Mother of 17-year-old fatally shot by St. Louis police speaks out: "They just treated him so badly"

Key Concepts

• Police Use of Force: The application of lethal force by law enforcement against a fleeing suspect.
• Body-Worn Camera (BWC) Evidence: Digital video recordings used to verify or contradict official police narratives.
• Accountability and Administrative Leave: The practice of placing officers on paid desk duty pending investigations into officer-involved shootings.
• Discrepancy in Reporting: The conflict between initial police statements (claiming a suspect was armed/threatening) and subsequent video evidence.

Case Overview: The Death of Amesian Wilkins

On June 18, 2024, 17-year-old Amesian Wilkins was killed by police in St. Louis following a slow-speed vehicle pursuit. Wilkins, who had no prior criminal history, exited his vehicle and attempted to flee on foot. During the encounter, an officer identified as Officer Colston fired four shots, one of which struck Wilkins in the back of the head, resulting in his death.

Discrepancies in Official Narratives

A central point of contention in this case is the contradiction between the initial police account and the evidence provided by body camera footage:

• Police Narrative: Authorities initially claimed that Wilkins was pointing a gun at officers, justifying the use of lethal force.
• Evidence-Based Reality: The body camera footage reveals that Wilkins’ hands were empty and his back was turned toward the officers at the time he was shot.
• Weapon Status: While it was later established that Wilkins possessed a disassembled firearm in his pocket, the family maintains that it was not in his hands, nor was it being brandished as a threat.

Impact on the Family

Shauna Wilkins, the mother of the deceased, highlights the emotional and procedural toll of the incident:

• Lack of Transparency: The family faced significant difficulty obtaining accurate information immediately following the shooting. Initial reports provided to the family suggested he had been shot five times, causing confusion and distress.
• Humanizing the Victim: Shauna Wilkins emphasizes that her son was a "goofy" teenager who was not a criminal. She acknowledges he may have made poor decisions regarding the pursuit but argues that these mistakes did not warrant a death sentence.
• The "Mother’s Perspective": Shauna Wilkins describes the experience of watching the body camera footage as a realization that her son was treated "badly" and "wronged" by those sworn to protect.

Administrative Status and Demands for Justice

The current status of the investigation has led to significant frustration for the Wilkins family:

• Officer Status: Nearly two years post-incident, Officer Colston remains on desk duty with pay. No criminal charges have been filed, and no disciplinary action has been taken against him.
• Family’s Definition of Justice: For the family, accountability is not merely an internal review but requires the officer to face criminal prosecution. Shauna Wilkins explicitly stated, "I want Officer Colston to go to jail and let the world know what you did and it wasn't right."
• Critique of Institutional Response: The family perceives the lack of swift action as evidence that the department "doesn't care" about the loss of a 17-year-old’s life.

Synthesis and Conclusion

The case of Amesian Wilkins serves as a stark example of the tension between police-reported justifications for lethal force and the objective reality captured by body-worn cameras. The primary takeaway is the profound disconnect between the family’s expectation of accountability and the reality of a prolonged, non-transparent administrative process. The case underscores the ongoing national debate regarding the threshold for police use of force, the necessity of transparency in officer-involved shootings, and the psychological impact on families seeking justice when official narratives are contradicted by video evidence.