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

[Fred Hall]

Where in my answer did I say I agreed with you? I said that "I don't care." If I post that "the University of Texas is the best university in the whole wide world" and you respond to me that you don't care, does that mean I can come back in a post and say "so you agree that" the University of Texas is the best university in the whole wide world? Your logic escapes me!!!!

Let me make it simple and less respectful since I'm forced to....I REFUSE to discuss whether or not you would be charged as a civilian under similar circumstances because IT DOES NOT MATTER! We are talking about law enforcement, their actions, and the laws that govern them!

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth — I was just trying prompt a direct answer. You may decline to discuss my hypothetical situation, which is fine, but I don't believe that one can say "IT DOES NOT MATTER". Whether or not a non-police officer would be charged in an identical shooting is a perfectly legitimate and relevant question.

 

[Woodland]

Page 5 - Officer Jordan estimated that he was approximately 10 feet from the Honda when he heard the engine revving loudly and “before I know it, the car’s driving right at me at a high rate of speed and drives right at me.”

Page 7 - DG - His view of the Honda was of the driver side of the car, not through the windshield. and
“The driver put the vehicle back in drive, keeping the wheel turned to their left. They then drove -- accelerated and drove northbound through the alley kind of in a north-northwestern direction....

Note there is a difference in opinion here. GJ uses the term 'revving loudly' and 'high rate of speed' and 'driving right at me' while DG states the vehicle moved in the direction the wheels were facing. Undisputed is JH did not turn the wheel after putting it in drive for the last time. So the Honda is going to drive back into the fence. It's not a forward movement. It's arcing.

Page 5 - When asked to describe the path of the forward acceleration of the car from the point where it was stopped and angled northeast after hitting the fence, Officer Jordan said: “It seemed to go -- and I don’t know ‘veers’ is the right word or not -- but to ‘veer’ off to the -- back to the west side of the alley toward me.”

When describing the car accelerating toward him, he said: “… An image that keeps coming back to me is the -- almost the entire hood and the -- the driver’s side light. And so it was -- it was no time….” The Honda came within “inches” of him.

Imo, a lot of words but no real explanation.

What is undisputed in the moments after this is, the vehicle did not come into contact with GJ. His words - or rather lack of them and DG.

 

[Woodland]

GJ moved away from the spot where the Honda hit for the last time - although this is not stated clearly.

Page 5 - “And as it’s coming at me, at some point, I had hit the car…with my hand pushing away, with part of…my hand. I don’t remember exactly where in front of the car but I remember being in front of the car and getting…to the side and pushing like this and I could still feel -- [crying] --

… I could still feel that the car…was coming and I felt like it was coming toward me and I’m -- pushing away, and -- and at the same time, I’m…going like this [demonstrating pushing away with his left hand] and I’m thinking that any minute I’m going to get pushed up against the background and I’m going to get tumbled through and I’m done.
… I was thinking I was going to die.”

This disputes the above -

Page 6 - When asked where he placed his left hand to push himself away from the car, he said he wasn’t sure if it was “up closer to the windshield or if it was…just below it on the hood part,” but it was on the driver’s side of the car, not in front of the car. He estimated that the fence or the brick wall was about one foot behind him when he pushed off of the car.

Page 19 - Forensic Report - No fingerprints or palm prints identifiable to Officer Jordan were found on the Honda.13

Bottom of Page 19 - DA MRM opinion - 13 No conclusion can be drawn from this. Multiple factors affect whether friction ridge detail from a finger or palm will be transferred to a surface and whether it can be detected. The fact that the Honda was very dirty was one of
several factors that could inhibit the transfer of prints.

A conclusion can very much be drawn from this - no prints that could be lifted is one thing, but no mark left on a dirty car that someone had touched? Of course a mark would be there. The logical conclusion is, GJ did not touch the car.

 

[katydid23]

But surely I would have been charged if I had fired these shots.

Maybe. But you are not a cop and you are not paid to and legally required to go after stolen cars. It would be a whole different scenario if you went after the driver of the car.

 

[Fred Hall]

The officer made the decision to shoot AS HE ATTEMPTED TO JUMP OUT OF THE WAY OF THE CAR.

sbm
And he proceeded to shoot the driver after he had successfully jumped out of the way. Whether or not that act was excusable is a question a jury should have decided, as a DA is bound to prosecute according to a precise interpretation of the law. Here is a question — do you think district attorneys might have a conflict of interest when investigating the acts of police officers?

 

[katydid23]

Funny, the officers didn't give that explanation to the investigators. If they had admitted that they killed the driver because they didn't want it to end up as a high speed chase, I think Morrissey would have had no choice but to charge them.

No one, including me, said they shot to avoid a high speed chase. You are taking that totally out of context. I was REPLYING to a specific statement that said if they had not shot then no one would have died. And I then replied that it would have ended in a high speed chase, and it might have ended in more deaths. A 17 yr old girl, impaired by drugs/alcohol. tired, desperate, driving at high speed to outrun an arrest---sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[Fred Hall]

Maybe. But you are not a cop and you are not paid to and legally required to go after stolen cars. It would be a whole different scenario if you went after the driver of the car.

My hypothetical situation is identical in every physical respect to the Hernandez shooting. I do not need to be a police officer to legally shoot in defense of my life, and this officer claimed to have opened fire solely because he was in fear of his life. Put me in his shoes, and I can defend my life in the same way, can I not?

 

[Woodland]

The shots fired - it is undisputed that GJ fired first. As KaaBoom helpfully posted a page or so back, the pic on page 37 of the doc shows GJ's first shots fired which hit the car - from the drivers side.

Page 7 DG - I heard one or two shots from his gun. Believing that, you know, knowing that he was to my left and believing that he was in the…path of the car, that he may be run over -- I then fired my weapon at the driver.

So DG did not look in GJ direction in these moments - he correctly kept his eyes on the drivers door regardless of what he could or could not see with the tinting they claim blocked their view. DG did not perceive by way of sound that GJ was defending himself from the moving car.

Page 7 - DG - The vehicle then came to a stop, almost rolled to a stop.

Page 5 - 6 GJ - Officer Jordan described the path of the car after the shots were fired: “…the car continued and then did end up hitting right behind me…where I thought I was going to be, and it hit the…house with the fence or whatever it was.”

So no use of terms such as crashing, smashing, etc regarding the Honda hitting the fence and or wall. It rolled and it hit - between both officers. No speed to speak of then - not possible. Many here deduced this months ago.

 

[katydid23]

My hypothetical situation is identical in every physical respect to the Hernandez shooting. I do not need to be a police officer to legally shoot in defense of my life, and this officer claimed to have opened fire solely because he was in fear of his life. Put me in his shoes, and I can defend my life in the same way, can I not?

Yes you do, because police work under different legal regulations in terms of use of force than you do. And they are expected to stop fleeing felons and protect the public, while you are not.

 

[katydid23]

sbm
And he proceeded to shoot the driver after he had successfully jumped out of the way. Whether or not that act was excusable is a question a jury should have decided, as a DA is bound to prosecute according to a precise interpretation of the law. Here is a question — do you think district attorneys might have a conflict of interest when investigating the acts of police officers?

He did not shoot AFTER he jumped out of the way....the act of shooting was AS HE JUMPED OUT OF THE WAY. And that few inches and split second timing is what protects him from a murder wrap. JMO

 

[Fred Hall]

No one, including me, said they shot to avoid a high speed chase. You are taking that totally out of context. I was REPLYING to a specific statement that said if they had not shot then no one would have died. And I then replied that it would have ended in a high speed chase, and it might have ended in more deaths. A 17 yr old girl, impaired by drugs/alcohol. tired, desperate, driving at high speed to outrun an arrest---sounds like a recipe for disaster.

It certainly is a recipe for disaster, although she wasn't driving at high speed at the instant she was shot. Continuing with my line of though, I think that many of your comments on this shooting would have led to a prosecution if they had been uttered by the officers during their post-shooting interview.

 

[Woodland]

Page 13 - witness CE - Instead, the car ended up like kind of accelerating and like --like moving toward the police, like right toward the police, and -- and I did see an officer get hit, and it was kind of like he bounced off of it -- you know what I mean?

Even GJ did not say he was hit by the car.

Imo, this is what happened in the crucial moments following GJ moving to west side of alley and JH putting car in drive after hitting a portion of the fence in reverse.

JH stopped after hitting fence in reverse with the wheels to the left - not disputed. GJ was standing where the car would hit if it moved in drive without turning the wheels - I think he moved towards the Honda before it moved or at the same time it moved and went over on his ankle by way of stumbling in his haste and fast moving situation (what witness CE saw). He was not close enough to touch the Honda for support and did not go down. He injured his ankle. He was hurting and po'd. He moved closer to the Honda on the drivers side and fired his weapon.

DG fired in response to GJ's shots.

Doubt the wrongful death suit will make it to a jury - it will be settled imo.

 

[Fred Hall]

Yes you do, because police work under different legal regulations in terms of use of force than you do. And they are expected to stop fleeing felons and protect the public, while you are not.

But in my scenario, I'm not protecting the public; I'm protecting myself, just like Officer Jordan claimed to be doing.

 

[katydid23]

But in my scenario, I'm not protecting the public; I'm protecting myself, just like Officer Jordan claimed to be doing.

Right, but as a civilian, you have no reason to be out in an alley at 3 am, with a gun, standing up to the driver of a stolen car. You should call 911, not chase down the occupants in a dark alley.

 

[katydid23]

Page 13 - witness CE - Instead, the car ended up like kind of accelerating and like --like moving toward the police, like right toward the police, and -- and I did see an officer get hit, and it was kind of like he bounced off of it -- you know what I mean?

Even GJ did not say he was hit by the car.

Imo, this is what happened in the crucial moments following GJ moving to west side of alley and JH putting car in drive after hitting a portion of the fence in reverse.

JH stopped after hitting fence in reverse with the wheels to the left - not disputed. GJ was standing where the car would hit if it moved in drive without turning the wheels - I think he moved towards the Honda before it moved or at the same time it moved and went over on his ankle by way of stumbling in his haste and fast moving situation (what witness CE saw). He was not close enough to touch the Honda for support and did not go down. He injured his ankle. He was hurting and po'd. He moved closer to the Honda on the drivers side and fired his weapon.

DG fired in response to GJ's shots.

Doubt the wrongful death suit will make it to a jury - it will be settled imo.

He was not 'hit' by the car because he took evasive actions. If not, he would have been hit and pinned against the brick wall. He saved himself within inches and seconds to spare. So it was a life threatening situation and it is astounding that people keep trying to deny that.

 

[katydid23]

It certainly is a recipe for disaster, although she wasn't driving at high speed at the instant she was shot. Continuing with my line of though, I think that many of your comments on this shooting would have led to a prosecution if they had been uttered by the officers during their post-shooting interview.

She was not at a high speed YET, but she was accelerating. And a week before this tragic incident, she was going 85 mph while trying to evade arrest. So I have no doubt she would have done similar speeds once again.

Yes, they might have, which is why they would not say all of what I have said . But I think most juries take what I have said into account, which is why cops rarely get found guilty in these types of cases. Cops have a very tough job and they do things that put them in mortal danger routinely. They only way they can safely make it home is if they react quickly. Sometimes, sadly, they might , WITH HINDSIGHT, over react. But given what they know at the time, it is understandable. They did not know that car was full of high school girls. They did not know if they were armed. They did not know what the drivers intentions were. Maybe they were about to be shot when that car came at them. That is something that you cannot understand because you are looking at it in a very narrow scope, imo. You are looking at it like it was a 17 yr old girl, driving slow, no threat, but they just shot becuase they are monsters. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

With all due respect, an old and un-plausible suggestion. No one here has posted, yet, that the cops should have tried to surrender to JH. Unhelpful imo.

I was being sarcastic and I shouldn't have said what I said. Sorry.

 

[Fred Hall]

He was not 'hit' by the car because he took evasive actions. If not, he would have been hit and pinned against the brick wall. He saved himself within inches and seconds to spare. So it was a life threatening situation and it is astounding that people keep trying to deny that.

12mph is potentially life threatening, but the car was definitely traveling slower than this. I suspect that this shooting would have looked extremely bad if it had been caught on camera. Speaking of which, how is it that the DPD has no dash-cams?

 

[katydid23]

12mph is potentially life threatening, but the car was definitely traveling slower than this. I suspect that this shooting would have looked extremely bad if it had been caught on camera. Speaking of which, how is it that the DPD has no dash-cams?

I think this shooting would have been explained more easily if it had been on camera. We have the neighborhood witness who watched the entire thing and supported the cop's actions. I think if they had dashcams they would have put this to bed awhile ago.

PS, a car going 5 mph can be deadly if it runs over you or pins you against a brick wall.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The officer made the decision to shoot the driver when the car was moving past him on his left. How could the suspect cause serious physical injury to him at that point?

I don't agree with your supposition.