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

[al66pine]

TY to poster (name?) who pointed out CO reqmt re parent or equivalent signing Affidavit of Liability for drivers,
as noted below Instruction Permit.
A little more about teen licenses in CO.
This from http://teendriving.aaa.com/CO/supervised-driving/licensing-and-state-laws, w link to CO's website w more info.

Scroll down to section "Minor Driver Licenses " w red phrases (rbm).
As we don't know when JH got her license, Not saying she violated any or all of those terms, just that it is poss.
- time of day?
- number of passengers?
- cell phone or wireless device usage? (did we see video of JH using cell or passenger in car w cell ~ 1 hr before shooting?)
- all wearing seatbelts?

Seems doubtful that LE w/h/actually seen these violations that morning, prob'ly only suspected some.
But JH w/h/known of (poss) violations of these terms, plus the Driving Under Restraint (suspended, revoked, etc).


_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Licensing & State Laws Colorado uses a multi-stage licensing process for teens. This system allows teens to gradually gain exposure to complex driving situations, easing them into driving over an extended period of time. The process in Colorado differs based on teens’ age when they begin the process and on the training they choose to take.
Instruction Permit
Teens between ages 15 and 17, who want an instruction permit

must present a certified birth certificate or other acceptable forms of identification, pass a written exam and a vision screening test. Teens and parent/guardian must also complete an Affidavit of Liability and Guardianship (DR2460). Teens seeking an instruction permit between ages 15 and 15½ must present an “affidavit of completion” for a state-approved, 30-hour driver education course and will receive a Driver’s Education Permit. Teens between 15½ and 16 must have completed either driver education or a four-hour driver awareness course and will get a Driver’s Awareness Permit. Teens age 16 to 17 may apply without having completed either of these courses and will receive a Minor Instruction Permit.

• DMV Practice Questions - Take this sample test to determine if you’re ready to take the state driving test.

With an instruction permit, a teen may drive with a parent, guardian or other licensed driver age 21 or older. Teens with an instruction permit must complete 50 hours of certified practice driving with a driver ed instructor and/or the parent/guardian who signed the DR2460 affidavit (or an “alternate permit supervisor” designated by the parent/guardian). These hours must be recorded on the state’s Drive Time Log Sheet or a sheet from an approved driving school.

[h=2]Minor Driver’s License
When teens turn 16, they are eligible for a minor driver’s license if they meet requirements that differ based on their age and when they got their instruction permit. All applicants under age 18 must have held the instruction permit for 12 months, completed and signed the required practice Drive Time Log Sheet, and passed a driving test. Teens who obtained an instruction permit before age 16 by completing driver education must also complete 6 hours of behind the wheel training to receive a minor driver’s license. (Teens who do not have an approved school offering at least 20 hours of driver education per week within 30 miles of their residence may substitute an additional 12 hours of practice driving for the behind the wheel requirement.) Teens who were 15½ or older when receiving an instruction permit may substitute the 4-hour Driver Awareness Program class for the behind the wheel training requirement.
With a minor driver’s license, a teen may drive unsupervised, but must follow certain restrictions.
For the first 12 months, the teen may not drive between midnight and 5 a.m., unless accompanied by a parent or guardian; driving to/from work, school, or a school activity (a signed statement from the employer and/or school is required); or in case of a medical emergency.
Passengersare restricted as follows:
For the first 6 months, no passengers under age 21 are allowed.
For the second 6 months, no more than one passenger under age 21 is allowed.
Exemptions exist for medical emergencies, siblings, and if a parent or guardian is supervising the driver.
Drivers under age 18 are banned from using a cell phone (handheld or hands-free) or any other wireless communications device while driving.
All vehicle occupants must wear seat belts.[/h]
[h=2]Full LicensureAt age 18, passenger and night restrictions expire for teens with minor driver’s licenses. The licenses remain valid until 20 days after the holder’s 21st birthday. Between the 21st birthday and the expiration of the license, the holder renews the license and receives an adult license.
The Colorado Department of Transportation also provides a useful set of resources and information for teen drivers and their families.
[/h]

 

[Woodland]

Exactly. Kids are not perfect. They make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. At 19 she was in her own apt. for first time, and working and in school. So a traffic ticket was just another hurdle and she naively overlooked it's importance. If it had gone to warrant and she had ignored it, it is the kind of things that snowballs into a nightmare.

OMG - my daughter as well. Relevance?

 

[Woodland]

NO> The 19 yr old did not. The 19 yr old did nothing illegal. She simply did not pay her ticket off in time and it doubled. That is not illegal, that is stupid. When it became potentially illegal, she did something about it and went to court and paid the fine. So NO, she did not 'intentionally repeat illegal behavior.'

She did not have her license suspended. Nor did she steal cars, and speed around town joyriding with friends.

The 19 yr old was working a great job and going to college and living a good responsible life. And her job requires drug testing. So please do not compare the 19 yr old to the 17 yr old in this tragic case. The 19 yr old is a case in contrast to this one.

Also, the 19 yr old is very careful with her social media because her employer routinely looks at the instagrams/tweets.

OMG! Mine as well.

 

[Woodland]

In this case, there really is not two sides. A citizen can't help herself to the property of another citizen. She can't endanger other citizens by breaking speed limits on public roadways. She can't disrupt their right to peaceful domicile by blaring loud music.

If a citizen doesn't want to follow the laws of the state in which they reside, they are allowed to move and I think their neighbors just might throw a party in farewell.

JMO

That's been said many times - other than the moving part. Should this driver have have been shot with the few circumstances known so far? That's kind of the point of the thread - which seem OT on others at the moment. Jmo.

 

[katydid23]

That's been said many times - other than the moving part. Should this driver have have been shot with the few circumstances known so far? That's kind of the point of the thread - which seem OT on others at the moment. Jmo.

If I look at it from the officer's POV, I can see why she was shot at.

 

[katydid23]

Assume the relevance is forth coming. Communication is not my daughters strong point as well. Seems OT but maybe it's just me.

I brought up her situation because someone was asking how the ins co would know if the driver was suspended or not. THAT is the relevance.

 

[MyBelle]

That's been said many times - other than the moving part. Should this driver have have been shot with the few circumstances known so far? That's kind of the point of the thread - which seem OT on others at the moment. Jmo.

The officers present at the scene knew the circumstances. Under current laws and policy, it was their call to make. You and I don't know the circumstances but they knew them.

JMO

 

[Woodland]

If I look at it from the officer's POV, I can see why she was shot at.

Can you share what you know?

 

[Curious Guy]

I read about this case when it happened and briefly viewed the thread here. Seemed pretty clear what occurred. I cannot believe this thread is still going strong a week later.

I shouldn't be shocked. Some will defend the indefensible if it can portray LE in a bad light.

 

[Woodland]

The officers present at the scene knew the circumstances. Under current laws and policy, it was their call to make. You and I don't know the circumstances but they knew them.

JMO

I agree - 'we' don't know.

 

[katydid23]

Can you share what you know?

Every cop wants to go home to his family each night. That is their priority. A stolen car, heading towards another cop, would be seen as a threat to their safety.

 

[bwt42]

I think le fired when their life was threatened or they decided to execute the driver for some other reason. I want to believe they fired in self defense and will do so until its proven otherwise.

 

[Woodland]

Every cop wants to go home to his family each night. That is their priority. A stolen car, heading towards another cop, would be seen as a threat to their safety.

I want all LE to go home every night as well. How did this car 'head towards' an officer? This thread is looking for the forensic answers. The sooner the better imo.

 

[katydid23]

I want all LE to go home every night as well. How did this car 'head towards' an officer? This thread is looking for the forensic answers. The sooner the better imo.

How did the car not head towards an officer? It has been reported that an officer was hit by the car. So it is only common sense telling me that the car was headed in his direction.

 

[Woodland]

I think le fired when their life was threatened or they decided to execute the driver for some other reason. I want to believe they fired in self defense and will do so until its proven otherwise.

Execution for some other reason just might come up later. Self defense might come up as well. We'll see. Not seeing a poster here than knows for sure yet. Jmo.

 

[Curious Guy]

Is that in your opinion or can you share events we don't know about yet?

Nope not getting pulled in this time.

I stand by my post and exit stage left.

 

[katydid23]

Execution for some other reason just might come up later. Self defense might come up as well. We'll see. Not seeing a poster here than knows for sure yet. Jmo.

EXECUTION? You seriously think the cops decided to execute a 17 yr old girl? In front of her 4 friends and all the locals? What was their motive for executing her?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I haven't seen anything that makes me feel this wasn't a justifiable police shooting. Everything that I have read points towards the young woman making a fatal mistake in driving the stolen car towards an officer while trying to escape apprehension.

Everyone, not just LE officers, has the right to prevent someone from causing great bodily harm against them. A car is a deadly weapon just like a knife or a gun. If it's used in a manner that could seriously harm someone then deadly force is warranted. JMO.

 

[CoolJ]

I find it very telling that some want to see this as bad cops shooting and innocent teen. They are willing to automatically accept the cops are the criminals here. With nothing to back it up.

But there is plenty to back up the fact this girl was not a model citizen (to say the least). Her actions that we know as fact are why they were in the ally to begin with. But somehow she's the victim.

Baffles me.

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?

 

[Woodland]

How did the car not head towards an officer? It has been reported that an officer was hit by the car. So it is only common sense telling me that the car was headed in his direction.

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.