Very Sad News For Fans đđVeah Netherton Shocks Fans with Devastating News!It Will Shock You
90 Day Fiancé: Before the 90 Days star Veah Netherton was still struggling with multiple tragedies while filming for the show. In addition to suffering a miscarriage a few years prior, she also lost her brother Cody in 2020 after he was shot by a police officer.
Veah Talks About Her Brother Cody
In her Before the 90 Days intro, Veah said she was raised almost entirely in foster care, including a number of years with a very religious family with their own church. The situation sounded a lot like a cult, but Veah didnât use that term.
âMy brother Cody was closest to me out of all my siblings,â Veah said. âWe were only one year apart, so we were kept together most of the time in foster care. We were best friends. We grew up together.â
Veah got very emotional as she continued. âBut a few years ago, my brother was shot and killed by law enforcement,â she revealed. âObviously, itâs very heartbreaking. Itâs heartbreaking for my family.â
Veah shared additional information about her brother and his passing in a series of Instagram posts. âCody was so talented at drawing,â she wrote for one story post. âHe was a loving father to 3 beautiful children, a loving husband, a brother, a uncle, and so much more.â
Veahâs Brother Codyâs Shooting Details
Veah Nethertonâs brother Cody was shot by a police officer on December 30, 2019 in Missouri. Cody was driving a car with his fiancĂ©e and mother in the vehicle when he was shot once in the head. Cody was taken to a local hospital where he was placed on life support. He died on January 1, 2020.
An investigation of Codyâs shooting was conducted by a Missouri Special Prosecutor, who determined the shooting was justified because the car Cody was driving was accelerating towards the officer at the time of the shooting.
âThe officer had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious physical injury or death from the actions of the deceased at the time he fired,â reads the report. Below is a lengthy excerpt with the findings from the report.
Excerpt From Cody Shooting Investigation Report
âI have now reviewed the investigation file, consisting of reports from DDCC investigators, statements from [Codyâs] girlfriend and his mother (who were passengers in his vehicle at the time of the shooting), statements from the officer involved and the other responding officers, the autopsy report, lab reports from the MSHP Lab, and video from the surveillance system at the school where the incident occurred and from the dashcam of the second responding officer.
âAll of the information contained there is internally consistent, and leads to the conclusion that the shooting was justified under current Missouri law. The evidence indicates that the deceased was accelerating his automobile directly towards the officer at a distance of less than 6 feet at the time the officer discharged his weapon, and that based on the information and circumstances available to the officer at the time, the officer had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of serious physical injury or death from the actions of the deceased at the time he fired.
âIn Missouri, where an officer is in a position of using deadly force in self-defense, the standard requires a reasonable belief that he (the officer) is in imminent danger of serious physical injury or death, as a result of the actions of the suspect. See, for example, State v. Chambers, 681 S.W.2d 781 (Mo bane 1984), and MAI-Cr 4th 406.06. Under Tennessee v. Garner, the US Supreme Court case that established the standard for an officerâs use of deadly force in making an arrest, the standard is similar; whether the officer believed that the fleeing suspect presented a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to the public or the officer or other officers.
âIn the school surveillance video footage, the vehicle may be seen accelerating directly at the officer, who was walking towards the vehicle, and who would have been clearly visible to the driver prior to the vehicle being placed into drive and moving forward (Frame 141 of the video at 10:01:45 am).
âAt the time the officer fired his weapon, (frame 145 of the school surveillance video at 10:01:46 am) the vehicle was no more than 6 feet from him and accelerating rapidly toward him. From the skid mark evidence at the scene, the suspect vehicle traveled to a point within 2 feet of the right side of the rear of the officerâs patrol vehicle. As soon as the vehicle started towards him, the officer was retreating, but from his position, he reasonably believed he would not be able to get to a position of safety.
âFurther, it should be noted that a total of only 3 seconds elapsed from the time the vehicle started forward until it struck the building after the driver was shot. (I would also offer a very small caveat; the surveillance âvideoâ is not truly a traditional video, as it only records at 3 frames per second, as opposed to the standard for actual full-motion video which is in the 30 fps range. This results in jumps, but the sequencing is clear enough to be easily discernible.)
âAfter a thorough review of the available information, I believe it would be difficult to find from this evidence that the officer did not have a reasonable apprehension of immediate serious physical injury or death from the acts of the suspect. As a result, it is my conclusion that the officer was justified in his use of deadly force, and that I believe that no charges are warranted.â