It is rare that I breakdown a case absent the luxury of first watching video footage of the incident. Since the vast majority of police officers are (thankfully) outfitted with body cams - combined with the vast expansion of private surveillance systems, and eager citizens with cell phones - the days of a major police incident not being captured on some form of video is virtually nonexistent.
However, the video has not yet been released for this controversial Officer Involved Shooting (OIS) that includes a 21 year-old, black, pregnant female and an accusation of “officer induced jeopardy”.
What Happened
On August 25, 2023 in Westerville, Ohio - police officers with Blendon Township were at a Kroger grocery store assisting a driver that had locked herself out of her vehicle. While police officers were still helping the woman employees from the store contacted officers and informed them that a woman had stolen alcohol and was in the process of fleeing. (It was later reported to police that a group of people had been shoplifting inside of the store and had fled).
Officers were forced to shift from community takers on a low stress call to law enforcers prepared to protect life and property from someone who was determined in their mission to take what is not rightfully theirs1.
Initial Contact
The alleged thief had parked her vehicle (a Lexus sedan) right in front of the store (in a handicap zone) and got into the driver’s seat. Her name was Ta'kiya Young and she was a 21 year-old, pregnant, black female.
Police officers made contact with Ms. Young and ordered her to exit the vehicle. Ms. Young, though, refused to exit the luxury car and atone for her stolen liquor. The Blendon Township Chief of Police (John Belford)2 stated that officers gave her more than “a dozen” orders to exit the vehicle.
Active Resistance/Deadly Threat
As the officers gave Ms. Young lawful commands to exit the vehicle she did the exact opposite and accelerated forward. When she accelerated the vehicle forward there was an officer directly in the path of the vehicle. The actions of Ms. Young now had escalated from petty shoplifting to attempted murder/aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a law enforcement officer.
The Use of Force
As the vehicle came barreling toward the officer - he fired one shot through the front windshield. Ms. Young was struck and did not survive her injuries.
Analysis
As with every case - the lawful objective, the reason that police were attempting to detain/arrest is paramount. And, in this instance the police officers were essentially minding their own business - assisting a motorist in need when they were flagged down by a store employee who requested help with a crime in progress.
Ms. Young was identified by the store employee as a person who had just shoplifted liquor from the business. Therefore, the police officers did have legal reason to detain Ms. Young.
Police officers can utilize force to detain. However, that force has to be objectively reasonable. In this instance officers approached the car and gave Ms. Young verbal warnings. The officers did not shoot out her windows or bash in the glass with their batons. They simply gave her verbal orders - which was reasonable and appropriate.
Once the vehicle accelerated forward and the driver began to flee - the officers would still have the ability to pursue and stop the offender. However, the pursuit of a shoplifting offender would have to be balanced and measured within the scenery of the offense committed. For example, police officers could not shoot at the vehicle as it drove away. The use of deadly force to merely apprehend a shoplifting offender would not be reasonable or lawful.
However, if the officer was in the path of the vehicle and Ms. Young started to drive right towards him and he had an honest and legitimate belief that he was going to be struck/run over the car - then the officer would be able to utilize deadly force against the driver in self-defense. No police officer should be expected to end up as Lexus meat due to an entitled driver.
This OIS was objectively reasonable and within the law.
Officer-Induced-Jeopardy
A criticism of a case like this is that some might say, “the officer created the jeopardy himself”. In short, the accusation is that the officer purposely and unnecessarily put himself in an unsafe position so that he could justify using deadly force.
Here is how we test that.
The officer is standing in a position and a vehicle moves towards him - where it had not been traveling initially. Not Officer induced.
A vehicle is already moving in a certain direction and the officer jumps out in front of the vehicle and the driver has no possible way to stop. Officer Induced.
However, the paradigm of “Officer Induced Jeopardy” can be complicated and easily slide into silly season. An example. An officer who conducts a traffic stop that results in an OIS created that jeopardy, right? It was not necessary that the officer stop that particular car. See, how ridiculous? Therefore, if a police officer’s actions were reasonable and a normal part of the job - a situation should not be deemed as “officer induced jeopardy".
Pregnancy Fail
Since the involved officers did not have any contact with Ms. Young prior to her being inside of the vehicle - there was no way for them to know that she was pregnant. To the contrary, the fact that she had allegedly stolen liquor would lead a reasonable person to believe the literal exact opposite. It is therefore an irrelevant fact.
Why would a pregnant woman be shoplifting liquor?
“Unarmed”
A the grandmother of Ms. Young (Nadine Young) was quoted by the local news as saying, “An unarmed black female was killed. That’s what we know. Two kids have no mama.”
Obviously, when a family member is killed it should not be expected that their loves ones speak objectively. However, the rest of us should.
The fact that Ms. Young did not have possession of a firearm does not mean that she was not dangerous to police officers. A car can be a deadly weapon, as can a knife, or a baseball bat - it depends on the use of the object and the intent of the person wielding control. In this case Ms. Young allegedly used her luxury sedan as a deadly weapon against a police officer who was lawfully trying to detain her.
The indication that she was “unarmed” is highly dishonest - and therefore, probably the adjective that Ben Crump will lead with.
And yes, 21 year-old Ms. Young already had two children (6 and 3) as well as an active order of protection - taken against her by the grandmother who spoke to the reporter.
Final Thoughts
Let’s say (for arguments sake) that it was a tactical error for the officer to stand in front of Ms. Young’s car. Well, shoplifting, resisting arrest, and trying to run over a cop are serious crimes. A tactical “error” and a violent felony are not legally or morally equivalent.
Chief Belford stated that the body cam will be made public once the “legal redactions” have been made. I retain the right to change my mind with the availability of new evidence. It is ok to be wrong - it is not ok to ignore facts that destroy a preferred narrative.
I fucking hate thieves.
A automobile is definitely a deadly weapon. It is a sad but justified use of force. Race was not a factor. The suspect placed herself in jeopardy first by committing larceny and then ADW with a motor vehicle. Our officers are under scrutiny for every thing and this should be reviewed but they are not expected to be killed or grievously injured.
Every year for the last couple of years I've gone through the Washington Post killed by police database and researched the 9 to 13 African Americans who are allegedly unarmed and killed by police every year. What I found is that nearly half of them, every single year were either actually armed, had access to a weapon, presented some type of other object as if it were a weapon, used a motor vehicle as a weapon, or acted as if they were armed. The problem with the wp is that they only list the initial news article and then never bother to follow up to see what the findings were.