Investigators say several independent pieces of evidence linked David Crump to an Orlando warehouse confrontation and his subsequent trip into Georgia.
ORLANDO, Fla. — Witness video and a commercial truck’s GPS trail helped authorities track a driver from an Orlando warehouse shooting to Georgia after investigators say a dispute over a late delivery escalated into a physical confrontation that left a worker wounded in the arm.
The evidence described in an Orange County Sheriff’s Office arrest affidavit forms the backbone of the case against David Crump, 67, who faces an attempted second-degree murder charge. Authorities say witnesses recorded portions of the Aug. 26 confrontation, another witness described the shooting, and Crump’s employer tracked the semi-truck north after he left the warehouse. Georgia law enforcement eventually stopped the vehicle, and Crump was returned to Florida. The worker survived, and investigators described his injury as not life-threatening.
The visual evidence is among the most direct material cited by investigators. According to the affidavit, video showed Crump grabbing the worker around the neck during the confrontation. Authorities say a threat to kill the employee can be heard on the recording. Investigators also said the worker had been using his own phone to record the encounter before Crump allegedly grabbed at both the employee and the device. Officials have not released a complete public version of the footage, so the affidavit’s description remains the principal verified account of what investigators say it contains.
Another person at the warehouse supplied a different vantage point. That witness told detectives that two men were arguing in the parking lot and that one of them had a firearm, according to authorities. The witness said the suspect punched the worker first. The worker responded by punching him back, the affidavit says. Investigators then allege that Crump fired at least one shot, striking the employee in the arm. Witnesses also gave investigators photographs and video, according to local reporting on the case.
The injured worker’s own statement filled in the events leading up to the confrontation. He told detectives that a truck driver had arrived several hours late for a scheduled drop-off. The worker said other customers were already at the warehouse making deliveries, so he told the late-arriving driver he would have to wait. According to investigators, the disagreement that followed was initially about that delay rather than a longstanding dispute between the men. No reliable source reviewed for this article identified any prior relationship between Crump and the worker.
Investigators say the worker told them the driver became upset and went back toward the semi-truck. Authorities allege Crump then returned with a gun. The employee started recording the encounter, according to his account. The affidavit says the confrontation turned physical, with Crump allegedly grabbing the worker’s neck and phone. The worker tried to get away. Authorities allege Crump raised the gun and fired, leaving the employee with the arm wound documented after the incident.
There is an important limit in the victim’s account: detectives said the worker could not identify Crump as the person who shot him. That does not end the investigation, but it changes the evidentiary picture. Authorities instead cited the witness descriptions, recordings and later comparison of Crump with the man seen on video. Investigators also pointed to details of his appearance, including a necklace they said matched what the person in the warehouse footage was wearing. Those claims would be subject to challenge and testing as the criminal case proceeds.
After leaving the warehouse, Crump contacted the company for which he was working as a third-party contractor, according to investigators. He reported an “incident” but did not provide a detailed explanation of the confrontation, authorities said. The company had another source of information, however: the truck’s GPS system. Commercial vehicle tracking data showed the semi moving away from the Orlando area and traveling north through Jacksonville toward Georgia.
That location information turned a workplace shooting investigation into an interstate search. Florida authorities circulated a description of the truck and suspect, and Georgia officers received information about the vehicle. The Glynn County Police Department said an officer located a truck matching the details contained in a be-on-the-lookout notice tied to the Orlando shooting investigation. Crump was taken into custody in Georgia and was later brought back to Florida to face the criminal case.
The GPS evidence did more than point officers toward a location. It also provided investigators with a documented route associated with the truck after the shooting. Authorities could compare that movement with other information in the case, including Crump’s work assignment, his communication with the trucking company and the time he left the warehouse. The available affidavit reporting does not say that GPS data alone identified the shooter. Instead, investigators described it as one component of a broader sequence that led officers to the truck and the man they believed appeared in the recording.
Meanwhile, the employee was treated after being shot once in the arm, authorities said. Paramedics transported him to a hospital, and his injuries were reported as not life-threatening. Officials have not publicly released his name in the material reviewed for this article, nor have reliable reports provided a detailed account of his recovery. The absence of more extensive medical information means the verified description should remain limited to the arm wound and authorities’ assessment that it was not life-threatening.
Crump appeared before an Orange County judge after his return from Georgia. Reports from that appearance said the judge ordered him held without bond and appointed a public defender. He was facing attempted second-degree murder with a firearm. The charge represents the prosecution’s allegation; the evidence described by investigators has not been established as fact by a trial verdict. Reports published in early September said a Sept. 10 hearing was scheduled, but no later reliable disposition surfaced in the material reviewed for this article.
The case therefore remains notable not only for the alleged confrontation but for the trail investigators say followed it: a worker’s recording, an independent witness, company communications, vehicle-location data and an interstate traffic stop. Those pieces may eventually be weighed in court along with any defense evidence and additional records that become public. The most recent verified reporting located here does not establish a final resolution of the charge.
Author note: Last updated Oct. 20, 2026.