CO - Jessica Hernandez, 17, killed by police after LEO struck by stolen car

[Woodland]

The eyewitness in the above video says LE vehicles arrived from behind, lights flashing, as well as the two officers being present on foot on the drivers side.

Imo, it would have been smarter to arrive from both directions - she had a clear path to drive forward, according to the witness. Not a well planned take-down imo, or was it?

It reminds of scenes I see in CSI type shows - a lead character, in casual clothing as opposed to a uniform, will shout at a suspect they want to speak to from 50 + feet away - the suspect always runs and the officers have to run after them. Silly imo. If the suspect doesn't recognize them as officers, wait until the suspect is closer. Jmo.

 

[Woodland]

In this raw news video the day of the shooting, A reporter asks the chief if the officer was struck before shots were fired. The chief reponds he doesn't know and the investigation will determine that.

So media put out an original story that is misleading, knowing full well that the chief clarified it would be determined when the shots were fired. SMH

http://youtu.be/WrNi8GreqZQ

Sorry but the Chief says the officer was struck and at that time shots were fired, indicating a sequence of events.

 

[bexlex]

Normally I'm firmly on the other side of this argument....but....she tried to mow down a police officer with her car. He has every right to shoot. A car is a very lethal weapon. The pictures above are fantastic.... you can see the angle the shots were fired from. MOO

 

[Woodland]

Normally I'm firmly on the other side of this argument....but....she tried to mow down a police officer with her car. He has every right to shoot. A car is a very lethal weapon. The pictures above are fantastic.... you can see the angle the shots were fired from. MOO

Eyewitnesses claim the driver did not attempt to 'mow down' an officer. The pics, imo, back this up - the car was not rammed into the fence/building it is touching or 'kissing'. The angle of the shots, and which gun they came from will be crucial and tell the story. Looking forward to any reports - hopefully one will be from an independent autopsy. Cops investigating cops is not impartial imo.

 

[al66pine]

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Mother-of-girl-shot-by-Denver-police-seeks-6047912.php
The "spin" has started. Her mother says she "grabbed" a car. How long before MSM uses "borrowed" a car?

Spin? Agreed. From ^link.
"Hernandez's mother said her daughter made a mistake by "grabbing" a car that did not belong to her but
didn't deserve to pay with her life."

Kind of Mistake?
Is this the kind of mistake a party guest might make at the host's house, say,
by inadvertently picking up wrong coat from pile of 20 on bed, a coat that did 'not belong' to her?
Or was 'grabbing car' a different kind of mistake, a criminal mistake?

Multiple Mistakes? Criminal?
Was her only mistake in 'grabbing car' that did not belong to her?
Car w 5 ppl inside was reported to 911 as in alley & suspicious;
determined to be stolen, and LEO(s) ordered driver to stop;
ordered occupants to get out of vehicle;
driver & occupants failed to comply.
Or were her above actions multiple mistakes? Multiple criminal mistakes?

Deserve to Pay w Life?
Agreeing, teen did 'not deserve to pay w life' for stealing car but LEO(s) did not use deadly force for stolen car.
They used deadly force in response to her other multiple criminal acts, including failure to comply w lawful orders.
Does Colorado law require LEO to withhold use of force in above situation,
so LEO 'deserves' to pay w his life, and teen & buddies should continue on their merry way, driving stolen car from scene? IDTS.

LEO Use of Force, CO. Criminal Code Sec.18-1-707
"(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:
(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or ..." bbm http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

Car w driver who failed to comply w LEO orders to stop = imminent use of deadly physical force,
which justifies LEOs' use of deadly force, imo, jmo, moo.

Passengers failing to comply w LEO orders to exit car? Hmm.
Yes, LEO firing at driver puts them at risk, but passengers know they are in car where driver refuses to comply LEO order
and driver is using imminent use of deadly physical force - the car - against LEO(s).
Why not just comply w LEO's orders to exit car? How hard is it (w poss exception for physical disability)?

The above = MOO, JMO, IMO, subject to change when investigation report is released.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Sad, sad, sad. Jessica's mother, fam & friends, I am sorry for your loss & cannot imagine the pain. RIP Jessica.

 

[BeginnersLuck]

At 2:34 in the video you can get a better idea of how much space there was in the alley. It is easy to see how the officer may have been trapped with no where to go to get out of the way.

At 1:25 in video cuts in and the teen in the car is speaking. When the video cuts in she says "more cops came from the back" I'm curious what the teen said before, that was edited out.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/loc...ess-to-cop-shooting-tells-her-story/22449579/

 

[bexlex]

I'll be interested to see some mockups of where the policeman was, where the car started from, # of milli-seconds between car movement, broken leg, shots fired, car crashed. On the surface... it looks like shots were fired after car had "passed" by one officer...just making huge assumptions on the geometry of the situation.... if we are talking milli-seconds, I am willing to assume that the events were simultaneous within a normal human reaction time....My Opinion Only

...I am always on the other side on these types of stories....On the surface...this looks different

 

[katydid23]

From the article linked in post #50 -

The passenger said officers came up to the car from behind and fired four times into the driver's side window as they stood at the side of the car, narrowly missing others inside.


http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Mother-of-girl-shot-by-Denver-police-seeks-6047912.php

Hopefully the above quoted statement will be cleared up soon - what else happened? Did the officers speak? Order them out of the car?
Let's hope so, imo.

The passenger said this? The one riding in the stolen car?

 

[katydid23]

Eyewitnesses claim the driver did not attempt to 'mow down' an officer. The pics, imo, back this up - the car was not rammed into the fence/building it is touching or 'kissing'. The angle of the shots, and which gun they came from will be crucial and tell the story. Looking forward to any reports - hopefully one will be from an independent autopsy. Cops investigating cops is not impartial imo.

Which eyewitnesses? Do you mean the ones riding in the stolen car?

 

[Woodland]

With all due respect al66pine, there is no evidence in your post #65 to substantiate the stolen vehicle in question was used as a weapon against LE that were present. As for the passengers - what could or should they have done? Not seeing many options for them at the moment. Could be why no charges for drugs or being in a stolen vehicle have not been laid against them - what a flipping waste this incident has been imo.

Imo, a teen in a stolen vehicle, who does not exit the stolen vehicle if told to do so, where LE does not see a weapon, does not support that teen being executed inside the stolen vehicle when trying to flee. It just doesn't imo.

There were options for LE - follow the vehicle. Not chase it when morning rush hour would be getting underway, just follow it with no lights flashing. LE can do that imo with radios etc to hopefully not lose sight of it. The more traffic, the harder it would be for the vehicle to negotiate the streets. By then a police helicopter could be in the air - assuming Denver police have one. If they don't have one, it won't justify shooting an unarmed teen in a stolen vehicle imo.

If this unarmed teen needed to pay for a stolen vehicle with her life, in the opinion of some of the public, which was all LE knew at the moment of the shooting, then more trouble is on the way imo. Over a stolen vehicle? GMAB.

 

[Woodland]

At 2:34 in the video you can get a better idea of how much space there was in the alley. It is easy to see how the officer may have been trapped with no where to go to get out of the way.

At 1:25 in video cuts in and the teen in the car is speaking. When the video cuts in she says "more cops came from the back" I'm curious what the teen said before, that was edited out.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/loc...ess-to-cop-shooting-tells-her-story/22449579/

If the officers on foot were at the drivers side, they need not have moved anywhere - no danger. After the fact pics will tell some of the story, not all of it. Jmo.

 

[Woodland]

I'll be interested to see some mockups of where the policeman was, where the car started from, # of milli-seconds between car movement, broken leg, shots fired, car crashed. On the surface... it looks like shots were fired after car had "passed" by one officer...just making huge assumptions on the geometry of the situation.... if we are talking milli-seconds, I am willing to assume that the events were simultaneous within a normal human reaction time....My Opinion Only

...I am always on the other side on these types of stories....On the surface...this looks different

Chuckles - or shots fired, broken leg.

 

[Woodland]

Which eyewitnesses? Do you mean the ones riding in the stolen car?

Apparently they are the only eyewitnesses, besides LE. This is where forensics will tell the story as opposed to he said, she said.

 

[katydid23]

With all due respect al66pine, there is no evidence in your post #65 to substantiate the stolen vehicle in question was used as a weapon against LE that were present. As for the passengers - what could or should they have done? Not seeing many options for them at the moment. Could be why no charges for drugs or being in a stolen vehicle have not been laid against them - what a flipping waste this incident has been imo.

Imo, a teen in a stolen vehicle, who does not exit the stolen vehicle if told to do so, where LE does not see a weapon, does not support that teen being executed inside the stolen vehicle when trying to flee. It just doesn't imo.

There were options for LE - follow the vehicle. Not chase it when morning rush hour would be getting underway, just follow it with no lights flashing. LE can do that imo with radios etc to hopefully not lose sight of it. The more traffic, the harder it would be for the vehicle to negotiate the streets. By then a police helicopter could be in the air - assuming Denver police have one. If they don't have one, it won't justify shooting an unarmed teen in a stolen vehicle imo.

If this unarmed teen needed to pay for a stolen vehicle with her life, in the opinion of some of the public, which was all LE knew at the moment of the shooting, then more trouble is on the way imo. Over a stolen vehicle? GMAB.

I disagree. First of all, the cops have no idea if there are weapons in that car or not. They get call about a suspicious vehicle in an alley, see it is stolen, and see FIVE occupants, NONE of them comply and exit the vehicle. That is a very dangerous situation right there. And yes, being in a stolen car, being asked to exit the car, and NOT doing so, might get one shot. That is what criminals need to understand. The cops do not KNOW why they are not exiting the car. They do not know if they are armed. They do not know if they just robbed a store or did a home invasion. They just know that they are refusing the directives to exit the stolen vehicle. That puts cops on the defensive.

You make it sound like the cops know its a bunch of young kids, who just 'grabbed' a car, and are unarmed and scared. The cops do not have the benefit of that knowledge in the seconds leading up to the shooting. The cops want to end the situation---Following them along through town is not a good option. Who knows what dangers that would bring? They are in a remote area and are asking them to STOP> This is the time to end it. The car thieves had every chance to do so. You seem to be blaming police for the decision, when in fact, it was the occupants who escalated this needlessly.

 

[al66pine]

From the article originally linked in post #38 - Denver Police have a policy not to shoot at a moving vehicle. Everything can and will go wrong, including officers getting hurt -
"The Denver Police Department use-of-force policy for moving vehicles
Moving vehicles
a. Firing at moving vehicles: Firing at a moving vehicle may have very little impact on stopping the vehicle. Disabling the driver may result in an uncontrolled vehicle, and the likelihood of injury to occupants of the vehicle (who may not be involved in the crime) may be increased when the vehicle is either out of control or shots are fired into the passenger compartment. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall, if feasible, move out of the way rather than discharging a firearm. Officer(s) shall not discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupant(s) in response to a threat posed solely by the vehicle unless the officer has an objectively reasonable belief that:
1. The vehicle or suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person and
2. The officer has no reasonable alternative course of action to prevent death or serious physical injury. ..."

sbm, redded-by-me, de-bolded by me

Is Denver PD policy 'not to shoot' at moving vehicle?
Respectfully, disagreeing.
If policy was not to shoot at moving vehicles, use of force policy would state (approximately)
"An officer shall not discharge firearm at moving vehicles."

Above policy highlights potential risks, then continues w circumstances in which firing gun is allowed.

First
"An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall, if feasible, move out of the way rather than discharging a firearm." bbm
Second
"Officer(s) shall not discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupant(s) in response to a threat posed solely by the vehicle unless the officer has an objectively reasonable belief that:...." bbm

Denver PD use of force policy allows discharge of firearm at moving vehicle, in some circumstances.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Applying policy to this situation = different question.
Was vehicle oncoming at LEO(s)?........................................ After newer MSM articles, IDK, for sure.
If so, was it feasible for LEO(s) to move out of the way?.........^ditto^.

IIRC, based on pix, alley was narrow.
ETA: looks like alley = ~ 2x width of LE vehicles, and ~3x width of Jessica's car.
But there are other obstacles - utility poles, fences jutting out - which further narrow or funnel the width of a car's possible path.

If Jessica's car was 'oncoming' could LEO have safely moved out of the way, w no risk of being pinned between car & utility pole or fence, or garages? IDK.

 

[katydid23]

If the cops had simply let the five fleeing felons drive off, because they refused to get out of the car, things could have gotten much worse very fast.

And if the car had run over someone in a crosswalk, as they were trying to run from the cops, or carjacked someone in an effort to flee, WHO WOULD BE BLAMED? The cops would be ridiculed for not stopping them in the remote alley when they had the chance.

Cops always look at worse case scenarios when making their plan of actions. They do not think---hey maybe these are just unarmed, nice kids that will just drive back to Grandma's after returning the stolen car--- NO, the cops are thinking WHY won't they stop and exit the vehicle? What are they hiding? Is one of them being held hostage? Do they have stolen guns in the car? Is one of them running from a warrant?

That is what criminals need to understand. The cop's number one priority is NOT making sure that the felon does not get injured while he refuses to follow commands. The cops number one priority is safety of the public and his fellow officers and himself.

 

[Woodland]

Just want to give my 2 cents to any parents of the teens that were inside the vehicle during this incident.

Please, encourage your children not to embellish their story. It seems they don't need to at this point. Tell only what they saw and heard and nothing else. Adding supposition or conclusions will not help their deceased friend - it will in fact work against them and their friend.

In my opinion, forensics will back up their story - if they have told the truth. Let it play out - it will take time. No You-tube moment here, whether anyone likes it or not.

If any of the teens has embellished any part of the story, thinking they are helping their friend - recant it now and tell only what you saw and heard.

If all 4 surviving teens of this incident have the same and consistent story down the road - it will prevail. Not tomorrow, not the next day - down the road.

Best of luck to all involved.

 

[Woodland]

Imo, if/maybe/could have won't amount to a hill of beans. It cannot be accurately pinpointed or predicted. Jmo.

 

[al66pine]

With all due respect al66pine, there is no evidence in your post #65 to substantiate the stolen vehicle in question was used as a weapon against LE that were present. ...

Respectfully, if car was not used as a weapon against LEO, how was his leg broken or fractured?
Did he trip over his own feet or a garbage can, and break leg in hitting concrete, or ???
No snarc, respectfully, how?

 

[al66pine]

Just want to give my 2 cents to any parents of the teens that were inside the vehicle during this incident.
Please, encourage your children not to embellish their story. It seems they don't need to at this point. Tell only what they saw and heard and nothing else. Adding supposition or conclusions will not help their deceased friend - it will in fact work against them and their friend....

sbm

Agreeing w your thoughts above. Thanks for this contribution.