Police Can’t Get Their Story Straight After a Deputy Fatally Shoots a Texas Woman

Police Can’t Get Their Story Straight After a Deputy Fatally Shoots a Texas Woman

Police Can’t Get Their Story Straight After a Deputy Fatally Shoots a Texas Woman

Witnesses say Yvette Smith was unarmed when a police officer shot and killed her on Sunday.


Questions abound following the fatal shooting of a Texas woman by a sheriff’s deputy Sunday, centering on conflicting statements as to whether she was armed.

Deputy Daniel Willis fatally shot Yvette Smith, 47, after responding to a 911 call at a residence at 105 Zimmerman Avenue regarding an argument between two men over a gun, according to local police. Smith died later at a local hospital.

Bastrop County police initially claimed that Smith, who is black, walked to the doorstep with a gun and refused to follow officers’s commands before she was shot. A subsequent statement, released hours later, said investigators “cannot confirm” that Smith was armed or refused to follow commands. The sheriff’s department has placed Willis, who is white, on administrative leave.

One of the men involved in the reported argument, Willie Thomas, who was the homeowner and Smith’s boyfriend, told the Austin Statesman that she did not have a gun when the incident occurred. Smith’s 25-year-old son Anthony Bell said his mother was uneasy around guns.

Bell added that there was, indeed, an argument in the residence over a gun, but no gun was in the home.

The Bastrop Sheriff’s Department chose not to comment, pending further investigations.

Here’s more about Yvette Smith from the Statesman:

Smith worked at the Austin State Hospital as a caretaker until a few months ago, when she had knee surgery, and enjoyed her time off, listening to blues music on her front porch and smoking a cigar, family members said.

Smith was a single mother who was loving yet stern to Bell and his 18-year-old brother, family members said. While teaching them the value of a dollar and pushing them to do chores, she also spoiled them.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy