A vehicle without a driver in control will cause damage - see previous post why Denver Police have a policy against shooting at a moving vehicle - especially the driver of a moving vehicle. Hint - it takes control out of the hands of everyone involved. Unpredictable consequences. Predictable that consequences will occur.
CO - Jessica Hernandez, 17, killed by police after LEO struck by stolen car
- Thread starter al66pine
- Start date
A vehicle without a driver in control will cause damage - see previous post why Denver Police have a policy against shooting at a moving vehicle - especially the driver of a moving vehicle. Hint - it takes control out of the hands of everyone involved. Unpredictable consequences. Predictable that consequences will occur.
Yeah, eyewitness accounts, particularly by persons who are not objective, are notoriously unreliable. Hopefully there is enough forensic evidence to tell the actual story.
BeginnersLuck
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,003
- Reaction score
- 54
Was it stated anywhere if there was or wasn't dash cam video?
Yoda
Master
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,017
- Reaction score
- 38
I haven't seen a statement either way, but I would have to believe they have dash cam. JMO
Yoda
Master
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,017
- Reaction score
- 38
Short answer = no.
Long answer = Denver PD has started buying body cams, but the 2 LEOs involved had not yet been fitted w them yet.
DPD does not use dash cams.
per http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Mother-of-girl-shot-by-Denver-police-seeks-6047912.php updated Jan 29
The officers involved might want to do the same as the teens in the car should do - tell what they saw and heard and only what they saw and heard. If the 'injured' officer keeps up his story of being injured before the shooting occurred - he needs forensics to prove that. Seems there will be plenty of forensics here. IE did he fire his weapon from the drivers side as well as the other officer or not? Having a hard time with he was injured to the point of a fractured leg or having his foot run over and still had accurate aim and stayed on his feet - from the drivers window and only the drivers window.
All involved need to tread carefully if they want justice served or to be deemed in the right as to the actions they took. Good luck with that Denver LE.
Forgive me for repeating this, which some posters may not have seen. Respectfully, disagreeing that DPD policy bars firing
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." Or 'shall never.'
Denver PD policy highlights potentialrisks, 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.
Not all, not the majority, not most, just some limited, specified circumstances.
As noted before, issue about applying policy to situation as hand is a different question, imo.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Woodland's earlier post:
From the article originally linked in post #38 - Denver Police have a policy not to shoot at a moving vehicle. ....
"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. ..." redded by me, sbm
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." Or 'shall never.'
Denver PD policy highlights potentialrisks, 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.
Not all, not the majority, not most, just some limited, specified circumstances.
As noted before, issue about applying policy to situation as hand is a different question, imo.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
From Woodland's earlier post:
From the article originally linked in post #38 - Denver Police have a policy not to shoot at a moving vehicle. ....
"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. ..." redded by me, sbm
An officer being threatened by an oncoming vehicle in this case has yet to be forensically determined - it is a statement only by the Chief of DPD. The teens in the car beg to differ at the moment.
Imo, forensics will be able to determine if this officers statement is true or not. Where the bullets from his gun landed will determine where he was standing when he fired his weapon. Gotta give this one some time imo.
To reiterate my 2 cents to the teens involved - don't embellish what you saw or heard, don't add what you don't know - and don't waiver from what you do know. It's a done deal when the forensics roll out imo.
That independent autopsy is crucial - you go mom of deceased teen. Do whatever you have to do to make that happen. Jmo.
Imo, forensics will be able to determine if this officers statement is true or not. Where the bullets from his gun landed will determine where he was standing when he fired his weapon. Gotta give this one some time imo.
To reiterate my 2 cents to the teens involved - don't embellish what you saw or heard, don't add what you don't know - and don't waiver from what you do know. It's a done deal when the forensics roll out imo.
That independent autopsy is crucial - you go mom of deceased teen. Do whatever you have to do to make that happen. Jmo.
The problem is that people involved in heated exchanges may think they are reporting what happened, but may well be incapable of giving an exact accounting to the degree that we demand, due to the speed with which an event occurred, their own personal biases, effects of injury and emotions, etc.
Some people are better than others at relating events after the fact. I used to go to my D's soccer games. My husband would tell me to call him and report on any goals my D made if he was unable to attend. I'd call him and tell him she scored, and he would want me to tell him how the play had developed. I was right there watching it, but I couldn't always remember exactly how it happened. I would probably not be a reliable eyewitness, not due to dishonesty, but simply because I don't process events which happen quickly very well.
sbm
Okay, agreeing LEO's leg could have been broken by vehicle without a driver in control.
And saying driver could have lost control of car & accidently hit him, before or after being shot. IDK.
And driver could have deliberately aimed car at LEO and deliberately hit him, before or after being shot. IDK.
And many other DKs.
Glad for the differing viewpoints being expressed here. Some possibilities I had not considered.
A driver that has been shot is more than likely not going to be in control of the vehicle they are driving or are attempting to drive - jmo. Especially one that died almost if not immediately after being shot. Jmo. Was she in control after being shot any more than officer that was reported to have been hit with the vehicle and fired his weapon with accurate aim? We need to be realistic here imo.
Fwiw, not crazy about pulling a driver from a car that one has just shot and handcuffing them. Seems rather callous to me. CPR seems more appropriate but that's jmo. This particular sequence, if true, will only add to the aggravation down the road - also jmo.
Fwiw, not crazy about pulling a driver from a car that one has just shot and handcuffing them. Seems rather callous to me. CPR seems more appropriate but that's jmo. This particular sequence, if true, will only add to the aggravation down the road - also jmo.
sbm bbm
Totally agreeing w above.
And as Woodland mentioned before, this will take some time to sort out.
Yeah, I posted earlier that I hoped that would be the case.
As both of the following items point out, discrepancy in stmts. does not necessarily mean shooting was unjustified.
Per chron.com link
passenger spoke on condition of anonymity because of "safety concerns."
Per http://www.9news.com/story/news/loc...ess-to-cop-shooting-tells-her-story/22449579/ pub Jan 28 & Jan 27 vid
"She wants to remain anonymous for now because of the sensitive nature of the case."
Does anyone understand condition of anonymity?
Is she trying to suggest that in making stmt to MSM, differing from what LE said, that she will be beat up, either by
---criminal or gang affiliate - stitches for snitches?
Unlikely, imo, as she did not rat out gang or other crim perp but is in essence blaming LE, imo.
--- LEO or affiliate - stitches for snitches ?
Unlikely, imo, to make such a threat (although, I concede, it is possible).
Or is she
- having her 15 minutes, tho anonymously?
- holding back another version of events , to barter w, for poss charges in connection w this or maybe pending charges?
- misremembering sequence of events?
-telling tT-tWT-and-NbtTruth, so help her God?
Could be any one of the above. JM2cts. Sad, sad, sad for all involved.
Per chron.com link
passenger spoke on condition of anonymity because of "safety concerns."
Per http://www.9news.com/story/news/loc...ess-to-cop-shooting-tells-her-story/22449579/ pub Jan 28 & Jan 27 vid
"She wants to remain anonymous for now because of the sensitive nature of the case."
Does anyone understand condition of anonymity?
Is she trying to suggest that in making stmt to MSM, differing from what LE said, that she will be beat up, either by
---criminal or gang affiliate - stitches for snitches?
Unlikely, imo, as she did not rat out gang or other crim perp but is in essence blaming LE, imo.
--- LEO or affiliate - stitches for snitches ?
Unlikely, imo, to make such a threat (although, I concede, it is possible).
Or is she
- having her 15 minutes, tho anonymously?
- holding back another version of events , to barter w, for poss charges in connection w this or maybe pending charges?
- misremembering sequence of events?
-telling tT-tWT-and-NbtTruth, so help her God?
Could be any one of the above. JM2cts. Sad, sad, sad for all involved.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,206
- Reaction score
- 273,680
"The witness tells 9Wants to Know the officer was pinned between the car and a fence, and that's why the officer suffered a broken leg."
If the officer was pinned between the car and a fence, then sounds to me like the driver was aiming for him. She could not have turned the car after the shooting.
If one of my teens were in this vehicle - I would want them to speak out early to combat what they perceive as misinformation being spread around, and to do it anonymously. Anonymous would be paramount to me as a parent.
Many folks support LE no matter what action they take - and they can and have been militant in their statements. That would be somewhat scary to the teens or anyone else in the position of a different view than LE. But it should not over ride their ability to speak. Jmo.
I get anonymous fwiw.
Many folks support LE no matter what action they take - and they can and have been militant in their statements. That would be somewhat scary to the teens or anyone else in the position of a different view than LE. But it should not over ride their ability to speak. Jmo.
I get anonymous fwiw.
Is there a link to that statement?
Seems to me that was after the shooting. That's what I have heard a teen witness say - and it makes sense with a driver that has been shot - no control over the direction of the vehicle.
Reinforces anonymous statements by witnesses, imo.
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 98
- Guests online
- 1,512
- Total visitors
- 1,610