3 years later: remembering fallen Spartanburg deputy Austin Alridge
SPARTANBURG COUNTY, S.C. (WSPA) – Three years ago, 25-year-old Deputy Austin Aldridge was shot and killed by a suspect while responding to a domestic call in Spartanburg County.
On June 21, 2022, Deputy Alridge was responding to a domestic violence call on Chaffee Drive, off of Anderson Mill Road. Alridge was shot as he was approaching the house.
Alridge was transported to a nearby hospital, and died the next day. Alridge had served with the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office for three years.
The suspect, identified as 63-year-old Duane Heard, ran from the scene and led deputies on a pursuit down Anderson Mill Road. Heard wrecked his vehicle into a tree, and fled from deputies on foot into nearby woods.
Heard was later found in the woods with two gunshot wounds lying beside a rifle, and taken to a nearby hospital.
Heard was charged with murder and possession of a weapon during violent crime. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division also charged Heard with armed robbery, domestic violence, two counts of pointing and presenting a firearm, and failure to stop for blue lights.
Heard was released from the hospital and booked into the York County Detention Center on October 20, 2022. During his stay, Heard's health gradually deteriorated, and was pronounced dead after he was taken to a hospice facility in Rock Hill.
Deputy Aldridge was named Deputy of the Year during a ceremony on November 16, 2022 in Spartanburg County, almost five months after his end of watch.
On February 22, 2023, The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office announced that the wife of Deputy Aldridge gave birth to their child, Claire Austin Aldridge.
Alridge is remembered for his bravery, dedication, and impact he made in his short time with the office.
The Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office says they sontinue to honor his memory and vow to never forget the ultimate price he paid for the community's safety and freedom.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Trump's violence lit the Minnesota fuse
In 2009, Janet Napolitano, former President Barack Obama's homeland security secretary, announced a study of right-wing violence like the Oklahoma City terror bombing. But after Rush Limbaugh furiously condemned what he called a 'Big Sis terror list,' she apologized and suspended the probe. Get ready for two polar responses to the political murders in Minnesota. Of course, accused killer Vance Boelter will receive his due process rights in a court of law. But in the separate court of public opinion, this time Democrats and the mainstream media should not be cowed by Limbaugh's progeny as they indignantly deny the truth about President Donald Trump's vocabulary of violence. Trump has long deployed militant language to look like a strongman. He has effectively created a permission structure for political violence from his ads that urged the execution of the Central Park Five (who later had their convictions vacated)… support for China's massacre at Tiananmen Square…embrace of dictators…sending Marines into an American city…ICE arrests a judge, a mayor, a congresswoman, and a NYC comptroller. There is the incendiary language at rallies ('I'd like to punch him in the nose')…pardons of convicted Jan. 6 insurrectionists…and his ongoing barrage of insults of political opponents ('Marxists, scum, thugs, animals') that were followed by mass murders in El Paso, Pittsburgh and Buffalo by gunmen quoting him. 'Rhetoric like this has consequences," said Timothy J. Heaphy, the top staffer at the House Jan. 6 Committee; 'politicians think it's just rhetoric but people take it seriously.' Based on his years running the FBI's counterintelligence program, Frank Figliuzzi agrees. Trump's language 'may lead to violence because his rants at rallies embolden white hate groups and racist blogs.' While not grounds for a criminal referral, they add up to what scholars call 'stochastic terrorism,' when a demagogue knowingly creates an atmosphere of menace likely to trigger armed allies. The result of this political strategy of, as Trump admitted to Bob Woodward, 'fear'? It chills free speech, contributes to the tragedy that gun violence is the leading cause of death for children 1-17 and triggers hundreds of death threats that fill the in-boxes of prosecutors, judges and politicians who challenge him. Indeed, Ex-Sen. Mitt Romney and Rep. Don Bacon report that GOP colleagues have privately admitted to changing their votes out of fear of harm to themselves and their families. Sen. Lisa Murkowski admits, 'We are all afraid.' Has this happened since the 1856 caning of abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner? Yet commentary to date laments growing political violence generally but flinches at holding accountable a president who winks at the Proud Boys and brags that he's 'supported by the police, military and Bikers for Trump — the tough people.' Defensive Trumpers reply that violence has occurred on both sides of the aisle. That's technically true. But blaming Democrats as a party was accurate of the Confederate South before and after the Civil War but surely not since the realignment of the region from D to R after the 1960s Civil Rights laws. And the whataboutism of finding a current example is little more than trying to compare elephants and fleas since both are in the animal kingdom. Yes, a Bernie Sanders voter shot Rep. Steve Scalise, but Sanders always condemns political violence and is not a gun nut coaxing it in his public life. The plural of examples is data. Ex-FBI director Christopher Wray testified under oath to a House Committee that white supremacists and Far Right vigilantism were responsible for nearly 80% of all political violence. Already, MAGAs en masse are simply claiming the shooter's a Democrat and a once-respected conservative like Sen. Mike Lee has called him a 'Marxist.'…a marxist who voted for Trump and targeted 45 Democrats, shooting four and killing two? Other Republicans, like Gov. Glenn Youngkin, feign outrage since 'they' tried to assassinate President Trump when the young man who did so was a registered Republican. Who exactly is the 'they' — Nancy Pelosi? Chuck Schumer? Joe Biden? — other than a modern version of McCarthyism? Historically, presidents have more often been the victims than perpetrators of violence. Until now. It's past time for the loyal opposition and honest journalists to condemn Trump's proven itch for chaos and remember the axiom of Aldous Huxley that 'Facts don't cease to exist because they are ignored.' _____ Green was the first New York City public advocate and has published a couple dozen books on policy and politics, including most recently 'The Inflection Election: Progress or Extremism in 2024?' _____
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: ICEing out any dissent — Trump arrests of elected officials are intimidation
President Donald Trump's needlessly rough and cruel attitude for ICE in his mission to round up as many people as possible for the mass deportation of millions, including non-criminals, has extended to elected officials, with city Comptroller Brad Lander being detained at immigration court Downtown as he attempted to escort a man following a hearing. ICE is brooking no dissent. The arrest of Lander, who was released after a few hours, followed the aggressive detention of California Sen. Alex Padilla as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question last week, the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and indictment of New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver stemming from the same May incident at a detention facility. In each of these cases, federal personnel had some ostensible reason for their actions; Lander can be seen holding onto the man he was escorting, Padilla approached Noem at a public press conference, while Baraka and McIver were attempting to enter a heavily secure facility. The administration wants you to believe these circumstances mean they were justified in these actions, but each case really is just a pretext to interfere with elected officials asking questions on behalf of constituents, exercising oversight roles or making decisions about their jurisdictions with the objective of dissuading this in the future. In each case, officials knew who they were detaining. Baraka and McIver had arrived as part of a congressional delegation — who, it's worth noting, the federal government is by law obligated to allow in to conduct facilities inspections — while Padilla is captured on video loudly and clearly announcing that he is a United States senator. A reporter for The City heard a federal agent asking another 'do you want to arrest the comptroller?' before Lander was handcuffed. The charges are so ridiculous that Lander's and Baraka's were immediately dropped, with a judge raking prosecutors over the coals in the latter case. Still, the Justice Department is bewilderingly insisting on attempting to prosecute McIver, a sitting member of Congress engaging in the type of oversight that she was expressly permitted to do by law. What Trump and his lackeys ultimately want is not the safety of their officers — whom they are openly putting at risk by having them engage in aggressive operations while unidentified, raising concerns that they could be targeted by people who are unaware if they're federal agents or not — but the silencing of criticism. They have roughed up these officials for the same reason that they have gone after universities and law firms: these are the actors best equipped to push back on the administration's authoritarian efforts. Smaller organizations or less prominent individuals are going to find themselves even less likely to speak out politically seeing what happens to more powerful critics. If you are an ordinary citizen, you are probably much less likely to use your First Amendment rights once you've seen elected representatives tossed to the ground and arrested for speaking out. Yet that's why it's important for elected officials to keep sticking their necks out; it signals that the administration won't succeed at shutting down dissent. Judges should make it clear this tactic is unacceptable. _____
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Missing witnesses and lingering questions plague prosecution as Diddy trial nears conclusion: expert
The government is expected to wrap up its case against Sean "Diddy" Combs on Monday after more than six weeks of testimony from a number of witnesses. Jury selection for the rapper's sex crimes trial began on May 5, and the prosecution called its last witness to the stand Friday after hearing Diddy's former assistant, alleged "drug mule" Brendan Paul, testify about his time employed by the Bad Boy Records founder. Diddy's legal team, headed by Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos, initially indicated they would need upwards of two weeks to plead their case, but told Judge Arun Subramanian last week that they may be able to rest by Tuesday or Wednesday. Despite the trial coming to a close, former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani admitted that lingering questions remain with the case, including questions about missing key witnesses. "What happened to Gina, who was Victim 3 in the indictment? The government said they were unable to get a hold of her, and she did not testify," Rahmani said. "Was she afraid, embarrassed, paid off by Combs, or was there another reason why she didn't comply with the subpoena? Regardless, it was a mistake by the prosecution to list her as a victim when they did not have assurances that she would appear. They should have known Combs has the resources to threaten or pay witnesses not to testify and have planned accordingly." There have been no allegations in court that Diddy threatened or paid witnesses not to testify. Rahmani also wondered why Diddy's chief of staff, Kristina "KK" Khorram, wasn't called to testify. Brendan Paul testified Friday that KK "basically ran the enterprise." During the testimony of summary witness Anaya Sankar, the jury was shown text messages between Diddy's ex Cassie Ventura and KK dated May 2, 2017. Cassie was telling KK that the "Last Night" singer allegedly had locked the door and dragged her by her hair. "What happened to Gina, who was Victim 3 in the indictment? The government said they were unable to get a hold of her, and she did not testify." More text messages between Cassie and KK dated April 20, 2018, showed Cassie saying she can't take the violence and being kicked out of her own home. KK responded, "I don't know what else to say, but I'm here…" Cassie then wrote, "I just want to stay focused." The jury was then shown text messages between KK and Diddy's more recent ex-girlfriend, who testified under the pseudonym Jane. She alleged that Diddy had forced her to have sex with male escorts during "hotel nights" and that occasionally the sex session was recorded. A text message sent to KK from Jane was shown to the jury, which claimed Combs was threatening to release the alleged sex tapes. Jane wrote, "You're his righthand woman…maybe he'll listen to you…" The message was sent on Feb. 18, 2024. "Many consider her to be Combs' Ghislaine Maxwell because she knows where the proverbial bodies are buried," Rahmani told Fox News Digital. "Khorram was actually involved in the alleged sex and drug trafficking and could have been charged as a co-conspirator. The government should have leaned on her to flip against her former boss. Instead, they gave her a pass by simply reading her text messages into evidence." Rahmani questioned why Diddy's ex-girlfriends, including Cassie, Mia and Jane, didn't leave if they had been sexually assaulted and trafficked. "The government put on expert Dawn Hughes to explain the psychology of abuse, but that is the biggest question in the case," Rahmani admitted. "Did the victims stay because they wanted the money and fame that came with being Combs' partner? If so, did they consent to the 'freak offs' while they were happening?" "Was this rape, or really regret and resentment? I'm not sure prosecutors have fully answered this question and this is the same argument the defense raised with some success in the Harvey Weinstein retrial." What the jury will decide remains the biggest question in the case. Attorney Nicole Blank Becker, who represents R. Kelly, told Fox News Digital that jurors, just like anyone else, have a difficult time separating emotions from charges. "When you hear about the horrible actions of P. Diddy, not only here, but then you see the actions on a video, and at some point, the jury will be told, 'OK,' perhaps that it was a domestic violence, but that's not really what this is about. It's about something bigger," Becker said. "The idea that the jurors will be able to separate that in their mind is highly unlikely, even though they will be told to. And there's a lot of demonstrative evidence in this case, is my understanding. WATCH: SEAN 'DIDDY' COMBS ASSAULTS CASSIE VENTURA IN 2016 LOS ANGELES HOTEL INCIDENT "My experience when I was in the case with R. Kelly, those types of things are often used not only to show what the government's trying to bring, show in their case, but it definitely brings an emotional side to a human, and sometimes that emotional part – It's very difficult to overlook when you're back there as a juror." "The idea that the jurors will be able to separate that in their mind is highly unlikely, even though they will be told to." She added, "I can only imagine the difficulty that there must be when you were back in a jury room to sort of separate if you think he's a good person or a bad person, because that's not what they're there for, right? Therefore, they're back there to basically check off boxes. If the government has done this, check it off. If the government has done that, check it off. Better bet that they're also back there talking about, 'Oh my god, can you believe what he did in this video?'" Becker noted that testimony and evidence may get misconstrued, and that the jury has to separate emotions from fact. "Some of it, I think it gets minced," Becker said. "It becomes … extremely difficult actually to say to yourself, 'OK self, I'm not supposed to let myself be emotionally involved in this. I'm supposed to just listen to the law, and then put the facts in where the law is appropriate.'" "I know in [R. Kelly's] case, I can only imagine how difficult that must have been. And I think that that's going to also be another difficult part of the Diddy case as well."
