Return of Fleeing Felon? Louisiana Shooting of Running Teen Justified

Return of Fleeing Felon? Louisiana Shooting of Running Teen Justified
Return of Fleeing Felon? Louisiana Shooting of Running Teen Justified

Arizona -( In Shreveport, on the afternoon of 30 October, 2017, three suspects are alleged to have been breaking into a car behind a restaurant. The restaurant owner surprised the suspects.   He felt threatened, and fired at one of the suspects, hitting him in the head. The suspect later died. The other suspects fled the scene. Two police officers, a Lt. and the police chief, also fired at the suspects.  From

Tacorey Banks, 17, was one of three teens allegedly breaking into a car behind a restaurant when the car’s owner confronted the teens and shot Banks in the head. Banks died of his injuries at University Health in Shreveport.

The other two teens, Darrien Miles and Xavier Thomas, ran, pursued by Police Chief Alan Crump and other officers.

Crump is on routine paid administrative leave after shooting at the suspects. Crump didn’t hit anyone.

Lt. Matt Prunty also shot at a suspect. He remains on duty.

A grand jury refused to indict the victim, businessman Marcus Jackson,  who fired at the suspects and hit one of them, Tacory Banks. From

Jackson’s attorney, Shante Wells, said his client was justified in his actions.

“What he did was what I would have done, or you would have done, or anyone who wanted to protect his life would have done. Thanks goodness he was ready, able and prepared to defend himself,” Wells said. “It was obviously what the grand jury saw.

It does not appear that the fleeing suspects shot at the victim or at police officers. They clearly were running from the crime scene and refused to stop. The police chief and the Lt. were both cleared of wrong doing.  From

In an interview with detectives about why he fired, Crump said he perceived the suspect as a threat. He had heard shots being fired seconds earlier, although it turned out those were fired by another police officer chasing Miles.

“I yelled to him to stop, and as I yelled to him to stop I had my weapon drawn and he slows and turns back… not fully toward me… but he slows and kind of looks back,” Crump said. “And as he slows and begins to make that turn, I fired.”

Video of the incident, from a camera in one of the police cars in the area, does not show Miles turning. It turned out Miles did not have a gun.

In 1985, in Tennessee vs. Garner, the Supreme Court held that laws authorizing the use of deadly force to stop fleeing felons were unconstitutional. In practice, using deadly force against someone fleeing a crime scene depends primarily on how the person attempting to stop the suspect perceives the situation.

In this case, both the businessman and the two police officers believed themselves to be in danger, before they fired at the suspects. When they arrested one of the remaining suspects, Xavier Thomas, they impounded a handgun they found at the residence.

The grand jury and the town administration both accepted the victim and police were reasonable in their belief they were in danger. No charges were filed or discipline administered. The Police Chief was put on administrative leave while the shooting was being investigated.

The attitude of the public toward armed defense of self and property appears to be shifting back toward the common attitude of 70 years ago. At that time, shooting at suspects fleeing a serious crime scene was generally accepted. Farmers fired at suspects stealing their produce at night. A person who fired a warning shot to prevent intruders from coming near to a country house was considered to be acting reasonably.

Self-defense stories are making their way into alternative news sources. The major media are no longer able to spike almost all mention of armed self-defense.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean WeingartenDean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The law here in Florida is clear on this…
You CANNOT shoot at an unarmed fleeing person
You also are forbidden to shoot at someone stealing your car
You can only shoot if they threaten your life
Satisfying as it is to shoot car thieves, I think that it is reasonable to reserve shooting only for immediate self defense

Timothy Votaw

I don’t care much for tainted court decisions that put lawful citizens at risk of harm, particularly in the case of armed felons pulling an armed robbery. In some liberal jurisdictions with bought and sold law enforcement and courts, the victim IS a victim of bias, regardless of the potential harm he or she faces. Thankfully, this jurisdiction is aligned with Constitutional rights of citizens taking appropriate action to protect and defend themselves or their families and employees. Would that we had more sensible thinking like this across the nation. Unfortunately, there must be much more violent crime and victims… Read more »


Armed civilians ware able to eliminate ‘hood rats one by one, since the police’s hands are tied.


BS! All three shooters were wrong.


Store owner 1, police 0… Kudos to the store owner, great shooting ! Eliminate the scum………………


Tennessee v. Garner in which the police officer was found to not have acted against the law. Deadly force can be used against fleeing felons if said felon was thought to be dangerous to the officer or the public at large.

The law in tenn prior officers could shoot a fleeing person for whatever reason. most states by then had changed the fleeing felon to shoot if the felon poses a danger.


Anonymous has it correct, nothing has changed. This is from the Tennessee v Garner SCOTUS decision:
“Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead”.

Jim Macklin

The law is the law and the Supreme Court has the power to declare what the words require.
But the Supreme Court does not declare that a Grand Jury indict a person for violation of the law.
Although the SCOTUS is superior to all other courts in the USA its opinions are often treated as suggestions by lower courts that do not agree with HELLER and McDonald for example. The SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism.
So the lower courts often ignore the Supreme Court and the Justices have no power to remove the rebel judges.

Ozark Muleskinner

Finally, an example of the application of common sense gun law. Thank God it’s not the definition of common sense gun laws that liberals, progressives and communists have in mind when they lie or disingenuously use that term.