90 DAY FIANCÉ Veah’s brother Cody shooting details

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 didn’t use that term.

“My brother Cody was closest to me out of all my siblings,” Veah said. “We 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.”

Veah got very emotional as she continued. “But a few years ago, my brother was shot and killed by law enforcement,” she revealed. “Obviously, it’s very heartbreaking. It’s heartbreaking for my family.”

Veah shared additional information about her brother and his passing in a series of Instagram posts. “Cody was so talented at drawing,” she wrote for one story post. “He was a loving father to 3 beautiful children, a loving husband, a brother, a uncle, and so much more.”

Veah’s Brother Cody’s Shooting Details

Veah Netherton’s brother Cody was shot by a police officer on December 30, 2016 in Missouri. Cody was driving a car with his fiancée 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 Cody’s 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.

“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,” reads the report. Below is a lengthy excerpt with the findings from the report.

Excerpt From Cody Shooting Investigation Report

“I have now reviewed the investigation file, consisting of reports from DDCC investigators, statements from [Cody’s] 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.

“All 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.

“In 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 officer’s 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.

“In 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).

“At 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 officer’s 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.

“Further, 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 ‘video’ 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.)

“After 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.”

Asa Hawks is a writer and editor for Starcasm. You can contact Asa via Twitter, Facebook, or email at starcasmtips(at)yahoo.com