Ed. Note: Greg Prickett is former police officer and supervisor who went to law school, hung out a shingle, and now practices criminal defense and family law in Fort Worth, Texas. While he was a police officer, he was a police firearms instructor, and routinely taught armed tactics to other officers.
Mesquite, Texas,[1] officer Derick Wiley was dispatched to a suspicious person call at just before 7:00 PM on November 8, 2017. It was already dark at that time of year, and it had been raining. Lyndo Jones had stopped his truck in a parking lot to smoke marijuana and take some cocaine. Within minutes, Jones, who was unarmed, was shot by Wiley.
The caller had stated that he thought the truck was being broken into, and officer Wiley was dispatched. While enroute, Wiley disregarded his cover unit, so that he would be the only officer responding. When Wiley arrived, the truck’s alarm was going off and Jones was sitting inside the truck. So Wiley drew his sidearm and ordered Jones out of the truck and onto the ground. Jones, who was not wearing a shirt, did so, and from the body camera, there was no indication that he was armed.
Going through the body camera, I noted a couple of things that concerned me. [2] First, once he got Jones out of the truck and prone, there was no need to approach and try to handcuff him. One can call and then wait for another officer. Early in my career, I once held a suspect, prone on the ground at gunpoint for about 10 minutes until my sergeant got to the scene to back me up and handcuff the subject.[3] That’s how officers are taught to handle this type of situation.
Second, Wiley was trying to handcuff the subject with one hand while having his knee in Jones back, his other hand on Jones’ neck. That is inherently unsafe, which is why officers are taught not to do that. You are taught to use both hands to apply the handcuffs for a reason: it gives you control over the suspect. Jones, who thought he was being choked and who didn’t want to go to jail, resisted, jumped up and started to flee. So Wiley shot him, just like he said he would earlier.
Wait, what? He shot him? There was no indication at all that Jones was armed, his hands were in view, and he was fleeing. The crimes being investigated were Burglary of a Motor Vehicle, Resisting Arrest, and Evading Arrest.[4] There was no apparent danger to the public, and no grounds to use deadly force on the officer’s part. The police department apparently agreed—by the end of the month, Wiley had been fired for violating department policy.
And about a week later, the Dallas County District Attorney presented the case to the grand jury, which indicted Wiley for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon by a Public Servant.[5] Jones was upset that Wiley wasn’t charged with Attempted Murder, but this was the right choice of charges by the DA, Faith Johnson. It carries the same penalty and is easier to prove.
I would also be remiss if I did not point out that Johnson has held officers to the same standard as everyone else, prosecuting former Dallas officer Christopher Hess for the death of Genevive Ann Dawes, convicting former Balch Springs Officer Roy Oliver for the murder of 15-year-old Jordon Edwards, and prosecuting former officer Amber Guyger for the shooting death of Botham Jean in his own home.
The trial of Wiley recently concluded with a mistrial after the jury hung, 8-4 for acquittal. Now the police unions[6] are in an uproar because the DA, Johnson, has indicated that she will likely retry Wiley. Good, that’s exactly what she should do, even if both the TMPA and CLEAT don’t like it. Don’t get me wrong, both TMPA and CLEAT are doing exactly what they should be doing, which is representing the interests of their member officers. They are going to claim that Johnson is throwing officers under the bus merely to garner minority votes for her election campaign.
I’m sorry, but that’s not the case. Johnson has a strong case to present, and she’s responsible for seeking justice. That’s exactly what she is doing here, and it is exactly what we need prosecutors all over the nation to do when there is a death at the hands of an officer.
Wiley’s defense attorney, Kathy Lowthorp,[7] said in her closing argument:
Please send a message to law enforcement. Send a message to this county that law enforcement does matter. And if more officers are backed up when they’re right then maybe when people are wrong, we will prosecute them. Maybe this will tone down some of the shootings that we have in our own county.
That’s what she has to say, but it’s also important that when officers step out of line, they are prosecuted, held to the same standard that every other citizen has to comply with.
As prosecutor George Lewis stated in his closing:
The fact the defendant was a police officer does not excuse him for his unreasonable actions that day when he shot Lyndo Jones. This was not a reasonable use of force by this defendant.
Lewis is right, it wasn’t a reasonable use of force. The lead prosecutor, Brian Mitchell, pointed out the obvious; police officers do not have a monopoly on going home at the end of their shift.
Lyndo Jones is a human being. And his life is worth more than a guess by an out-of-control officer.
Mitchell’s right.
[1] Mesquite is a suburb of Dallas, with a population of approximately 144,000 and the home of the world famous Mesquite Rodeo. The police department has about 230 sworn officers.
[2] Besides holding the pistol at a 45° angle—which I believe is not good technique, but will admit that it is taught more and more frequently to officers.
[3] The suspect had just wrecked his Camaro following a short vehicle pursuit, and had attempted to flee on foot when he was caught.
[4] Texas Penal Code §§ 30.04, 38.03, and 38.04. All are misdemeanor offenses punishable by up to a year in jail and up to a $4,000 fine.
[5] Texas Penal Code § 22.02(b)(2)(A). This is a first degree felony, punishable by 5-99 years or life in prison, and up to a $10,000 fine.
[6] Wiley is represented by the Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA), although my former union, the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT), is also commenting in support of Wiley.
[7] Lowthorp, like me, is also former military (Army MP) and law enforcement (Virginia). She’s a good lawyer.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

For it: prosecute the cases that can be won, no matter the doer. But:
Please send a message to law enforcement. Send a message to this county that law enforcement does matter. And if more officers are backed up when they’re right then maybe when people are wrong, we will prosecute them. Maybe this will tone down some of the shootings that we have in our own county.
Texas allows Golden Rule arguments like this?
Texas has a few peculiar rules of its own, as I’ve learned from my dear friends there, such as the “he needed killin'” defense.
That’s a valid and time-honored defense…
I’m rather impressed that you’re able to parse that heap of platitudes and hedging into a cognizable argument.
It’s pretty simple. Trial lawyers see Golden Rule arguments in bright red letters.
The difference is that the argument is being raised by the defendant, not the prosecution. Typically it is the prosecution that tries to go outside of the allowable areas for closing, and most of the case law deals with such prosecutorial arguments. A very brief and very limited check of the caselaw did not show any Texas cases addressing such arguments by the defense.
Paragraph 6 made my morning. I’m glad Jones is alive. Didn’t think he was after watching the video.
I’m also glad they are retrying the matter. You can’t give up on prosecuting cops just because it’s hard to convict them.
Correction: According to a law school classmate, Wiley is represented by CLEAT, not TMPA.
Is the union serving the best interests of its junior members? To be out in public pre-judging the facts, defending the indefensible, claiming the right to shoot disobedient people in the back, none of that can make the lives and jobs of the members any easier. Where I live the police union has noticeably dialled down the tone of its rhetoric, trying to build some credibility with the public.
The union has to represent all of its members, and the ones that obey the rules aren’t the ones that need union legal representation. If they don’t defend the indefensible, they are not needed.
That’s where the best interests of the rogues diverge from the general membership. It’s one thing to fund legal representation, it’s another to publicly endorse the behaviour, to say, “This is the standard of behaviour our members approve.”
Patrick’s joke about the ABA leads to a serious point. Professional associations of lawyers tend to condemn the bad behaviour of their own. Sheltering thieves and incompetents is bad for the profession as a whole.
There is a distinct difference between regulation of lawyers and police officers. Lawyers are professionals, police officers are more akin to tradesmen. To be a lawyer, one has to have an undergrad degree and then attend three years of graduate level schooling, then pass both a character and fitness evaluation, and sit for the bar, a two-three day exam.
A police officer has to have a high school diploma or GED, attend an academy of between three-six months, and many don’t have to take any sort of test (some, like Texas, have a test, but its only about 2 hours).
Lawyers can face disciplinary action by the bar, and if they dispute it, it usually is heard by a state court. Police face disciplinary action by their employer, and most disputes are handled by binding mediation. Lawyers, as professionals, don’t join unions or have union contracts (normally). Police, as laborers or tradesmen, do join unions with the intent that the union protect their interests.
Even though police may call their unions an “association,” don’t be confused. They are a union. To compare the two is to compare a box of apples to a box of rocks. Other than the fact that they are both in boxes, there isn’t any similarity.
Both exist to serve, advocate for, and publicly represent their members. When the union says, “It was OK to shoot a runner in the back,” that diminishes public respect for all police officers. Policing and lawyering have that in common too – a reliance on public trust and confidence.
…and you completely missed the point.
Was it me?
Yes. Yes, it was.
Very few organizations hew to their original purpose for very long. Ask McLeod about the… never mind.