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

[bessie]

Thanks Bessie- although I would prefer the title to read: Officer stuck by driver of stolen car JMO

Gotcha.

 

[katydid23]

Thanks. I can imagine that would be a life threatening situation and justified lethal force. Just like everyone else I see a picture where a car is turned left against a wall/fence. That is not exactly getting around a police car. So maybe she just aimed for the policeman just for the heck of it, or she made a steering error and the 'pinning situation' was accidental or maybe she was already shot. I simply don't have the facts that prove which of the multiple stories is the correct one. It is all just speculations. Therefore I choose to withhold my judgement one way or the other until the facts of this case are known.


http://www.9news.com/story/news/loc...ess-to-cop-shooting-tells-her-story/22449579/

"So maybe she just aimed for the policeman just for the heck of it, or she made a steering error and the 'pinning situation' was accidental or maybe she was already shot..."

In all 3 of the above scenarios, I can see the shootings as justified. I don't think any of the above means UNJUSTIFIED. JMO

 

[Yoda]

Gotcha.

 

[sherlockh]

But it doesn't even matter. She chose to put the vehicle in motion after she saw the cops.
So, IMO, it doesn't matter if she aimed the car at him or hit him while trying to go around the cop car... Her actions by putting that car in drive and pressing the accelerator caused his injury and could have very easily caused his death.

IMO that is a justifiable reason for the officers to try to stop the threat. Stopping the threat in that narrow alley, IMO, was to stop her. Period. She was the threat.

JMO

It matters a lot. See the DPD’s policy re LEO-shooting-at-moving-vehicles"
"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"

 

[katydid23]

It matters a lot. See the DPD’s policy re LEO-shooting-at-moving-vehicles"
"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"

Wait a minute...LOL Do you understand what the term 'UNLESS' means? Because there was a big ol UNLESS tacked on to the end of your statement.


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 and more of policy there

 

[sherlockh]

"So maybe she just aimed for the policeman just for the heck of it, or she made a steering error and the 'pinning situation' was accidental or maybe she was already shot..."

In all 3 of the above scenarios, I can see the shootings as justified. I don't think any of the above means UNJUSTIFIED. JMO

It doesn't. It simply means that I can think of many situations where the shootings were justified as well as where they were not justified. I can't prove any of them though.

 

[sherlockh]

Wait a minute...LOL Do you understand what the term 'UNLESS' means? Because there was a big ol UNLESS tacked on to the end of your statement.


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 and more of policy there

Yes I do. Do you understand what it means when you can't prove there was an unless?

 

[katydid23]

Yes I do. Do you understand what it means when you can't prove there was an unless?

Who says they can't prove the 'unless?' The witness already stated, publicly, that the officer was standing, pinned between the fleeing car and the fence. Sounds like the 'UNLESS' is proven right there. JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

It matters a lot. See the DPD’s policy re LEO-shooting-at-moving-vehicles"
"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"

That's the point I was making!
It was tight spacing. I don't think it was feasible for him to move out of the way. I don't think he had room to move out of the way.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

We are talking about an alley that is blocked off by a patrol vehicle. She didn't have room to go around the patrol car and he didn't have room to get out of the way. So, IMO it was not feasible for him to get out of the way.

So IMO he followed protocol.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

This view it appears you can see the bullet holes in the driver's window and looks like one in the rear drivers side window.

View attachment 68323
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/2015/01/27/teen-killed-in-denver-officer-involved-shooting/22408439/

Here is the picture again. The witness said she was trying to go around the patrol car. HOW on earth was she going to accomplish that? There is not enough room. And if the officer was between her and the fence, as stated by the witness, he had nowhere to go.

So he was pinned.

 

[MyBelle]

Who said they were guilty? Didn't they have loud music on? There can be innocent reasons for why they did not get out of the car. That is not a reason to start killing them. JMO.

Aiming a car at a cop is a reason to shoot. The tires didn't crank themselves to the left.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mother-girl-shot-denver-police-seeks-separate-autopsy-28570503

Geoffrey Alpert, a University of South Carolina expert on police use of force, said the threat perceived by an officer when he fires is more important than the way he is hurt.

"It's a very quickly moving situation, it's very fluid, and you have to look at it from the eye of the officer as things are developing," Alpert said. "Then you can evaluate the righteousness of the use of force based on those facts."

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Also from that link^^^^

A man reported the stolen car — a gray 2000 Honda Civic — missing from his apartment complex in Federal Heights, north of Denver, on Sunday night, according to a police report. The owner told police he had left it unlocked and returned to find it gone about two hours later.

 

[MyBelle]

I am arguing that their story doesn't checkout and that there are indications that the police wasn't very careful when they decided to start shooting. There is no evidence of a death threatening situation besides the claim of the police who would have claimed self defense either way. No way that car had any high speed and ran into that wall. The evidence is not there. The death threatening situation was long gone by the time the car reached the police man. Therefore the broken leg is not evidence of any death threatening situation. There should be a thorough investigation and if that turns up real evidence that the police actions were justified then so be it, but for now there is none and there is no reason to vilify a dead girl who can't defend herself. JMO.

There were two officers present and their testimony is admissible evidence. The photo showing the wheels were cranked sharp left is also admissible evidence. Wheels don't crank themselves. There always are thorough investigations in officer-involved shootings and there will be one in this case.

The person who is being vilified by some is the injured cop. There is no evidence he did anything wrong whatsoever.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Here is the picture again. The witness said she was trying to go around the patrol car. HOW on earth was she going to accomplish that? There is not enough room. And if the officer was between her and the fence, as stated by the witness, he had nowhere to go.

So he was pinned.

In the very early reports, it was said the cop was pinned between a brick wall, a fence, and the car. So when I first saw the picture, it became clear to me where he was probably standing. Right about where the car ended up wrecked.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

In the very early reports, it was said the cop was pinned between a brick wall, a fence, and the car. So when I first saw the picture, it became clear to me where he was probably standing. Right about where the car ended up wrecked.

I agree.

And it's odd the car ended up in the exact same place.
Very odd IMO

like it was aimed towards the exact spot.
What are the odds of the car veering by itself to the exact spot the officer was standing?

I think the odds of the driver aiming it is more likely. Especially since she talked a lot about "F" the popo. And resisted arrest in a way that could harm a state trooper three weeks prior to her death.

JMO

 

[sherlockh]

Who says they can't prove the 'unless?' The witness already stated, publicly, that the officer was standing, pinned between the fleeing car and the fence. Sounds like the 'UNLESS' is proven right there. JMO

Then the witness also proves that the driver was shot before the car moved and only hit the police because of the shootings? It remains to be seen if the police had any alternative and if they followed 'The Denver Police Department use-of-force policy for moving vehicles' which clearly says they should try to get out of the way first and not just start shooting. The witness does not prove that at all IMO.

 

[sherlockh]

Here is the picture again. The witness said she was trying to go around the patrol car. HOW on earth was she going to accomplish that? There is not enough room. And if the officer was between her and the fence, as stated by the witness, he had nowhere to go.

So he was pinned.

Makes no sense that the driver would choose to head for the wall. Makes more sense she was already shot and pulled the car to the left unconsciously. Either way, it is still all just speculations. We don't even know how fast the car went so how can anyone possibly state with certainty that the police officer couldn't get out of the way? JMO.

 

[katydid23]

Then the witness also proves that the driver was shot before the car moved and only hit the police because of the shootings? It remains to be seen if the police had any alternative and if they followed 'The Denver Police Department use-of-force policy for moving vehicles' which clearly says they should try to get out of the way first and not just start shooting. The witness does not prove that at all IMO.

No, that is not what the witness proves. The witness said the car was trying to flee and trying to fit between the cop car and the fence So if that is true, then the cops could not have fired until the car started moving.

And if the witness is correct, and the cop was pinned between the fence and the vehicle, then the cop had no place to go. Shooting was a justified option when one only has a split second to make a decision.