Teen fatally shot by Breaux Bridge police

As officers arrived to the scene, they say 17-year-old female, Darnesha Harris was driving a car toward their unit.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The police showed admirable restraint. Look for a frivolous lawsuit by the family. Trying to run over a police officer usually does not have a happy ending but in this case it does!

[Anonymous]

Sheik Yerbouti wrote:

The police showed admirable restraint. Look for a frivolous lawsuit by the family. Trying to run over a police officer usually does not have a happy ending but in this case it does!

It is easy for anyone to assume that Miss. Harris broke every law imaginable while fleeing from a Law Enforcement Officer. Well let us look at some of the events as they unfolded. 1. She (Darnesha Harris), did in fact crash her personal vehicle head-on into a Breaux Bridge Police Car, while fleeing a hostile situation already in progress. 2. She (Darnesha Harris), did after striking a police car with her vehicle attempt to flee again by backing into a parked vehicle. 3. She (Darnesha Harris), also inadvertently hit what was believed to be an innocent bystander causing minor injuries.

Now lets truly look at this disturbing incident. Miss. Darnesha Harris caused an accident by crashing her vehicle into a responding Officer’s Unit as it responded to a Domestic Disturbance, then proceeded to leave the scene of the accident by placing her vehicle into reverse. While backing her vehicle away from the patrolman’s car, Miss. Darnesha Harris, made contact with several parked “Unoccupied” vehicles, then struck an innocent bystander. All this took place while attempting to flee from the Officer. Darnesha Harris was given a verbal command to stop and surrender to authorities, in which she complied by placing her hands in the air. This is when Darnesha Harris was shot the first time by an aggressive officer using DEADLY FORCE, which was unauthorized from the beginning.

Unauthorized because she is not the AGGRESSOR here and she is fleeing from the scene! Upon complying with the officer’s directive, he/she discharged their firearm striking Miss. Harris in her shoulder. FOR WHAT REASON AGAIN!!! Frighten and scared out of her wits, Darnesha Harris, attempted to flee on foot, not really knowing why a Law Enforcement Officer were firing his weapon at an unarmed suspect that complied to their demands. Darnesha Harris then sustained several Fatal gunshot in her BACK and succumb to her fatal injury. I am quite sure B.B.PD, has a policy that says officers can use Deadly Force while a suspect is fleeing the scene right? I am sure B.B.PD, has a policy that gives his/her officers the right to recover their spent shell casing after a fatal shooting to preserve the evidence right? Why do you suppose this officer picked up his shell casing after shooting Miss. Darnesha Harris? Don’t take a rocket scientist to figure this one out… What happened to the admirable restraint mentioned? Perhaps you have done what any of us would have done without conducting an independent investigation. Let us just see what comes out of this Un-Justified Shooting. Then and maybe then only, will the family consider a Frivolous Lawsuit.

[Richard Mizzi]

wow wrote:

You can not shoot anyone in the back. Prison guards are the only one allowed to shoot someone in the back.

You forgot my lard ass cops in arnadville. they shot poeple in the bak to

[bystander]

richard how can u call your best buddy a fat ass???

[House of Pain]

help wrote:

An officer can shoot someone in the back if he fears that they are going to do someone else bodily harm

No Law Enforcement Officer has the right to discharge their firearm without considering several factors. Lets look at how the state of Louisiana addresses Probable Cause. Probable cause sometimes referred as Reasonable Cause in Louisiana Status; cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed. Quoted from 1968 United States Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which remains one of the most commonly, cited cases in the area of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law. Now that we know what Probable cause states, lets look at

(Use of Force in Self-defense). An officer my use only the degree of force which is reasonably and immediately necessary to protect him/herself. An officer my not use deadly force to protect himself from an attack that poses no serious threat of death or great bodily harm. The officer may meet force with force in kind. There are circumstances under which the use of deadly force may be justified against an unarmed aggressor, such as a 260-pound boxer attacking a 110-pound female officer who is by herself.

Now look at (Use of Force to Protect others). An officer may only the degree of force immediately necessary to protect another person or property in another person’s lawful possession against a forcible offense.

Note: An officer may, in some instances, use deadly force to prevent a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or great bodily harm. FIRST, the officer MUST reasonably believe that a forcible or violent felony involving danger to life or the threat of great bodily harm is about to be committed. SECOND, he MUST reasonably believe that the use of DEADLY FORCE is immediately necessary for the prevention of his harm. THRID, he MUST reasonably believe that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the forcible felony without the USE OF DEADLY FORCE.

[House of Pain]

help wrote:

<quoted text>
That us what I said

That’s not what you stated and has missed the entire POINT! YOU CANNOT SHOOT A FLEEING PERSON IN THE BACK. A person fleeing is not an AGGRESSOR!!! Simply put, there is no THREAT. Can you honestly articulate fearing someone with a weapon that you have not seen,“only fearing” running away from a crime scene, therefore giving you the opportunity to shoot them in the back. If this is your position, it shows your level of understanding of the Law. An aggressor cannot claim self-defense. Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is not self-defense. Let us stay with the contents of this case at hand and not compare a horrendous incident that cost someone their life, with things you have seen on television. Shooting someone in the Defense of others needs to meet the Reasonable Test,(Did It). Shooting a fleeing suspect in the defense of others without proving a weapon ever existed, you better get yourself a VERY GOOD LAWYER. Fear or Suspect that a weapon exists does not give you the right or authority to shoot until VERIFIED. ARE YOU SERIOUS!

[Black Hearts]

No matter what the black person does, no matter how many other innocent victims they may have killed or put in harms way, it would seem that this black considers him/herself the crucified party. Always! Capable of no wrongdoing!
Imagine if this same black person's skin color was white, and the bystander who was hit was black. There would be rioting, marching, and possibly Al Sharpton might arrive in Lafayette telling the law enforcement how to run their office!
The aggressor, Darnesha Harris, never gave up, nor did she flee on foot. Just more black racist lies, and trying to get free money from the white world they despise.

[Just saying]

Richard Mizzi wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot my lard ass cops in arnadville. they shot poeple in the bak to

richard is the real coward in arnaudville

[Black Holes]

At what point did Harris show any consideration for those she may have killed? She plowed head first into a police car, did she care that she could have killed the officers inside? Then she reversed and hit several other cars that were thankfully empty with no regard for life there, but did hit an innocent bystander. What is the status of that victim?

But to those in support of her, and who hate whites, this does not matter. I suppose the cops were supposed to allow this young girl to proceed to kill innocent people.

The mind-set of racist blacks, who could care less if innocent whites or other non-blacks were hurt or killed. Ugly, isn't it!

[For Justice]

I would have that trial moved from the state of Louisiana. Prejudice will play a key role in a lot of the jurys descision. I would not even hire an attorney from there. These people cannot be trusted.

[For Justice]

This is not a black thing, nor a white thing. It needs to be the right thing. God always prevails! If he killed with no justification he will have to answer to a man who is all our God. Neither black nor white, rich nor poor. Smart nor dumb. Will his sin not be dealt with by our creator.

[Bobby Cox]

She got what she deserves for taking a vehicle and using it as a weapon while acting like a thug.

[Patriot]

For Justice wrote:

This is not a black thing, nor a white thing. It needs to be the right thing. God always prevails! If he killed with no justification he will have to answer to a man who is all our God. Neither black nor white, rich nor poor. Smart nor dumb. Will his sin not be dealt with by our creator.

Who said he committed a sin? If Harris was white, you would want her dead, right?

[deondre papillion]

Black Hearts wrote:

No matter what the black person does, no matter how many other innocent victims they may have killed or put in harms way, it would seem that this black considers him/herself the crucified party. Always! Capable of no wrongdoing!
Imagine if this same black person's skin color was white, and the bystander who was hit was black. There would be rioting, marching, and possibly Al Sharpton might arrive in Lafayette telling the law enforcement how to run their office!
The aggressor, Darnesha Harris, never gave up, nor did she flee on foot. Just more black racist lies, and trying to get free money from the white world they despise.

hey white bitch you were not there at the crime scene your just going by what that white racist cop lied about that was my cuzin your talking about bitch