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

[Woodland]

The officer left-leg may have been pinned against the wall by the left front bumper for all we know at this point. If he was right-handed, the bullet's direction would have been through the passenger window rather than the windshield.

Really doesn't matter when he fired. He perceived a threat and reacted.

JMO

Agree - just your opinion. So the officer fired, with absolute accuracy, with his left hand, from the drivers side front of the vehicle or the corner front of the drivers side of the vehicle into the drivers side window.

We'll see at some point.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I actually have an answer to that. I know someone that lost their house bc they were the last stop after graduation and a drunk teen ran a light and seriously injured another driver. That teen's (the drunk driver) parents also lost their life savings bc it was proven that's where the kids were actually drinking after graduation. This teen only had her permit and back then wasn't supposed to be driving at all without another authorized driver beside her. So literally 2 families were wiped clean bc of a criminal act by a drunk teen harmed an innocent driver.

Yes. I've known people who have lost everything due to suits.

But I don't think the homeowners policy would pay anything out on that.

 

[Woodland]

The FB posts and tweets are HER WORDS.
I'm not confused about them. I'm confused why someone could think they are opinion.

It is a FACT that Jessica had a FB account with pictures and references to alcohol and drugs.

It is a FACT that her tweets talked about drug use, hating cops, court dates...

The media has points as well, but they are being called nonsense. Sorry, but one persons point here is not the be all and end all - although they may like it to be. Jmo. We might just have to wait for facts from forensics. Also jmo.

 

[al66pine]

Response bolded within quote. ...

sbm
More from Woodland's post:
"With all due respect, this conclusion is divisive, imo, even with the question mark. Mom will, without question get to view all LE and lab reports? Where is that conclusion written in stone? There is a current US debate on Crime Lab conclusions/reports vs letting the defense see it at any time before trial/inquiry - it is being called trial by ambush at the moment. The debate goes on - not concluded as yet. Maybe check out the law before saying family will have access at any time to all reports in this or any other case before any trial/inquiry."


My post did not state: "family will have access at any time to all reports in this or any other case before any trial/inquiry." bbm
Conceding possibility that -
- Mom's atty & Mom will not be provided info, back-up, etc. from investigation, once concluded,
- Mom's atty & Mom will not be provided info, back-up, etc. from investigation, once concluded, until Mom files civil suit or other legal action.

My apologies for implying Mom's atty & Mom would have, without question, access to all report & info, once investigation is concluded.
I appreciate your bringing out this point.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I guess it could depend on state laws. But I do not believe any unlicensed driver is covered on a policy. And having a revoked license is considered unlicensed.

JMO

I don't think any insurance company would cover someone driving on a suspended license.

ETA:


In most states of the U.S., driving a car with suspended driver license is an illegal act. While majority of the insurance providers refrain from providing auto insurance coverage to drivers whose driving licenses are under suspension, it could be possible to get a car insurance for suspended license if the reason for suspension is not that extreme...

http://www.nodepositcarinsurancequote.com/getting-auto-insurance-for-suspended-license.php

Auto insurance does not cover drivers on suspended licenses because it is illegal. Some states will issue a temporary hardship license but without such a license, there is no way to obtain insurance.

Of course, since most states require cars driven on public roads to be insured, you'll need car insurance while driving with a hardship driver's license.

JMO

http://www.dmv.org/insurance/how-to-get-car-insurance-coverage-with-a-suspended-license.php

Thanks you guys. I guess what I was thinking of is if someone didn't report to their insurance company that their license was suspended. I guess if an accident arose then the insurance company would find out but what about if the state dl authority is behind and hadn't reported it yet. Then would it all be caught within a glitch in the reporting system? I have no idea about this stuff which is why I'm asking. Iow, if the insurance co didn't know the criminal's license was suspended, would they still have to pay out or would the suspension automatically trump everything else going forward? It probably doesn't matter anyway bc the criminal probably hadn't any insurance for awhile depending on how long her license was suspended. I'm just curious is all. Thanks so much!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The media has points as well, but they are being called nonsense. Sorry, but one persons point here is not the be all and end all - although they may like it to be. Jmo. We might just have to wait for facts from forensics. Also jmo.

Nobody has said the media does not have points.

But surely we can ALL agree that Jessica's words and pictures can not be considered opinion. They are her words.

Common sense.

 

[Woodland]

sbm
More from Woodland's post:
"With all due respect, this conclusion is divisive, imo, even with the question mark. Mom will, without question get to view all LE and lab reports? Where is that conclusion written in stone? There is a current US debate on Crime Lab conclusions/reports vs letting the defense see it at any time before trial/inquiry - it is being called trial by ambush at the moment. The debate goes on - not concluded as yet. Maybe check out the law before saying family will have access at any time to all reports in this or any other case before any trial/inquiry."My post did not state: "family will have access at any time to all reports in this or any other case before any trial/inquiry." bbm
Conceding possibility that -
- Mom's atty & Mom will not be provided info, back-up, etc. from investigation, once concluded,
- Mom's atty & Mom will not be provided info, back-up, etc. from investigation, once concluded, until Mom files civil suit or other legal action.

My apologies for implying Mom's atty & Mom would have, without question, access to all report & info, once investigation is concluded.
I appreciate your bringing out this point.

I appreciate you checking that out or at least reconsidering your knowledge. Key word - lawsuit imo. Like LE or the DA is going to accommodate a lawsuit. Mind you, in 2015 would have thought that the US would be leaders in what is fact or not fact. Beginning to think I am so wrong.

 

[MyBelle]

There is no evidence that the teen that was shot intentionally aimed a moving vehicle at the officer that was hit.

There doesn't need to be any evidence beyond the eyewitness testimony of the officers. It is a matter of public policy and I doubt it changes any time soon.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Thanks you guys. I guess what I was thinking of is if someone didn't report to their insurance company that their license was suspended. I guess if an accident arose then the insurance company would find out but what about if the state dl authority is behind and hadn't reported it yet. Then would it all be caught within a glitch in the reporting system? I have no idea about this stuff which is why I'm asking. Iow, if the insurance co didn't know the criminal's license was suspended, would they still have to pay out or would the suspension automatically trump everything else going forward? It probably doesn't matter anyway bc the criminal probably hadn't any insurance for awhile depending on how long her license was suspended. I'm just curious is all. Thanks so much!

The car is insured. Not the driver.
So the car's policy would be what would be in question.

IMO there is no way any of this will be covered by an automobile insurance policy.
With the exception of the damage to the insured car. Then the company would try to get their money back.

IMO Jessica is not covered for this accident. And it wouldn't matter if she was licensed at the time or not.

 

[Montjoy]

The FB posts and tweets are HER WORDS.
I'm not confused about them. I'm confused why someone could think they are opinion.

It is a FACT that Jessica had a FB account with pictures and references to alcohol and drugs.

It is a FACT that her tweets talked about drug use, hating cops, court dates...

These may be 'facts' of some sort, but they do not have any bearing on the events of the case, insofar as they're the sort of thing that could be taken as character evidence, but they do nothing to explain what happened during this incident. As well, some of the things that you mention are, in fact, opinions -- such as 'hating cops', or liking drugs or alcohol, both of which would be, at base, opinions.

I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a private person's social media and official reports/MSM from professional media sources, and there are really good reasons why we don't discuss the former here. People should be judged on what they have done rather than what they believe.

 

[katydid23]

Thanks you guys. I guess what I was thinking of is if someone didn't report to their insurance company that their license was suspended. I guess if an accident arose then the insurance company would find out but what about if the state dl authority is behind and hadn't reported it yet. Then would it all be caught within a glitch in the reporting system? I have no idea about this stuff which is why I'm asking. Iow, if the insurance co didn't know the criminal's license was suspended, would they still have to pay out or would the suspension automatically trump everything else going forward? It probably doesn't matter anyway bc the criminal probably hadn't any insurance for awhile depending on how long her license was suspended. I'm just curious is all. Thanks so much!

My ins. co. somehow KNEW that my 19 yr old daughter was about to have her license suspended before she even knew. I got a call saying she was going to be taken off the policy because of suspended privileges. I called her immediately and she , being 19 and not so on top of things, did not know anything about it yet. We went to the local courthouse and found that she had IGNORED a speeding ticket, :slap: which had gone to warrant status. her explanation was she was going to pay for it when she got her tax return. :doh:

Anyway, we paid the debt at the court, went to DMV to have it signed off, and then had to go the our ins co with the paperwork, in order to keep her on the policy.

 

[MyBelle]

Thanks you guys. I guess what I was thinking of is if someone didn't report to their insurance company that their license was suspended. I guess if an accident arose then the insurance company would find out but what about if the state dl authority is behind and hadn't reported it yet. Then would it all be caught within a glitch in the reporting system? I have no idea about this stuff which is why I'm asking. Iow, if the insurance co didn't know the criminal's license was suspended, would they still have to pay out or would the suspension automatically trump everything else going forward? It probably doesn't matter anyway bc the criminal probably hadn't any insurance for awhile depending on how long her license was suspended. I'm just curious is all. Thanks so much!

The state will automatically report the suspension to the insurance company. In my state, there is an administrative revocation of a license the moment the citation is issued and it remains suspended until you go to court. The Judge decides on guilt and whether to continue the suspension and for how long.

JMO

 

[Woodland]

My ins. co. somehow KNEW that my 19 yr old daughter was about to have her license suspended before she even knew. I got a call saying she was going to be taken off the policy because of suspended privileges. I called her immediately and she , being 19 and not so on top of things, did not know anything about it yet. We went to the local courthouse and found that she had IGNORED a speeding ticket, :slap: which had gone to warrant status. her explanation was she was going to pay for it when she got her tax return. :doh:

Anyway, we paid the debt at the court, went to DMV to have it signed off, and then had to go the our ins co with the paperwork, in order to keep her on the policy.

OMG! Why would a 19 year-old ignore a ticket?

 

[Jersey*Girl]

There is no evidence that the teen that was shot intentionally aimed a moving vehicle at the officer that was hit.

I believe it was intentional that the criminal driver drove at speeds of 80 moh or above with 4 passengers in the stolen vehicle. If she wasn't careless and reckless regarding trying to hit the cop, then surely it can't be argued that she endangered the well being of those 4 passengers...which the public knows she did. It's not even arguable.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

These may be 'facts' of some sort, but they do not have any bearing on the events of the case, insofar as they're the sort of thing that could be taken as character evidence, but they do nothing to explain what happened during this incident. As well, some of the things that you mention are, in fact, opinions -- such as 'hating cops', or liking drugs or alcohol, both of which would be, at base, opinions.

I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a private person's social media and official reports/MSM from professional media sources, and there are really good reasons why we don't discuss the former here. People should be judged on what they have done rather than what they believe.

I'm sorry. But I think constant tweets about hating cops, drug use, and court dates are worthy of conversation in this case.

Does it have to do with the few minutes in the ally? No.
But does it give us a better idea of what her mindset and attitude was? Yep.

And this is a discussion forum. Not just an evidence forum.

JMO

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Do not allow yourself to be baited. Scroll and roll.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

The state will automatically report the suspension to the insurance company. In my state, there is an administrative revocation of a license the moment the citation is issued and it remains suspended until you go to court. The Judge decides on guilt and whether to continue the suspension and for how long.

JMO

Thank you so much. Insurance is absolutely outrageous here. Sometimes I think our system is shot and it makes me think of this stuff, like if reporting systems could be behind or backed or something. I'm learning from you guys so thank you.

 

[katydid23]

These may be 'facts' of some sort, but they do not have any bearing on the events of the case, insofar as they're the sort of thing that could be taken as character evidence, but they do nothing to explain what happened during this incident. As well, some of the things that you mention are, in fact, opinions -- such as 'hating cops', or liking drugs or alcohol, both of which would be, at base, opinions.

I think it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a private person's social media and official reports/MSM from professional media sources, and there are really good reasons why we don't discuss the former here. People should be judged on what they have done rather than what they believe.

I respectfully disagree. If someone writes hateful things about cops, routinely, for months and brags about taking strong illegal drugs on a daily basis, and says they have no plans to change that behavior---and THEN, there is an alleged incident, in which the cops say she refused to comply with orders to stop the car, and instead she drove towards a cop---IMO, those things that she herself wrote can be seen as corroboration of the cops version of events. Her words can be used as an illustration of her attitude and thus her probable behavior.

 

[katydid23]

OMG! Why would a 19 year-old ignore a ticket?

My thoughts exactly! She is 23 now and it has not happened since. that's for sure.

Also, in her 19 yr old mind, she did not think she was 'ignoring' it. She was going to pay for it when she had the money. She did not understand the way it really works. She learned her lesson though.

 

[Woodland]

I believe it was intentional that the criminal driver drove at speeds of 80 moh or above with 4 passengers in the stolen vehicle. If she wasn't careless and reckless regarding trying to hit the cop, then surely it can't be argued that she endangered the well being of those 4 passengers...which the public knows she did. It's not even arguable.

That's cool that you believe she drove at 80 moh (or 80 miler per hour?) towards the officer and the fence - but why does the minimal damage to the fence show it was 'kissed' by the same vehicle. Forensics- can't get around that in the long run. Jmo.