A six-minute confrontation on the Debbs Potts Parkway Bridge earlier this month ended in tragedy, public questions, and now a formal legal conclusion. On February 25, Josephine County District Attorney Josh Eastman announced the completion of his office’s review into the February 7 officer-involved shooting that resulted in the death of Alicia Shelton, determining the use of deadly force by Grants Pass police officers was legally justified under Oregon law.
The incident unfolded shortly after 12:30 p.m., when multiple 911 callers reported a woman standing on the bridge holding what appeared to be firearms. Dispatchers received varying accounts. Some callers believed shots had been fired, while others questioned whether the weapons were real. Regardless of the uncertainty, the call was broadcast to officers as an urgent response involving “shots fired on Debbs Potts Bridge” and a “female with a pink shirt shooting two guns.”
Responding officers arrived to find Shelton standing in the roadway area of the bridge. According to the District Attorney’s report, officers quickly shut down traffic in both directions and established a safety perimeter to protect passing motorists and pedestrians. The first officer on scene confirmed that Shelton was holding what appeared to be a handgun.
Investigators later determined that Shelton was visibly distressed, shouting, waving the weapon, and repeatedly pointing it toward officers. Backup units arrived within minutes and positioned themselves behind cover while attempting to assess the situation. Because Shelton appeared armed and remained at a distance, officers chose not to deploy less-lethal options at that stage.
The report emphasizes that officers initially refrained from firing despite the perceived threat, citing concerns about surrounding traffic and the possibility of innocent people being caught in crossfire.
A detective then used a patrol vehicle’s public address system to communicate with Shelton. According to the District Attorney’s findings, officers issued commands at least ten times instructing her to put the firearm down. The detective told Shelton that officers were there to help her but could not safely approach until she dropped the weapon.
The report states Shelton repeatedly refused commands and at times challenged officers to shoot her. Officers continued attempts at verbal de-escalation, maintaining distance while seeking voluntary compliance.
At approximately 12:36 p.m., the encounter escalated. Shelton moved toward the shoulder area of the bridge and raised the weapon in her right hand, pointing it directly toward officers positioned in the roadway. As officers shouted warnings that she was aiming at them, two officers each fired a single round from their duty rifles.
Shelton collapsed after being struck. Officers observed her still reaching toward the weapon and cautiously approached using a patrol vehicle for cover before rendering aid and summoning paramedics. Shelton was transported to a hospital, where she later died.
Only after the scene was secured did officers determine the weapon Shelton had been holding was a Byrna launcher, a less-lethal device designed to resemble a handgun. During the subsequent investigation, Oregon State Police detectives also recovered a replica Glock pellet gun from the river beneath the bridge.
The District Attorney’s review noted that, at the time force was used, officers reasonably believed Shelton possessed real firearms capable of causing death or serious injury.
Under Oregon law, prosecutors are required to independently review any incident involving deadly force by police. Eastman’s office evaluated the case under Oregon Revised Statute 161.242, which allows deadly physical force when an officer reasonably believes a person poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury and when feasible warnings or alternatives have been attempted.
“As of January 1, 2021, law enforcement’s use of deadly force is outlined in ORS 161.242,” the report explains, emphasizing that officers must consider alternatives, provide warnings when possible, and act only when the threat is immediate and serious.
Investigators reviewed body-camera recordings, dash-camera footage, civilian videos shared on social media, witness statements, and the independent investigation conducted by the Oregon State Police. The report concluded Shelton raised what appeared to be a firearm toward officers multiple times and, on at least one occasion, charged in their direction while armed.
Despite those actions, the District Attorney’s findings state officers attempted numerous de-escalation efforts before firing, including repeated verbal commands and warnings.
Under the statute, Eastman determined both officers’ actions met the legal standard for justified deadly force. The report concludes the officers’ conduct was in compliance with Oregon law and that “both officers’ actions were wholly justified and no further action in this matter is anticipated nor merited.”
The review closes the criminal investigation into the shooting but does not end the broader community conversation surrounding it. The case highlights a growing national concern facing law enforcement and the public alike: the difficulty of distinguishing replica or less-lethal weapons from functioning firearms during rapidly evolving encounters.
The report underscores that officers must base decisions on what they reasonably perceive in the moment, not on facts discovered afterward. In this case, investigators determined that Shelton appeared armed throughout the encounter, and officers had no way of knowing the weapon was less lethal until after the shooting occurred.
Eastman’s statement also expressed appreciation for the Oregon State Police, whose independent investigation formed a critical part of the review process.
Beyond the legal findings, the incident remains a deeply human tragedy. A confrontation lasting only minutes brought together crisis, fear, split-second decision-making, and irreversible consequences. For officers, the event represents the burden of responding to unpredictable situations where hesitation and action carry equal risk. For the community, it leaves lingering questions about mental health crises, public safety, and how such encounters might be prevented in the future.
The District Attorney’s decision brings legal closure, but the emotional impact continues to resonate across Grants Pass. As residents reflect on the events of that February afternoon, the case serves as a sobering reminder that encounters between individuals in crisis and law enforcement often unfold in seconds, while their effects are felt for far longer.