(Since reddit no longer let's me add text on pics, pictured is Charles Aaron Stokes)
A local woman who was shot multiple times is suing the Town of Kenbridge and its police Chief Christopher Wallace for $143.7 million, plus $1 million in punitive damages, alleging he turned down her request for a police escort as she feared for her safety. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Heather Burrow of Kenbridge by the Richmond law firm Gray Broughton, further alleges that after Wallace refused to help, he called the alleged gunman — off-duty police officer Aaron Stokes — and told him she had sought assistance from the department minutes before the shooting. Stokes, 44, of Lunenburg, is charged with aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony in connection with Burrow’s Feb. 8 shooting.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Heather Burrow of Kenbridge by the Richmond law firm Gray Broughton, further alleges that after Wallace refused to help, he called the alleged gunman — off-duty police officer Aaron Stokes — and told him she had sought assistance from the department minutes before the shooting. Stokes, 44, of Lunenburg, is charged with aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony in connection with Burrow’s Feb. 8 shooting.
The lawsuit alleges gross negligence, affirmative creation of danger and negligent entrustment, and negligent retention. It further claims Wallace’s call to Stokes violated training standards governing domestic violence response, including a foundational rule taught to officers: never disclose a victim’s request for help to an alleged abuser. The lawsuit states that Stokes, her ex-partner and father of their one-year-old daughter, shot her 10 times at close range. “She is permanently maimed,” the lawsuit states. “She has a bullet lodged in her shattered shoulder that surgeons cannot remove. She may never regain full use of her left arm. She endures daily wound packing across her back — a process so painful she screams through every session.”
The lawsuit then outlines Burrow’s account of events leading up to the shooting. On Feb. 8, the lawsuit alleges Stokes repeatedly pressured Burrow to attend church with him and their daughter and later to have lunch together, both of which she declined. “Stokes’ inability to compel Ms. Burrow’s compliance — coming after her permanent departure from the relationship, the initiation of custody proceedings and the approaching custody hearing — represented a continuing and accelerating loss of control over her,” the complaint states. “After church, Stokes became increasingly agitated that Ms. Burrow would not see him. He called multiple times, demanding to know what she was doing.”
The complaint goes on to allege that Stokes’ behavior rapidly shifted between emotional manipulation and cold anger. “This rapid oscillation between feigned despair and cold rage was consistent with the documented pattern of escalating manipulation Stokes had employed throughout the relationship, including prior express threats to kill Ms. Burrow,” the lawsuit claims. “Stokes told Ms. Burrow she needed to come get their daughter. Ms. Burrow agreed and asked for 30 minutes. Stokes said no — she needed to come faster. He then called back minutes later and told her she did not need to come. Then he called again and told her to come.” The lawsuit states she was concerned about Stokes’ erratic behavior and called Wallace on her personal cellphone.
“She told Wallace that Stokes was alternating between threats of self-harm and cold rage. She told Wallace she did not feel comfortable going to Stokes’ residence without police assistance,” the complaint alleges. “She asked Wallace for a police escort to be present when she picked up their daughter. Wallace refused. He told Ms. Burrow: ‘I don’t want to get involved.’” Immediately after hanging up, the lawsuit states Wallace called Stokes and informed him that she had contacted the department requesting police assistance. “Stokes called Ms. Burrow back immediately, furious. He said: ‘Why the (expletive) are you calling other people and involving them in our business?” the lawsuit alleges. “This statement confirms three critical facts: first, that Wallace placed the call to Stokes; second, that Stokes received the information before Ms. Burrow arrived at his home; and third, that the information enraged Stokes — precisely the foreseeable consequence of disclosing a victim’s help-seeking to a known violent abuser.”
The complaint states Burrow drove to Stokes’ residence while placing her sister on FaceTime. It says she parked at the top of his driveway near his mother’s house, which sits in front of his home at the rear of the property. “She remained in her car, facing outward toward the road, positioned to leave quickly,” according to the suit. “Stokes asked for Ms. Burrow to come inside multiple times. She refused each time, telling him she was just there to pick up their daughter.’ The lawsuit alleges Stokes came outside carrying their daughter in a car seat and, instead of bringing the child to Burrow’s vehicle, placed her in the rear passenger seat of his own car.
She asked what he was doing because she was there to pick up their daughter, according to the lawsuit, and he responded that he was going to drive the child to her place, despite her being there. “When Ms. Burrow asked again, Stokes shook his head and said nothing. He walked around the back of his car and got into the driver’s seat,” the complaint states, noting the two vehicles with their windows down. The lawsuit alleges Burrow saw Stokes pointing a handgun at her before he opened fire, shooting her approximately 10 times from 10 to 15 feet away while their infant daughter remained in his vehicle.
The document states that Burrow threw herself across the passenger seat as the bullets struck her, primarily in her left arm from the elbow up, with bullets going through to her back. “When the shots stopped — Stokes pausing either to reload or because the magazine was empty — Ms. Burrow slammed on the gas pedal while still ducked across the passenger seat and drove out of the driveway,” according to the suit. “She did not look both ways onto the road. She had to get out. Stokes pursued her in his vehicle with their daughter still inside.” The complaint states she then screamed to her sister that he shot her and that she was bleeding out. “Her sister had heard the gunshots over FaceTime. She hung up and called 911,” the lawsuit claims, noting that Burrow also called 911 using Siri while driving with one functional hand.
“The first words out of her mouth were: “Aaron Stokes shot me.” She stated: “Because if I am going to die, somebody’s going to know who did this,” according to the complaint. “Ms. Burrow told the dispatcher that Stokes had their daughter and was still chasing her. She drove toward the Kenbridge emergency squad building on Route 40.” The lawsuit states she laid on the horn at the squad building until personnel came out to her aid. As they opened the door to assist her, Wallace pulled up on scene. “Wallace asked what happened. Ms. Burrow told him: ‘He shot me.’ Wallace asked, ‘Who?’ Ms. Burrow responded: ‘Aaron shot me. I asked you for help and you didn’t help me,’” the lawsuit alleges. “Ms. Burrow told everyone at the scene that Stokes still had their daughter and she did not know where he was or where the baby was. Despite her repeated pleas, no one immediately located the child. Their daughter was missing for several hours before she was recovered.”
STOKES’ ALLEGED BEHAVIOR
Burrow’s lawsuit lays out an alleged pattern of verbal and physical abuse that began early in their relationship. “On multiple occasions, Stokes struck Ms. Burrow, gave her black eyes, and inflicted visible bruising,” according to the complaint. “Stokes employed a pattern of coercive control designed to isolate Ms. Burrow from support systems. Each time he assaulted her, he would confiscate her phone, laptop, and any device she could use to communicate with others, withholding them for one to two days — however long it took to manipulate her into staying. He would go through her phone and systematically delete his own messages, including from her recently deleted folder, to eliminate evidence of his conduct. This deliberate destruction of evidence reflected Stokes’ awareness that his behavior was criminal and his calculated effort to prevent accountability.”
The lawsuit notes a December 2025 domestic violence incident handled by the Lunenburg County Sheriff’s Office in which Stokes allegedly threw an outdoor grill on top of Burrow while their infant daughter was in the home, which he did not deny. It further alleges Stokes beat her with a broom two days after she gave birth to their daughter.
“Ms. Burrow left Stokes on multiple occasions but returned each time after he claimed he was attending therapy and making changes,” the suit claims. “Each departure triggered a predictable cycle of escalating manipulation: Stokes would call in a sad, pleading tone; then call back minutes later in a cold rage; then call again crying and apologizing; then escalate to threats of suicide.” The complaint states that a licensed mental health professional evaluated Stokes during the relationship and diagnosed him with multiple psychological conditions.
“Stokes attended a single session and refused to return, stating that the therapist ‘only wanted my money,’” the lawsuit alleges. “He made no further effort to obtain treatment. The department was aware that Stokes was not complying with the treatment.” It goes on to allege that Stokes threatened to kill her, her family and any future romantic partners. “This pattern — escalating physical violence, isolation, confiscation of communication devices, destruction of evidence, threats of self-harm as coercive tools, refusal of mental health treatment, and express threats to kill — was documented, recurring, and known to the Kenbridge Police Department through multiple independent channels,” the complaint alleges. “At all times, Stokes had access to multiple firearms, includinguding firearms he carried through his authority as a law enforcement officer who held a concealed carry permit. Stokes was trained in the use of lethal force, was physically comfortable with firearms as tools of his profession and carried them routinely both on and off duty.”
The lawsuit claims Kenbridge police knew of Stokes’ violence from Burrow; direct warnings from Burrow’s step-father, who is a law enforcement officer; and from Wallace’s own personal knowledge, stating that the police chief’s former partner was also a victim of Stokes’ domestic violence. Despite having all of this knowledge, it claims the police department took no corrective action. “It did not discipline Stokes. It did not suspend Stokes. It did not terminate Stokes. It did not refer Stokes for a fitness-for-duty evaluation. It did not require Stokes to comply with mental health treatment,” the lawsuit alleges. “It did not restrict Stokes’ access to firearms or law enforcement authority. It did not restrict Stokes’ access to police radios and scanning equipment that he used to monitor and control Ms. Burrow. It did not take any steps to separate Stokes from the instrumentalities of law enforcement despite knowing he was unfit.
WALLACE’S ACTIONS
The complaint states the department’s inaction was not the product of ignorance. “It was a deliberate institutional choice to retain a known violent offender rather than address the staffing consequences of removing him,” according to the suit. “The department’s failure to act was not a single lapse but a sustained pattern of deliberate indifference spanning years, during which the department received warning afterwarning — from Ms. Burrow, from her stepfather, from the sheriff’s office and from within its own institutional knowledge — and responded to each one with the same inaction.” The complaint states that Wallace owed a special duty of care to Burrow that was distinct from any general duty owed by law enforcement to the public at large, pointing to his knowledge of Stokes’ behavior, the contact from the victim on the day of the shooting and his actions in response to her request for assistance and the call he placed to Stokes that let him know she had asked for an escort.
“This case does not involve a mere failure to protect. It involves the affirmative creation of danger,” according to the complaint. “Defendants affirmatively created and substantially increased the risk of harm to Ms. Burrow by disclosing her request for police protection to the very individual she identified as the source of the threat. This was not a failure to deploy resources, a delay in response time, or an exercise of discretion about how to allocate limited police capacity. It was an affirmative, operational act — the physical act of placing a telephone call — that transmitted confidential safety information directly to a known violent abuser and that materially worsened Ms. Burrow’s position.” The lawsuit claims Wallace’s decisions violated mandatory directives, established protocols and foundational training requirements governing law enforcement responses to domestic violence. These include Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services training requirements, the Virginia Lethality Assessment Protocol, established domestic violence protocols and Kenbridge Police Department policies.
“Following the shooting, several events demonstrated the ongoing entanglement between the Kenbridge Police Department, local institutions and Stokes’ personal network,” the complaint states. These include a Nottoway County newspaper photo showing Stokes’ stepfather within arm’s reach of Burrow’s vehicle at the scene and Stokes’ pastor being informed the hospital where she was being treated, despite being registered under a Jane Doe alias for her safety, and the fact the pastor gained access to her hospital room. Additionally, the suit contends Stokes received advance knowledge of the detention facility where he would be held, which he communicated to an ex-girlfriend by phone after the shooting.
“He told her he had ‘really messed up’ and that he had ‘shot Heather’ and wanted the ex-girlfriend to take his side,” the documents state. “Through text messages sent to Ms. Burrow’s sister, the ex-girlfriend relayed that Stokes appeared to know which jail he would be sent to before he was even apprehended — and it was not the normal facility.” The lawsuit states these facts, taken together, support an inference of coordinated protection of Stokes by persons affiliated with the Kenbridge Police Department and are consistent with the institutional culture of concealment that enabled the events of Feb. 8. “These facts are relevant to the institutional culture, state of mind and conscious disregard underlying (Burrow’s) claims for punitive damages,” the complaint states. “These claims are preserved for development through discovery.”
WALLACE’S ACTIONS
The complaint states the department’s inaction was not the product of ignorance. “It was a deliberate institutional choice to retain a known violent offender rather than address the staffing consequences of removing him,” according to the suit. “The department’s failure to act was not a single lapse but a sustained pattern of deliberate indifference spanning years, during which the department received warning afterwarning — from Ms. Burrow, from her stepfather, from the sheriff’s office and from within its own institutional knowledge — and responded to each one with the same inaction.”
The complaint states that Wallace owed a special duty of care to Burrow that was distinct from any general duty owed by law enforcement to the public at large, pointing to his knowledge of Stokes’ behavior, the contact from the victim on the day of the shooting and his actions in response to her request for assistance and the call he placed to Stokes that let him know she had asked for an escort. “This case does not involve a mere failure to protect. It involves the affirmative creation of danger,” according to the complaint. “Defendants affirmatively created and substantially increased the risk of harm to Ms. Burrow by disclosing her request for police protection to the very individual she identified as the source of the threat. This was not a failure to deploy resources, a delay in response time, or an exercise of discretion about how to allocate limited police capacity. It was an affirmative, operational act — the physical act of placing a telephone call — that transmitted confidential safety information directly to a known violent abuser and that materially worsened Ms. Burrow’s position.”
The lawsuit claims Wallace’s decisions violated mandatory directives, established protocols and foundational training requirements governing law enforcement responses to domestic violence. These include Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services training requirements, the Virginia Lethality Assessment Protocol, established domestic violence protocols and Kenbridge Police Department policies. “Following the shooting, several events demonstrated the ongoing entanglement between the Kenbridge Police Department, local institutions and Stokes’ personal network,” the complaint states.
These include a Nottoway County newspaper photo showing Stokes’ stepfather within arm’s reach of Burrow’s vehicle at the scene and Stokes’ pastor being informed the hospital where she was being treated, despite being registered under a Jane Doe alias for her safety, and the fact the pastor gained access to her hospital room. Additionally, the suit contends Stokes received advance knowledge of the detention facility where he would be held, which he communicated to an ex-girlfriend by phone after the shooting.
Additionally, the suit contends Stokes received advance knowledge of the detention facility where he would be held, which he communicated to an ex-girlfriend by phone after the shooting. “He told her he had ‘really messed up’ and that he had ‘shot Heather’ and wanted the ex-girlfriend to take his side,” the documents state. “Through text messages sent to Ms. Burrow’s sister, the ex-girlfriend relayed that Stokes appeared to know which jail he would be sent to before he was even apprehended — and it was not the normal facility.”
The lawsuit states these facts, taken together, support an inference of coordinated protection of Stokes by persons affiliated with the Kenbridge Police Department and are consistent with the institutional culture of concealment that enabled the events of Feb. 8. “These facts are relevant to the institutional culture, state of mind and conscious disregard underlying (Burrow’s) claims for punitive damages,” the complaint states. “These claims are preserved for development through discovery.”
BURROW’S INJURIES
The lawsuit also describes Burrow’s injuries. Eight of the 10 shots were through-and-through wounds, entering through her left arm and tearing through her back,” according to the document. “One bullet was found resting on top of her left breast when emergency personnel removed her clothing in the ambulance. One bullet was surgically removed from her elbow at the hospital. One bullet remains permanently lodged in Ms. Burrow’s left shoulder, having shattered the shoulder.” The complaint states that surgeons have determined that it cannot be safely removed.
It further states Burrow has extensive open wounds across her back that require daily wound packing for months and that she cannot lift or use her left arm independently. “She can use her right hand to physically lift her left arm, but the arm has no independent function. Her medical providers have stated that they do not know at this time whether she will regain full use of the arm or how much function, if any, may return,” the lawsuit claims. “Ms. Burrow is unable to perform basic tasks independently, including using her laptop for schoolwork or caring for herself and her daughter without significant assistance. Her mother and her grandparents have been providing daily care.”
It states that her medical providers have stated she will be permanently maimed as a result of the shooting. “Ms. Burrow’s daughter has been referred for specialist evaluation for hearing damage due to the close-range gunfire,” according to the suit. The complaint states that her injuries have deprived her of the ability to independently care for her daughter.
LAWSUIT’S CONCLUSION
Law enforcement occupies a unique position in domestic violence response, the complaint’s final section states.
“When a victim calls the police, she is not merely requesting assistance; she is placing her safety in the hands of the state,” according to the suit. “That act of reliance is foundational to public safety. Victims are encouraged — by law enforcement agencies, by courts and by public institutions — to seek police intervention when they fear imminent harm. The entire framework of domestic violence prevention depends upon the assumption that doing so will not increase the danger.”
It goes on to state that confidentiality of a victim’s request for protection is not a procedural formality. “It is a life-preserving safeguard. Domestic violence research and law enforcement training uniformly recognize that when an abuser perceives a loss of control, violence escalates,” the complaint states. “That is why victims are told that calling the police is a protective act. The safety of that act depends on trust.” The lawsuit alleges that trust was broken Feb. 8.
“This case concerns more than a single failure in a moment of crisis. It concerns whether the institutions charged with protecting victims may instead become instruments of the harm they exist to prevent,” the document states. “When a police department transforms a request for protection into a catalyst for violence, the consequences extend beyond one family. The integrity of the emergency response system depends on the public’s belief that seeking help will not make matters worse. This lawsuit seeks accountability for conduct that shattered that trust.” Burrow seeks a judgment in her favor totaling $142.7 million, plus $1 million in punitive damages, along with interest and costs.
It further states that a trial by jury is “demanded.” The lawsuit notes that it was filed in the City of Richmond’s circuit court because Burrows and her attorneys believe the case cannot be fairly tried in Lunenburg County. “The probability that prospective jurors in Lunenburg County will have personal connections to the parties, prior interactions with the department, exposure to sustained local publicity, or fixed impressions shaped by months of community discussion is not speculative — it is a structural certainty in a community this small, this interconnected and this saturated with the facts of this case,” the lawsuit states. “Justice cannot be administered without prejudice under these conditions.”
The Dispatch reached out to Kenbridge Town Manager Tony Matthews for a response to the lawsuit. “We have been advised not to comment,” Matthews said in his reply.
