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

[Confusion]

I do find this case a bit more confusing than I did at first glance. If there was no place for the officer to go because he was between the car and the fence, where was the driver going (if not just trying to hit the officer)? Was there a road on the other side of the fence? On the other hand, did the officer believe that a dead driver was more likely to stop the vehicle than a living one was? If the vehicle was an imminent threat to his life, how did he end up with just a broken leg?

Most of these questions probably have nothing to do with whether he made the right move or not, but they still have me curious. From what has been said so far, I believe the officers saw the car as a threat to the life of the one who was hit. I also believe that it will probably be considered a justified shooting, but I still wonder if it was their only option. I'm sure they'll wonder about that many times themselves, but I hope they don't let the "what ifs" get to them too much. Given the same circumstances in the future, not shooting could cost more lives if the driver (or passengers) happen to be armed. MOO

 

[katydid23]

Let's look at one of the witness interviews:
The car's passenger said police had surrounded the car in the alley, and Hernandez was trying to flee, attempting to drive around one of the squad cars.

The officers came up to the car from behind and fired four times into the driver's side window, narrowly missing others inside, the passenger said.


Hernandez wrecked the car into a fence after she was shot, according to the witness. Police said the officer suffered a leg injury for which he was treated at a hospital and released.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/2...ount-death-says-teen-was-shot-before-car-ran/


".... the police had surrounded the car in the alley, and Hernandez was trying to flee, attempting to drive around one of the squad cars."

So we know that the driver was trying to squeeze between the SUV and the fence. And we also know that she was already trying to flee, according to this witness. If we find that the blue marker in the pic is where there was a casing or where the cop was injured, then it was absolutely a justified shooting.

being shot before she wrecked is no surprise. Why would they shoot her after she wrecked? She would not be a threat at that time.ing info, imo.

 

[al66pine]

As requested, same as posted previously -
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.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...s-fatal-shooting-unarmed-teen?source=infinite
Article is originally from post #38 - maybe previously. What?

(debolded by me)

Thank you very much for posting this^. From paragraph a:
"An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall, if feasible, move out of the way rather than discharging a firearm."
And more:
"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 anobjectively reasonable belief that:
1. The vehicle or suspect poses animmediate 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."

It explicitly provides exceptions, allowing LEOs to discharge firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupant(s).
Characterizing ^this as Denver Police 'don't shoot the driver' policyseems inaccurate at best, imo.

Maybe someone can think of a better way to characterize this something to convey policy meaning more accurately, like ---
Denver Police Do-Not-Routinely-Shoot-Moving-Vehicles-But-There-Are-Some-Exceptions? Something we can agree on?

 

[MyBelle]

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?

Some of us do know this because we paid attention in school. Dead is dead. Doesn't matter where she was shot. Which way are hands likely to go after being shot? If they are raised and are ahold of the steering wheel, the direction will be immediately release and down. The foot will release pressure on the gas pedal. What the arms and hands do not do in reaction to being shot is to stay up, grasp a steering wheel and turn it to the left.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

As requested, same as posted previously -

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.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...s-fatal-shooting-unarmed-teen?source=infinite

Article is originally from post #38 - maybe previously. What?

There was nowhere to move to. There was a rather large brick wall that also trapped the officer.

JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This witness supports a lawful police shooting.

She says police first shot at the car’s window, injuring Hernandez, and forcing her to lose control of the car and strike the officer. She says the officer was pinned between the car and a fence.

It's not surprising that the officers bullets pierced the car's window injuring the driver. That's what they wanted to do. How else could you hit the driver and attempt to stop the attack? The "lose control of the car" part is obviously an opinion from a biased witness.

This witness confirms that the suspect vehicle was the cause of the officers injuries and that Hernandez was driving the vehicle.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-death-jessica-hernandez-17-article-1.2094639

 

[Jersey*Girl]

According to the criminal's parents, she'd been out all night with her friends before driving the stolen car that morning and fracturing the good police officer's leg. According to the Denver Curfew Law, the criminal would have had to be with a parent or guardian if out past curfew, otherwise the parents of said criminal could be cited as well as said criminal...

http://www.denvervictims.org/images/Denver's Curfew Law.pdf

DENVER’S CURFEW LAW
Denver has a curfew law for all children under the age of 18. If you are concerned about young people out at night, you can report violations of this law.
Denver Revised Municipal Code D.R.M.C. 34-61 states, in part, that:
“It is unlawful for a minor to be in any public place or on the premises of any establishment during curfew hours...It shall be unlawful for a parent or guardian of a minor to knowingly permit, or by insufficient control, allow the minor to be in or remain in any public place or on the premises of any establishment during curfew hours...”
In Denver, the curfew hours for all children under the age of 18 are:
From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m., Monday through Thursday and Sunday, and From midnight to 5:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday.
Once a violation of curfew is determined by Denver Police Patrol Officers, anywhere in Denver, the officer tickets the child. From October to March, the child must appear in court at a later date, where he/she can choose to pay a fine (approximately $125) or attend counseling or self-help classes. From April through September, the officer tickets the child and transports the unsupervised child to a SafeNite Curfew Program center, where the parents or guardians are called to pick him/her up. Only curfew violators are brought to these centers. Juvenile criminal offenders are processed through existing juvenile delinquency facilities.
Police can issue tickets to the teens and parents. Usually, there is approximately $23 in court costs for each ticket. Fines, if any, are set at the discretion of the judge.
Per the Code, the following keep underage children from being picked up or ticketed for curfew violation:
a) When the child is obviously accompanied by a parent or adult guardian.
b) If the child is in a motor vehicle currently used for interstate travel.
c) If the child is engaged in employment activity or going to or returning from an
employment activity without any detours or stops.
SafeNite Curfew centers are staffed by police officers who process tickets for both teens and parents and provide court dates; Parks and Recreation personnel, who are responsible for assuring activities which will reduce idleness and unrest; and a professional counselor, who will be able to deal with problems associated with repeated violations or parenting problems.
The curfew law has been in effect since before 1950. Recently, the ordinance has been amended. However, this is not new. Denver has just taken a stronger role in enforcing the law. Again, if you have concerns about youth on the streets after curfew hours, call the police. It is important to be vigilant and report any problems.
Rev. 8/24/99

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Also, that Monday morning when this incident happened - was that a school day? If so, why was she allowed to be out all night with friends?

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Very interesting. This is definitely at the very least a curfew violation...

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27394478/denver-police-shoot-2-suspects-critically-injuring-one

Denver police fatally shoot teen girl suspect; officer hit by car
By Jesse Paul and Noelle Phillips
The Denver Post
POSTED: 01/26/2015 07:30:19 AM MST698 COMMENTS
UPDATED: 01/28/2015 06:10:04 AM MST

Four teen girls and a teen boy had been sitting in the car in the alley for several hours, listening to music and talking, said the parent of one of the teens. She spoke on condition of anonymity.

Earlier in the night, several girls had gathered at Fred N. Thomas Memorial Park to play with a Ouija board and to hang out. The parent had been upset because her daughter had not come home Sunday night and had not responded to phone calls and text messages.

She said her daughter did not know the car was stolen and did not know who would have stolen it.

"She's taken it hard," the parent said. "She's been in shock off and on. It hasn't really sunk in yet."

 

[jjenny]

Also, that Monday morning when this incident happened - was that a school day? If so, why was she allowed to be out all night with friends?

I don't know if it's a question of "allowed." It doesn't sound to me that her parents could control her behavior.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I don't know if it's a question of "allowed." It doesn't sound to me that her parents could control her behavior.

I agree. She sounded out of control. But that's the thing...IMO her parents should have called the cops on her for going out then if they didn't really want to allow her to go but she went anyway. She'd been in trouble various times before so whose to say her behavior wasn't escalating? I do think the police should have been contacted as soon as she walked out of her door...that is unless her parents actually gave her permission to do so.

 

[katydid23]

Four teen girls and a teen boy had been sitting in the car in the alley for several hours, listening to music and talking, said the parent of one of the teens. She spoke on condition of anonymity.

Earlier in the night, several girls had gathered at Fred N. Thomas Memorial Park to play with a Ouija board and to hang out. The parent had been upset because her daughter had not come home Sunday night and had not responded to phone calls and text messages.

She said her daughter did not know the car was stolen and did not know who would have stolen it.

"She's taken it hard," the parent said. "She's been in shock off and on. It hasn't really sunk in yet."
============================================================================================

I don't believe that for one minute. The daughter absolutely knew it was stolen and there was no mystery who stole it. Mom seems to be in denial.

And if this daughter is one of the 'witnesses' then I think she has a credibility problem. JMO

 

[sherlockh]

This witness supports a lawful police shooting.



It's not surprising that the officers bullets pierced the car's window injuring the driver. That's what they wanted to do. How else could you hit the driver and attempt to stop the attack? The "lose control of the car" part is obviously an opinion from a biased witness.

This witness confirms that the suspect vehicle was the cause of the officers injuries and that Hernandez was driving the vehicle.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-death-jessica-hernandez-17-article-1.2094639

"Experts say shooting and disabling a driver can send a car out of control.

"If you were to shoot at the driver, you would have an unguided missile, basically," said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum."
http://www.montereyherald.com/gener...ear-how-officer-was-hurt-when-teen-was-killed

Besides that it is very risky to be shooting into a car full of people. Bullets can bounce. More people could have been killed. JMO.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

And IMO since her mom doesn't want her daughter's death to go unpunished, maybe she should be charged for allowing her daughter to walk out that door. The minute she decided to steal a car, then later decide to not even get out of the car when the police arrived, was the minute she put other teens' lives in danger as well. Sick. Bad.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/01/28/jessie-hernandez-shooting-criminal-record/22496651/

Ryan Haarer, KUSA.com 10:20 p.m. MST January 28, 2015

Despite the admission that her daughter had been in trouble before, Laura Rosales feels Denver Police made a mistake.

"Now we are going to start to mobilize because I don't want the death of my daughter to go without punishment," said Rosales in Spanish.

She says she refused to give her car to Hernandez the night before the shooting because she was worried she'd get pulled over with a suspended license. Rosales wishes she could have stopped her from going out at all.

 

[katydid23]

I agree. She sounded out of control. But that's the thing...IMO her parents should have called the cops on her for going out then if they didn't really want to allow her to go but she went anyway. She'd been in trouble various times before so whose to say her behavior wasn't escalating? I do think the police should have been contacted as soon as she walked out of her door...that is unless her parents actually gave her permission to do so.

I can't find the article now--it might have been updated. But IIRC, JH's mom said something about JH asking to use her car, and Mom said NO, because she had a suspended license. So JH left angry. I guess Mom felt good about at least setting that boundary, but it essentially gave JH an 'excuse' to steal another car .

But it is sad that 5 high school kids could be out all night and none of the parents are out trying to drag them home.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I can't find the article now--it might have been updated. But IIRC, JH's mom said something about JH asking to use her car, and Mom said NO, because she had a suspended license. So JH left angry. I guess Mom felt good about at least setting that boundary, but it essentially gave JH an 'excuse' to steal another car .

But it is sad that 5 high school kids could be out all night and none of the parents are out trying to drag them home.

I just linked that article right above. You were probably typing as I posted it. & I agree, very sad.

 

[katydid23]

"Experts say shooting and disabling a driver can send a car out of control.

"If you were to shoot at the driver, you would have an unguided missile, basically," said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum."
http://www.montereyherald.com/gener...ear-how-officer-was-hurt-when-teen-was-killed

Besides that it is very risky to be shooting into a car full of people. Bullets can bounce. More people could have been killed. JMO.

Right. It is not optimum. But what do you do if the driver is coming right at you or your partner? Let your partner get run over and save the suspects in the stolen car that are refusing to give up when ordered to stop? Why should an officer put the suspects safety above his own?

 

[sherlockh]

Right. It is not optimum. But what do you do if the driver is coming right at you or your partner? Let your partner get run over and save the suspects in the stolen car that are refusing to give up when ordered to stop? Why should an officer put the suspects safety above his own?

Did the police know all the passengers? Did they know they were all in it together? What if one was kidnapped, or under threat to stay in the car, or simply stuck? Did the police know all that before they decided to put 5 lives in danger?

 

[Confusion]

Did the police know all the passengers? Did they know they were all in it together? What if one was kidnapped, or under threat to stay in the car, or simply stuck? Did the police know all that before they decided to put 5 lives in danger?

If someone in the car was being kept their against their will, would smiling, waving and letting the car just drive away really be likely to be much help? What would you suggest they do instead under those circumstances (a stolen car full of teens heading toward one officer and most likely making a run for it)? TIA

 

[katydid23]

Did the police know all the passengers? Did they know they were all in it together? What if one was kidnapped, or under threat to stay in the car, or simply stuck? Did the police know all that before they decided to put 5 lives in danger?

I doubt they had any of that info. But that does not change the fact that they have the right to protect themselves. JMO