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

[katydid23]

It's worth noting that 'respect for authority' is an argument that is frequently used in North America to support both child and spousal abuse -- often in the context of respecting scripture. If need be, I can provide countless MSM and legal links in which this has been argued.

So if a cop asks a teen, with a suspended license, driving a stolen car, to the stop the car and surrender to authorities---that's child abuse?

 

[katydid23]

bbm

Pretty desperate for being stopped again? Not sure about that. Another interp - she was quite confidant?
Per link below:
No date ----- offense for which her license was revoked (suspended, per other MSM). No big deal, no prob, keep driving.
Jan 1 ------ stopped for speeding w license already revoked? No prob.
" ----- Per other MSM, mother said Jessica was arrested for stealing car. No prob.
" ------ Her resisting arrest caused risk of serious injury to LE or others. No prob.
Jan 25?-26 ---stole a car again? No prob.
Jan 26 ------ Presumably failed to comply w orders to stop? No prob, just ignore.
" --------- Presumably either tried to drive away or injure LE. No prob, still self-assured & confidant until she was shot.

katy,
Imo, w those actions, on Jan 26, I w/be very desperate. I bet you w/be desperate too. Ditto, most everyone, virtually all here.
Jessica? Desperate? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe confidant. IDK.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Am I misinterpreting sequence of events from article, or was reporting here less than clear?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-30-16-59-06 Jan 30
"State troopers cited Jessica Hernandez on Jan. 1 for speeding down a highway north of Denver in her mother's car
after the girl's driver's license had been revoked.The citation shows Hernandez was driving 80 mph in a 55 mph zone,
and the trooper noted that she was resisting arrest in a way that risked serious injury to him or others.
It does not provide other details of the case."

Good points. She was acting very confident. But my experience with working with high school kids, in an 'At Risk' program, was that kids who made thse kinds of poor choices, over and over, were often very confident they would not be caught, or at least not punished. But often, when the chit hit the fan, they would be very desperate ---and shove a teacher into their desk--or punch the principal and run. It never turned out well though.

 

[Montjoy]

So if a cop asks a teen, with a suspended license, driving a stolen car, to the stop the car and surrender to authorities---that's child abuse?

No, and I didn't say that it was. I did say that 'respect for authority' is not something to be applied like a blanket. But since you would seem to like such questions, it is fair for me to ask: are you suggesting that there are never abuses of authority?

 

[Yoda]

So if a cop asks a teen, with a suspended license, driving a stolen car, to the stop the car and surrender to authorities---that's child abuse?

oh, oh, please, please allow me to reiterate the correct answer for this- it's not child abuse, IT'S THE LAW. I know you know katydid, but I really wanted to post it. :seeya:
It's also common sense.

"Respect for authority" can mean many things, but it does not mean to just blindly follow any authoritative figure. That is where common sense and intelligence comes in. It appears there is a small percentage of the population that are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend this.
JMO

 

[katydid23]

THis is the only photo I can find that has an evidence marker. Just FYI.

View attachment 68501

I wonder if that is where the officer was when he was hit?

 

[Elley Mae]

oh, oh, please, please allow me to reiterate the correct answer for this- it's not child abuse, IT'S THE LAW. I know you know katydid, but I really wanted to post it. :seeya:
It's also common sense.

"Respect for authority" can mean many things, but it does not mean to just blindly follow any authoritative figure. That is where common sense and intelligence comes in. It appears there is a small percentage of the population that are unable, or unwilling, to comprehend this.
JMO

Exactly.

 

[katydid23]

No, and I didn't say that it was. I did say that 'respect for authority' is not something to be applied like a blanket. But since you would seem to like such questions, it is fair for me to ask: are you suggesting that there are never abuses of authority?

Of course not. My husband always told our kids to 'Question Authority' , as we were old hippies when our kids were born.

But if you are driving a stolen car, on a suspended license, and you are told TO STOP THE CAR---that is hardly an abuse of authority.

 

[al66pine]

....They have rules - not firing at a moving vehicle is one of them....
No one here has all the facts - just yet.

bbm sbm

Respectfully, ^bbm phrase^ has been posted multiple times.
How does this claim continue to be posted, esp. after text of DPD use of force policy was posted multiple times.
Not a summary, not an interpretation, the text of DPD policy itself.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
From post~#49. Denver PD Use of Force policy, per denverpost link below:
"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."
Per http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...g-unarmed-teen. bbm ubm
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phrase^ introduced by 'unless' specifies exceptions - limited circumstances - in which DPD may shoot at moving vehicle.

IOW, stating
'DPD policy is no shooting at moving vehicles, unless LEO is in certain, specified situation'......is accurate.
'DPD policy is generally no shooting at moving vehicles' ....................................................is accurate.
'DPD rule is no shooting at moving vehicles' ..................................................................... is not accurate.

Agreeing absolutely -- No one here has all the facts - just yet.
Presumably denverpost link w text of policy is accurate, but even that could be a misplaced ASSumption.

 

[al66pine]

Good points. She was acting very confident. But my experience with working with high school kids, in an 'At Risk' program, was that kids who made thse kinds of poor choices, over and over, were often very confident they would not be caught, or at least not punished. But often, when the chit hit the fan, they would be very desperate ---and shove a teacher into their desk--or punch the principal and run. It never turned out well though.

Thanks for your input about working in program w at-risk kids, something I've no experience with.
I think we're essentially saying the same thing - some kids are confident about not being caught, or if caught, no consequences.
Rinse and repeat, ad nauseum, until the SHTF, then confidence evaporates and desperation materializes.
Long stretches of confidence, followed by abrupt desperation?

And TY for working w those kids, something many of the rest of us would have no skill or patience w.

 

[al66pine]

She's gone now due to her own actions.
She made horrible choices. She was a criminal who thought she was above the law.
As a parent of a 17 year old daughter, I have to ask... WHERE WERE THE PARENTS?
Not just that day. I mean in the daily life of their child.
She was out of control. She needed guidance.
My 17 year old is forced to face consequences of her actions. She has been taught to respect authority. She's not perfect, but she damn sure isn't out smoking weed, drinking, speeding with a revoked license, fleeing from LE, resisting arrest... Because I won't allow it. JMO

bbm

Thx for being a good parent. It's no bed of roses.

 

[Sonya610]

An officer is always trained to step UP the level of force in defending oneself, not step it down. You do not taser someone who is coming at you with a moving vehicle or a knife or gun. Not if you want to go home to your family that night.

I have heard that may change in some bad areas, and police may start using "tactical retreat" to avoid upsetting/provoking the criminals and their supporters.

Supposedly some departments may decide to have their officers back off until more officers arrive so they can gently pacify the criminals without hurting them.

 

[Woodland]

With all due respect, don't see that the public supports criminal acts. Some just feel not all criminals need to be shot during a criminal act.

 

[musicaljoke]

She's gone now due to her own actions.
She made horrible choices. She was a criminal who thought she was above the law.

As a parent of a 17 year old daughter, I have to ask... WHERE WERE THE PARENTS?
Not just that day. I mean in the daily life of their child.

She was out of control. She needed guidance.

My 17 year old is forced to face consequences of her actions. She has been taught to respect authority. She's not perfect, but she damn sure isn't out smoking weed, drinking, speeding with a revoked license, fleeing from LE, resisting arrest... Because I won't allow it. JMO

Sometimes a teen with a set of perfectly wonderful parents goes completely off the rails. It's heart wrenching for parents.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

While I think that it is often a good thing to respect authority, let's not forget that many atrocities have happened precisely because people have respected authority. <modsnip> So it is not a simple matter.

IMO it's a simple matter when talking about listening to parents, teachers, your boss, your coach, COPS.

it's simply not an atrocity for a cop to demand someone get out of a stolen vehicle.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

With all due respect, don't see that the public supports criminal acts. Some just feel not all criminals need to be shot during a criminal act.

Not all criminals are shot during criminal acts. Just those who decide to attack a cop.

Cops have to be able to defend themselves in order to do their job.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Sometimes a teen with a set of perfectly wonderful parents goes completely off the rails. It's heart wrenching for parents.

At 17, there are options.

 

[ninij9]

Stealing cars at 17. At least twice. Could be she would have progressed to more serious crime where an innocent law abiding citizen could have been hurt, or killed. If police had let her speed away, and she continued to collect offences and jail time, and had progressed to career criminal, and killed someone, every single one of us would say SHE SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN ON THE STREETS. Well, now she's not. I teach my teens to be responsible and to pay the consequences for their own actions. Committing crime and not obeying an armed law enforcer, can get you killed. Period. Why should there be any question? These officers have to make split second decisions. I for one am glad that they do. JMO. MOO. I hope this whole case doesn't get derailed by the larger debate. Because we are sending horrific signals to young criminals if we decide cops can't use deadly force to protect and serve any more. I have rarely heard of good, law abiding, teens getting shot and killed by LE. Sorry for going on and on.
Please excuse typos, and errors. Tapatalk is limited.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Stealing cars at 17. At least twice. Could be she would have progressed to more serious crime where an innocent law abiding citizen could have been hurt, or killed. If police had let her speed away, and she continued to collect offences and jail time, and had progressed to career criminal, and killed someone, every single one of us would say SHE SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN ON THE STREETS. Well, now she's not. I teach my teens to be responsible and to pay the consequences for their own actions. Committing crime and not obeying an armed law enforcer, can get you killed. Period. Why should there be any question? These officers have to make split second decisions. I for one am glad that they do. JMO. MOO. I hope this whole case doesn't get derailed by the larger debate. Because we are sending horrific signals to young criminals if we decide cops can't use deadly force to protect and serve any more. I have rarely heard of good, law abiding, teens getting shot and killed by LE. Sorry for going on and on.
Please excuse typos, and errors. Tapatalk is limited.

Great post!

 

[nrdsb4]

I don't think any of us want LE blindly shooting and killing people for petty offenses.

However, I think many are conveniently glossing over the fact that in this case, and many like them, the officer doesn't have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, examining angles and speed of the car, assessment of the presence or absence of guns, and intent. They have a split second to decide if they are about to die, and that situation may well increase the incidence of being mistaken about their actual risk. That's why it's really important that we stress to our kids (and ourselves) the importance of complying fully, and yes, blindly, with the orders of LE in any highly charged situation. If LE is in the wrong, that can be sorted out later, but refusing to obey instructions of LE during a heated exchange is almost certain to end badly for the person who has been taught that there is no need to "blindly" follow instructions of authority.

You can be "right" all the way to the grave.

 

[katydid23]

I have heard that may change in some bad areas, and police may start using "tactical retreat" to avoid upsetting/provoking the criminals and their supporters.

Supposedly some departments may decide to have their officers back off until more officers arrive so they can gently pacify the criminals without hurting them.

That is kind of what happened in certain dangerous areas of South Central. The cops essentially handed the area over to the gangs.