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

[katydid23]

This is just the thing. Nobody here has said it was bad cops shooting an innocent teen. Nobody has made that assumption.
However, the assumption has been made that this young lady was trying to run over cops, and that the cops were completely justified to take her life.
All I have said is that we should wait to hear what actually happened before anything is taken as fact. She was killed,her life is over. Can we not at least wait for an investigation to conclude before forming an opinion?

This is a discussion forum. We speculate, discuss, express opinions and ideas on a whole matter of crimes/incidents/shootings. I don't see a problem with anyone expressing what they believe might have happened. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This is just the thing. Nobody here has said it was bad cops shooting an innocent teen. Nobody has made that assumption.
However, the assumption has been made that this young lady was trying to run over cops, and that the cops were completely justified to take her life.
All I have said is that we should wait to hear what actually happened before anything is taken as fact. She was killed,her life is over. Can we not at least wait for an investigation to conclude before forming an opinion?

BBM

I've seen enough to form an opinion and my opinion is that this is a justifed police shooting. If something comes up after futher investigation that will change what we know, I'm more than willing to change my opinion on this case.

 

[katydid23]

While the question is asked and answered with a definitive opinion by someone not present, will offer the question still unanswered by LE.

Did the car hit the officer purposely or because the driver was shot and lost control? The Denver Police policy explains what can happen when a driver is shot and what to expect - as in an officer, or others, could get hurt by a car with a driver no longer in control.

The repetitive question needs an answer, including how did the same officer shoot through the drivers window? The Denver Police Chief has not discredited the officer that was hurt shot through the drivers window - it requires physics to answer this, not a maybe this or that explanation. The explanation will come at some point.

Look forward to someone being able to answer the question credibly.

One of the pix posted above has a blue marker in the grass alongside the crashed car. I am wondering if that was where the officer was when he shot at the car and when he was sideswiped. No one has said the officer was hit by the front end of the car. She might have swideswiped him and he might have been shooting at the same time. That would work forensically with the bullet holes, imo.

I don't know if she hit him on purpose or lost control. I am not sure it matters in terms of deciding if it was a justified shooting or not.

 

[CoolJ]

This is a discussion forum. We speculate, discuss, express opinions and ideas on a whole matter of crimes/incidents/shootings. I don't see a problem with anyone expressing what they believe might have happened. JMO

Nothing wrong at all with that. But that's not what is happening. Things are being said as though they are fact. We don't have any facts yet.

 

[katydid23]

We have some facts. we can look at pictures.

 

[CoolJ]

For example. When you say "the cops are justified for killing this girl" because "she was trying to run them over" . I am saying that is not a fact yet. I am not disagreeing. AND I am certainly not defending that behaviour and I am absolutely not trying to portray LE in a bad light. If one were to get that out of what I have written, they are either incompetent or not paying attention.

 

[MyBelle]

I agree - 'we' don't know.

I do know facts on which to base my opinion.
FACT: the car was stolen.
FACT: the car's location and loud music was reported by neighbors.
FACT: the officer was struck as the car moved forward.
FACT: the officer was not behind the car.
FACT: there were multiple occupants of the vehicle.
FACT: the occupants refused the officers' repeated commands to exit the vehicle.
FACT: the vehicle moved forward and struck the officer, injuring him.

It was impossible for the officers to know the age of the driver or that they didn't have weapons.

I don't form my opinion on anything but actual facts.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

In my opinion the driver of the stolen car's intent doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the police officer felt that the car was being used to seriously harm him.

He's within his rights to stop that threat by using deadly force. JMO.

 

[Woodland]

Still pics are a thousand words - after the fact.

 

[Woodland]

I do know facts on which to base my opinion.
FACT: the car was stolen.
FACT: the car's location and loud music was reported by neighbors.
FACT: the officer was struck as the car moved forward.
FACT: the officer was not behind the car.
FACT: there were multiple occupants of the vehicle.
FACT: the occupants refused the officers' repeated commands to exit the vehicle.
FACT: the vehicle moved forward and struck the officer, injuring him.

It was impossible for the officers to know the age of the driver or that they didn't have weapons.

I don't form my opinion on anything but actual facts.

OK - when did the officers shoot? An important fact sorely missing imo. There are no reports the officers repeated commands to exit the vehicle before the shooting. Maybe you can provide one?

 

[CoolJ]

I do know facts on which to base my opinion.
FACT: the car was stolen.
FACT: the car's location and loud music was reported by neighbors.
FACT: the officer was struck as the car moved forward.
FACT: the officer was not behind the car.
FACT: there were multiple occupants of the vehicle.
FACT: the occupants refused the officers' repeated commands to exit the vehicle.
FACT: the vehicle moved forward and struck the officer, injuring him.

It was impossible for the officers to know the age of the driver or that they didn't have weapons.

I don't form my opinion on anything but actual facts.

Which one of those facts justifies lethal force?

 

[katydid23]

Which one of those facts justifies lethal force?

ALL of them, taken together in context. 'The vehicle moved forward, striking an officer' is the most important one though. That tells me that the car was pointing in the officers direction when they began shooting. I am going to conclude that the cops were trying to prevent her from hitting the officer with the car.

I guess the possibility exists that the cops just decided to shoot the girl for no reason at all. But given the circumstances, I think it is far more likely they were shooting to try and prevent her from mowing down one of them.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I find this comment by an alleged passenger of the car interesting.

The passenger also said the officers did not yell any commands before they fired, and that the car struck the officer after Hernandez was shot and lost control of the vehicle.

The fact that officers didn't yell any "commands" before firing suggests they where caught off guard by the driver's actions and had no time to yell before they had to act in self defense.

The second thing that caught my attention was that this alleged passenger states that the car did strike the officer. If this is accurate, the car did strike the officer, that caused his leg to be broken and he didn't injure himself while jumping out of the way of the stolen car. JMO.

http://www.montereyherald.com/gener...ear-how-officer-was-hurt-when-teen-was-killed

 

[CoolJ]

ALL of them, taken together in context. 'The vehicle moved forward, striking an officer' is the most important one though. That tells me that the car was pointing in the officers direction when they began shooting. I am going to conclude that the cops were trying to prevent her from hitting the officer with the car.

I guess the possibility exists that the cops just decided to shoot the girl for no reason at all. But given the circumstances, I think it is far more likely they were shooting to try and prevent her from mowing down one of them.

I don't see justification yet from what we know to be true. I respect your conclusion, but I haven't seen enough yet to convince me.
The possibility also exists that she was shot as she was trying to flee. Possibility initial shot could have been accidental discharge too. Maybe the officers are saying they thought they saw a weapon? Lots of possibilities. Yet we haven't heard any reports as to what actually went down.

 

[MyBelle]

This is just the thing. Nobody here has said it was bad cops shooting an innocent teen. Nobody has made that assumption.
However, the assumption has been made that this young lady was trying to run over cops, and that the cops were completely justified to take her life.
All I have said is that we should wait to hear what actually happened before anything is taken as fact. She was killed,her life is over. Can we not at least wait for an investigation to conclude before forming an opinion?

I don't believe anyone here has made the assumption the driver was "trying" to run over the cop and that is why she was shot. By definition, an assumption is not based on facts, it is based on a belief something is true without facts.

It is a fact that the officer was hit by the car. It is a fact that officers are allowed to use their judgment to protect their personal safety.

I sure don't use the term "lady" or "gentleman" to describe someone who steals a car and drives recklessly. I prefer to use "criminal," or "." Just my preference.

JMO

 

[CoolJ]

I don't believe anyone here has made the assumption the driver was "trying" to run over the cop and that is why she was shot. By definition, an assumption is not based on facts, it is based on a belief something is true without facts.

It is a fact that the officer was hit by the car. It is a fact that officers are allowed to use their judgment to protect their personal safety.

I sure don't use the term "lady" or "gentleman" to describe someone who steals a car and drives recklessly. I prefer to use "criminal," or "." Just my preference.

JMO

You are equating "cop being hit by car" and "trying to run over cop" as the same thing. So yes, those assumptions are being made.

 

[katydid23]

I don't see justification yet from what we know to be true. I respect your conclusion, but I haven't seen enough yet to convince me.
The possibility also exists that she was shot as she was trying to flee. Possibility initial shot could have been accidental discharge too. Maybe the officers are saying they thought they saw a weapon? Lots of possibilities. Yet we haven't heard any reports as to what actually went down.

But if she was trying to flee, she would be heading towards the cop she hit. Maybe her intent was to flee, but the cops might see it as a threat to their physical safety. And she did hit a cop, so the cops were correct, imo.

 

[Woodland]

ALL of them, taken together in context. 'The vehicle moved forward, striking an officer' is the most important one though. That tells me that the car was pointing in the officers direction when they began shooting. I am going to conclude that the cops were trying to prevent her from hitting the officer with the car.

I guess the possibility exists that the cops just decided to shoot the girl for no reason at all. But given the circumstances, I think it is far more likely they were shooting to try and prevent her from mowing down one of them.

Why did the vehicle move forward striking an officer? Have not seen a forensic conclusion - only speculation. Maybe there is an MSM article not posted yet?

Find it most interesting the 'discussion' can conclude why the vehicle hit the officer. It's the very point the Denver Police Chief retracted - for the moment. If he doesn't know, yet, then we don't know. Unless he has changed his mind again?

 

[CoolJ]

But if she was trying to flee, she would be heading towards the cop she hit. Maybe her intent was to flee, but the cops might see it as a threat to their physical safety. And she did hit a cop, so the cops were correct, imo.

Is it possible the cop was hit BECAUSE she was shot and lost control?
This is what the witness is saying I believe.

 

[MyBelle]

Which one of those facts justifies lethal force?

The driver and her passengers had NO justifiable use of force against the officer. None. For the officers, the refusal of multiple parties to exit a stolen vehicle so the officers can check them for weapons would raise the officers' anticipation level of imminent danger to themselves.
JMO


The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

http://www.denvergov.org/portals/720/documents/operationsmanual/105.pdf