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

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't see justification yet from what we know to be true. I respect your conclusion, but I haven't seen enough yet to convince me.
The possibility also exists that she was shot as she was trying to flee. Possibility initial shot could have been accidental discharge too. Maybe the officers are saying they thought they saw a weapon? Lots of possibilities. Yet we haven't heard any reports as to what actually went down.

Some people need more information than others before forming an opinion. I respect that. There are some cases that I follow on WS that I'm on the fence because of that.

I hope that we do learn more about this case. That information will either bolster my current opinion or make me change my mind.

I'm sure that the officer's are saying they saw a weapon.That weapon was the stolen car.

JMO.

 

[MyBelle]

You are equating "cop being hit by car" and "trying to run over cop" as the same thing. So yes, those assumptions are being made.

We'll never know what she was trying to do because the driver is dead. The car hit the cop. That's a fact, not an assumption.

 

[al66pine]

....I don't know if she hit him on purpose or lost control.
I am not sure it matters in terms of deciding if it was a justified shooting or not.

sbm bbm

In deciding whether Denver LEO shooting of JH was justified use of force per DPD Pol & Proc, is driver's intent is relevant?

Short answer, imo, no.

Long answer, imo, here's why:

DPD P&P re officer use of force when threatened by vehicles explains potential negative outcomes of LE firing at moving vehicles, & continues:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ "...threatened by anoncoming vehicle shall, if feasible, move out of the way rather thandischarging a firearm.
Officer(s) shall not discharge a firearm at amoving vehicle or its occupant(s) in response to a threat posed solely by thevehicle
unless the officer has an objectively reasonable beliefthat:
1. The vehicle or suspect poses an immediate threat of death or seriousphysical injury to the officer or another person and
2. The officer has no reasonable alternative course of action to preventdeath or serious physical injury."

^Per http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...g-unarmed-teen.bbm ubm
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nothing in ^use of force policy about driver's intent in officer shootings.

Possible that in other situations, driver's intent - about whether intending to drive car into person - is relevant in other procedures, e.g.,
1. civil tort action in which driver is being sued for personal injuries by person that the driver hit or run over.
2. criminal proceeding in which driver is charged w intentionally injuring the person hit or run over.

JM2cts.

 

[katydid23]

Is it possible the cop was hit BECAUSE she was shot and lost control?
This is what the witness is saying I believe.

I don't think it matters. Because either way, the car had to be headed in his direction, before the shooting. She did not totally change direction when she lost control. Maybe she veered left or right, but the car was still headed in the same general direction. And since she did hit a cop, that means the cops were correct in making that initial assessment that the driver was a threat to their safety.

Also, keep in mind, the 'witness' is not unbiased. I am sure the witness is keeping in mind their own legal situation in being in a stolen car that was fleeing he scene.

 

[Woodland]

I don't believe anyone here has made the assumption the driver was "trying" to run over the cop and that is why she was shot. By definition, an assumption is not based on facts, it is based on a belief something is true without facts.

It is a fact that the officer was hit by the car. It is a fact that officers are allowed to use their judgment to protect their personal safety.

I sure don't use the term "lady" or "gentleman" to describe someone who steals a car and drives recklessly. I prefer to use "criminal," or "." Just my preference.

JMO

Pardon my chuckles - the Denver Police Chief initially said she was shot as she hit the officer with the car first. Then he retracted that, saying he is not sure if that was the sequence of events. Yet many posts continue to say she in fact purposely aimed the vehicle at the officer first . We. Don't. Know.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't think it matters. Because either way, the car had to be headed in his direction, before the shooting. She did not totally change direction when she lost control. Maybe she veered left or right, but the car was still headed in the same general direction. And since she did hit a cop, that means the cops were correct in making that initial assessment that the driver was a threat to their safety.

Also, keep in mind, the 'witness' is not unbiased. I am sure the witness is keeping in mind their own legal situation in being in a stolen car that was fleeing he scene.

Yes, if they haven't yet grasped the gravity of their own "legal situation" hopefully a wiser adult will lend them a hand.

Anybody can look at the photo and see the wheels of the car cranked to the left. Wheels of cars don't crank themselves.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

You are equating "cop being hit by car" and "trying to run over cop" as the same thing. So yes, those assumptions are being made.

I don't think it matters what the driver's intent was. The cops have no idea what her intent was. All they know is a moving stolen vehicle is headed towards an officer, who is trapped between the car and a fence. It does not matter if she wants to hit him or is just trying to flee--all that matters is that they need to try and stop the car.

 

[Woodland]

Is it possible the cop was hit BECAUSE she was shot and lost control?
This is what the witness is saying I believe.

Not only is that what the witness is saying, the Denver Police Chief retracted his initial version of events, saying he doesn't know the sequence of events.

When you shoot the driver of a vehicle, that vehicle is out of control. So don't shoot the driver - Denver Police policy - not followed about 4 times in the last year.

The fence says a lot imo.

 

[katydid23]

Not only is that what the witness is saying, the Denver Police Chief retracted his initial version of events, saying he doesn't know the sequence of events.

When you shoot the driver of a vehicle, that vehicle is out of control. So don't shoot the driver - Denver Police policy - not followed about 4 times in the last year.

The fence says a lot imo.

BBM

What does the fence say?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

He retracted it because a witness contradicted it not because it was a false statement. Kinda like all those witnesses claimed they saw Officer Wilson shoot Michael Brown in the back. Witnesses lie when they are facing charges themselves. Police gladly give them enough rope to convict themselves.

JMO

Exactly!

 

[Deleted member 39678]

We'll never know what she was trying to do because the driver is dead. The car hit the cop. That's a fact, not an assumption.

We know that the car hit the cop. At least I think we do. I've seen some posts suggesting that the reason the car hit the cop is because they shot the driver first and that caused the driver to lose control.

I guess that's possible but I'm reluctant to believe that two cops opened fired for no reason. It doesn't add up to me. I'll need some pretty convincing evidence before I can go that route. JMO.

 

[Woodland]

Yes, if they haven't yet grasped the gravity of their own "legal situation" hopefully a wiser adult will lend them a hand.

Anybody can look at the photo and see the wheels of the car cranked to the left. Wheels of cars don't crank themselves.

JMO

Wheels crank with the reaction of a driver that has been shot - physics?

If one is shot in a vehicle from their left side - through the drivers side window - which way are their hands likely to go? Or will their hands stay exactly as they were positioned before the shooting? Was she shot in the head or torso? Must make a difference to how a body will react? Do we know any of this? Or are we guessing?

 

[Woodland]

He retracted it because a witness contradicted it not because it was a false statement. Kinda like all those witnesses claimed they saw Officer Wilson shoot Michael Brown in the back. Witnesses lie when they are facing charges themselves. Police gladly give them enough rope to convict themselves.

JMO

You have a link to why the Denver Police Chief changed his statement?

 

[katydid23]

some interesting past history:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27059592/car-strikes-denver-police-officer-amid-ferguson-protest


Four Denver cops hit by car amid Ferguson protest; one in critical condition


POSTED: 12/03/2014
The black Mercedes that hit the officers dragged one of them dozens of yards, depositing him critically injured on a curb where he clung to life.

 

[Woodland]

some interesting past history:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27059592/car-strikes-denver-police-officer-amid-ferguson-protest


Four Denver cops hit by car amid Ferguson protest; one in critical condition


POSTED: 12/03/2014
The black Mercedes that hit the officers dragged one of them dozens of yards, depositing him critically injured on a curb where he clung to life.

Was it the same driver as in this case?

 

[ninij9]

IMO, much of this debate would be irrelevant if, based upon my interpretation of the deceased own social media seeming to indicate the possibility of suicide by cop. I am on Tapatalk and do not know how to link her own twitter comments alluding to dying by cops for her lifestyle. IMO she romanticized being a "" because she thought it was cool. I mean she was immature as well as criminal. I feel for her family, but I have little pity for the lifestyle she CHOSE. I am heartily sick to death of cop bashing. We need these officers To make these split second decisions to ensure that we live in a relatively peaceful society. Some few here say not to judge her until evidence is in, well don't judge LE either. It isn't a rumor that she regularly engaged in criminal, illegal behavior. It is FACT. I hate to see a young woman's life end, but she wrote her own story here. JMO. I am so very happy to see so much support for LE on this thread BTW. Often enough we have to question, but this case is way to clear cut to me.

 

[CoolJ]

IMO, much of this debate would be irrelevant if, based upon my interpretation of the deceased own social media seeming to indicate the possibility of suicide by cop. I am on Tapatalk and do not know how to link her own twitter comments alluding to dying by cops for her lifestyle. IMO she romanticized being a "" because she thought it was cool. I mean she was immature as well as criminal. I feel for her family, but I have little pity for the lifestyle she CHOSE. I am heartily sick to death of cop bashing. We need these officers To make these split second decisions to ensure that we live in a relatively peaceful society. Some few here say not to judge her until evidence is in, well don't judge LE either. It isn't a rumor that she regularly engaged in criminal, illegal behavior. It is FACT. I hate to see a young woman's life end, but she wrote her own story here. JMO. I am so very happy to see so much support for LE on this thread BTW. Often enough we have to question, but this case is way to clear cut to me.

Who is judging LE?
Please don't question my integrity.

 

[Woodland]

IMO, much of this debate would be irrelevant if, based upon my interpretation of the deceased own social media seeming to indicate the possibility of suicide by cop. I am on Tapatalk and do not know how to link her own twitter comments alluding to dying by cops for her lifestyle. IMO she romanticized being a "" because she thought it was cool. I mean she was immature as well as criminal. I feel for her family, but I have little pity for the lifestyle she CHOSE. I am heartily sick to death of cop bashing. We need these officers To make these split second decisions to ensure that we live in a relatively peaceful society. Some few here say not to judge her until evidence is in, well don't judge LE either. It isn't a rumor that she regularly engaged in criminal, illegal behavior. It is FACT. I hate to see a young woman's life end, but she wrote her own story here. JMO. I am so very happy to see so much support for LE on this thread BTW. Often enough we have to question, but this case is way to clear cut to me.

With all due respect you are entitled to your opinion on the sequence of events - others that view the sequence differently are entitled to do the same. Facts are welcome if there are any new ones to provide? Jmo.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Wheels crank with the reaction of a driver that has been shot - physics?

If one is shot in a vehicle from their left side - through the drivers side window - which way are their hands likely to go? Or will their hands stay exactly as they were positioned before the shooting? Was she shot in the head or torso? Must make a difference to how a body will react? Do we know any of this? Or are we guessing?

Those are some good questions. But I think that the drivers actions before the shots were fired are the more relevant ones. Those actions are what make this a justifiable police shooting or not.

If there's evidence that the police officers fired without justification then how the driver reacted to the shots will have more meaning to this case. JMO.

 

[al66pine]

.... So don't shoot the driver - Denver Police policy - not followed about 4 times in the last year....

Link pls and copy and paste the text for Denver Police 'don't shoot the driver' policy.

Apparently you're referring to diff policy than one already posted 3-4 times on this thread. I'd like to see the version you're referring to.