascertain what you were attempting to impart with this drivel; must be that public school education or perhaps English is a second language for you.

    1. You don’t care if people die, as long as it is not from a firearm and may even enjoy a state of existence where the strong prey on the weak because access to guns is what causes all the ills of the world.

    2. You ignore the tens of thousands of defensive gun uses reported in this country per year because it doesn’t fit your narrative that all gun owners are paranoid and guns are never used to stop bad things from happening.

    3. Base your “opinion” on the use of guns on what you have seen in Hollywood films and ignore all news stories that don’t fit your narrative of ordinary people using guns to protect themselves because it takes you out of your happy place and can’t grasp that you don’t always have to fire them to end an incident where one protected an individual or group of people.

    4. Probably not American else you would have said “our culture” “society”, therefore your opinion in us owning firearms means nothing, it’s just vapid bloviating

    5. Obviously not bright enough to know when you ban something it drives a Black Market where the criminals are going to get them anyways and violence ramps up when criminal organizations lay claim to and fight over the consequences you clamor for.

    6. I don’t care if guns make you piss yourself, I will not be held responsible for the actions of others when they decide to break the law any more then you want me to do the same to you,
    7. No I will not be registering anything I own because I believe in the constitutional protections we are supposed to have and am tired of little facsists such as yourseld prying into my personal life when I have done no wrong, you sir can go pack sand.

  9. Shiprex | 12/05/2014 at 5:49 PM |

    It isn’t me who doesn’t spot or even tries to deny that the ACCESS to guns is the problem. Well done for maintaining and supporting the myth of paranoia that permeates American social culture. Guns are lethal agents that do not require close contact to be effective in their purpose (ie to cause lethal harm) so if she had an awareness she could easily scream to alert others, run use a barricade etc to protect herself would a gun have done that NO because a gun is not a protective measure but an offensive deterrent there is a difference. No way she could have protected herself from the BULLET which is actually what does the harm but a gun can hurt if it hits you to but less likely to be lethal than the actual thing that causes the damage but you gunluvin’ nuts realise that blaming the bullet would be seen as just what blaming the gun is, a straw man defence.
    Why should one have to fear for ones life because guns are free to anyone who can get there hands on one without so much as a national register or police check that it is being held responsibly? I mean you are all fine with your driving licences records being kept by government authorities and yet gun ownership should be hidden from authorities?

  10. You’re right, I wasn’t aware of the fact that police aren’t obligated to protect an individual (barring certain circumstances). You taught me something there. Although to say I’m willfully ignorant is far from the truth. I just didn’t know. Now I do. My main issue came from you making the blanket statement of saying “police aren’t responsible for your protection.” It depends on which context you view the word “your.” If it’s in the sense of an individual, you’re right, they don’t have that duty. However, I assumed you used the word “your” to address the general public (or “community members” as I originally put it) since you weren’t replying to an individual, nor was it all too clear that you meant on an individual basis. And since I wasn’t aware of laws behind a police officer’s duty to act, I used the story from the article as a bad, misinformed example. That being said, if you believe that police officers only fill out paper work, clean up messes, and take a reactive approach to everything, you’re wrong. Police take many proactive approaches to stopping crime, which in turn, protects the community and the members who live there. Even if they are just responding to a call, filling out paperwork, and making an arrest, taking criminals off the streets is just another way of protecting people from future crimes.

  11. Joe Fucile | 12/03/2014 at 6:03 PM |

    Yes, it is BS, and I don’t give a damn if it sounds stupid to you. It’s a fact; and while you are free to have your own opinion, you can’t make up your own facts. According to public duty doctrine,
    the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists. Simply stated, police show up after a crime has been committed and mop up the mess and fill out the required paperwork.

    It is not my fault you are willfully ignorant of this fact; for those that wish to learn more of what police are responsible for they can read the rulings on cases like Warren v District of Columbia , Castle Rock v. Gonzales or even from the horses mouth itself so to speak – (as DISQUS does not allow links, type “no duty to protect” in Google and select the 2nd link, an article in Police Chief magazine on the subject)

    As for you Alex, you may want to rethink your stance on this.

  12. I guess the expression “Protect and Serve” is just a bunch of BS then, huh? If you don’t think police officers are responsible for protecting community members from dangerous things, events, and people, then you’re the dense one, sir. Sure, there are things that woman could have done to protect herself, but who’s to say she didn’t try changing her number, moving, making social networks private, etc.? There’s only so much you can expect an average citizen to do. This man beat her, put a gun in her mouth, and made her fear for her life, and you’re saying the police aren’t responsible for doing anything? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? You can’t blame a gun for the actions of a shooter, but you can certainly point fingers at police officers who did nothing to prevent it from happening when the threat was there. A police officer’s job is, in fact, to protect people and make the community safer, and it’s obvious this police department failed immensely in this case.

  13. Joe Fucile | 12/03/2014 at 8:23 AM |

    Yes, we need to go back to where the strong prey on the weak at will, that would be so much better then allowing those little people to defend themselves.

    Coupled with a Police state where only the government has the weapons, nothing could ever go wrong with that; it will be all rainbows and unicorns and everyone will love each other, right ?

  14. Joe Fucile | 12/03/2014 at 8:18 AM |

    Congratulations on being dense. A gun is an object and by itself cannot act of it’s own volition, it adopts the intent behind the individual holding it; If that person has bad intent, obviously bad things will happen. Your ilk however doesn’t believe in holding the individual responsible for their actions , ignore those lives saved using a firearm, and blame an inanimate object.

    The woman could have been aware of her surroundings, made sure not to broadcast any personal or location info on social media. Changed her daily routines, and routes taken to work, home, shopping, etc. And yes, availed herself of a weapon with witch to protect herself as well as the training on how to use it safely.

  15. Shiprex | 12/03/2014 at 7:52 AM |

    Or perhaps they see a different better way with no guns in the hands of anyone who wants one. No need to look far.

  16. Shiprex | 12/03/2014 at 7:51 AM |

    what disqus_zUibfyfU5r said

  17. Shiprex | 12/03/2014 at 7:50 AM |

    How do you protect yourself from a bullet in a modern civilised (?) society?
    US: GUNS=Bad things happening

  18. pete1589 | 12/03/2014 at 12:05 AM |

    The family that prays together stays together. Absent the discipline of Catholic prayer, satan has free reign. And today he is having a field day with the completely unsuspecting secularist humanists. Pray the Rosary.

  19. disqus_zUibfyfU5r | 12/02/2014 at 7:08 PM |

    Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform….

  20. aquafuji | 12/02/2014 at 5:18 PM |

    This is the problem with all these whinners saying they want no guns! So they choose to infringe on those that obay the law. Did this man buy a gun through legal means? No he did not, where are Sharpton and Jackson? Seems they couldn’t be bothered because as bdwilkin so eloquently put it.
    “No Honkeesto blame here.”

  21. Joe Fucile | 12/02/2014 at 2:55 PM |

    She should have protected herself. A piece of paper doesn’t stop a violent attack, and Police aren’t responsible for your protection.

  22. bdwilkin | 12/02/2014 at 1:52 PM |

    Someone tell Sharpton to turn his plane around. No Honkees to blame here.

  23. sharinite | 12/02/2014 at 10:26 AM |

    It’s Chicago, for goodness sake, that’s all they do there, murder each other…Now they come from other countries and think killing and suicide are normal…but, only for blacks?

  24. DaveHolden | 12/02/2014 at 8:29 AM |

    What were they even doing in this country?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.