15-Year-Old’s Death Shows What Can Happen When Cops Shoot at Cars

Jordan Edwards’ killing highlights a dangerous and often deadly police tactic.

Mesquite Independent School District

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Update (5/2/2017): The Balch Springs Police Department officer who shot and killed Jordan Edwards on Saturday has been fired, though the department still has not identified the officer. In a statement, Edwards’ family said they were “grateful” for the decision, but that there was still a “long road ahead” to justice.

Saturday’s police-involved shooting of a 15-year-old boy in a Dallas suburb has raised questions about the law enforcement practice of shooting at moving vehicles.

Jordan Edwards was killed while leaving a house party last weekend after a Balch Springs Police Department officer fired his rifle into a car Edwards and several others were riding in. Police officials originally said an officer had shot into the car after it had backed toward the officer in an “aggressive manner.” But at a Monday press conference that Balch Springs Police Chief Jonathan Haber held after reviewing police body camera video, the chief conceded that the vehicle had in fact been “moving forward as the officers approached.” The chief said the shooting “did not meet our core values” and that he was troubled by the video. Edwards is the 303rd person—and the youngest—killed by police this year, according to police shootings database maintained by the Washington Post.

Police shootings targeting moving vehicles have drawn increased scrutiny in recent years, prompting some departments to change their policies to discourage or even ban the practice. In January, the International Association of Chiefs of Police released new use-of-force guidelines that discourage officers from shooting at vehicles barring “exigent circumstances” or an immediate threat. Later that month, the Department of Justice slammed Chicago police officers’ “dangerous” and “counterproductive” habit of shooting at moving vehicles in a scathing report, pointing out that bullets are unlikely to disable a vehicle while carrying a high risk of shooting an innocent bystander or passenger—as was apparently the case in Edwards’ death. Research suggests that banning the practice can lead to fewer police shootings. One study by a criminologist at American University found that police involved shootings dropped by 30 percent in the three years after New York City changed its relevant policy. The number of people killed by police dropped by nearly 40 percent over the same time period.

The shooting took place after two police officers responded to a call about a rowdy house party Saturday night. Officers were inside the house trying to locate the owner when they heard what sounded like gunshots and went outside to investigate, according to a statement released by the police department on Monday. Numerous party-goers fled in panic, and according to Lee Merritt, an attorney for Edwards’ family, the boy, his two brothers, and a friend decided to leave. Once inside the car, Merrit says, they heard someone yelling profanities in their direction—then at least one bullet crashed through a passenger side window as they pulled off. The boys, who were unarmed, drove for about a block before realizing that Edwards had been struck in the head. He was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

Balch Springs’ use-of-force policy encourages officers confronting an oncoming vehicle to “attempt to move out of its path, if possible, instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants.” The department has not released the name of the officer who shot Edwards or video of the shooting, but the officer has been “relieved of all duties” and placed on leave, Haber said.

The investigation into the shooting is being handled by the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department. Edwards family said he was was a star student and athlete with a 3.5 GPA, and Edwards’ football coach, teachers, and friends’ parents have offered glowing praise of the teen to local media outlets in the wake of the shooting. In a statement on Tuesday, Edwards’ family demanded “JUSTICE FOR JORDAN,” while calling on the community to refrain from protest as they prepare for Edwards funeral. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate