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

[sherlockh]

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.

The witness clearly said the driver got shot before the pinning. Whether the police officer could get out of the way depends on the speed of the car and the time the police officer had to move out of the way. We have no evidence it took a 'split second'. This is nothing more than speculations and certainly does not prove the 'officer could not get out of the way'. It is possible the car moved so slowly that the police officer chose to stay in front of the car where he had a better aim, and did not realize himself getting pinned against a wall/fence behind him. In this situation it was feasible for him to get out of the way but he chose not to do this. The police is at fault and in violation of the use-of-force policy. JMO.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

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.

It would make sense if she were aiming at an officer standing by the wall.

And I don't think anyone has stated with certainty that the police officer couldn't get out of the way. I think people used terms like "I think" and "IMO" and "JMO". All of which state opinions, not certainty.

Just as your statement "The police is at fault and in violation of the use-of-force policy. JMO."



JMO

 

[sherlockh]

It would make sense if she were aiming at an officer standing by the wall.

And I don't think anyone has stated with certainty that the police officer couldn't get out of the way. I think people used terms like "I think" and "IMO" and "JMO". All of which state opinions, not certainty.

Just as your statement "The police is at fault and in violation of the use-of-force policy. JMO."

JMO

I am asking for real proof. Not opinions of proof that turn out to be just speculations. Without real proof I choose to keep an open mind about this case. I don't understand why anybody would choose differently without real proof but so be it.

 

[katydid23]

I am asking for real proof. Not opinions of proof that turn out to be just speculations. Without real proof I choose to keep an open mind about this case. I don't understand why anybody would choose differently without real proof but so be it.

I choose to give the officers, in this particular case, the benefit of the doubt. I compare their version of events,to the witnesses versions, and they are pretty much in sync.

For it to be an unjustified shooting, the cops would have to have executed a 17 yr old girl, for no apparent reason in front of 4 witnesses. And I see nothing so far that makes that seem likely, imo.

 

[MyBelle]

The witness clearly said the driver got shot before the pinning. Whether the police officer could get out of the way depends on the speed of the car and the time the police officer had to move out of the way. We have no evidence it took a 'split second'. This is nothing more than speculations and certainly does not prove the 'officer could not get out of the way'. It is possible the car moved so slowly that the police officer chose to stay in front of the car where he had a better aim, and did not realize himself getting pinned against a wall/fence behind him. In this situation it was feasible for him to get out of the way but he chose not to do this. The police is at fault and in violation of the use-of-force policy. JMO.

Teenage witnesses out after curfew, refusing to exit a stolen car can say whatever they want but that doesn't mean a jury of Denver's citizens convened to hear the inevitable civil lawsuit that will be filed by the family will find them credible. One consistent trait of criminals is that they do lie in order to try to blame someone else.

You state the officer did not move out of the way yet the fact he suffered only an injury to one leg is an indication he was attempting to get out of the way and wasn't directly in front of the vehicle. The driver was shot through the side window.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

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.

I think it is impossible for an unconscious person to rotate a steering wheel with enough force to turn the direction of the wheels.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

Why? Because the police says so? Their shots were a bit too perfect for the car to have a high speed. It looks like they started shooting as soon as the car moved and had plenty of time to aim. Besides the car would have gone straight through the fence if it had any speed by then. The police guy probably just didn't notice the fence behind him and slipped, because he was too busy shooting an already dead girl by then. Sorry, but the whole story of a speeding car coming at them doesn't ring true. JMO.

"It looks like they started shooting as soon as the car moved and had plenty of time to aim."

I bet they did start shooting as soon as the car moved. I think that was justified because of the close quarters.

"The police guy probably just didn't notice the fence behind him and slipped..."

He may have slipped, but I am sure he noticed the fence behind him. Cops are very aware of their circumstances. Especially when trying to arrest 5 suspects in a stolen car.


"Sorry, but the whole story of a speeding car coming at them doesn't ring true. JMO."

You are right about that. No one said anything about a speeding car. They said a moving car.

 

[sherlockh]

Teenage witnesses out after curfew, refusing to exit a stolen car can say whatever they want but that doesn't mean a jury of Denver's citizens convened to hear the inevitable civil lawsuit that will be filed by the family will find them credible. One consistent trait of criminals is that they do lie in order to try to blame someone else.

You state the officer did not move out of the way yet the fact he suffered only an injury to one leg is an indication he was attempting to get out of the way and wasn't directly in front of the vehicle. The driver was shot through the side window.

JMO

I have no idea who is lying or not. There are 4 witnesses in the car. I doubt they are smart enough to coordinate a lie that good. Besides questioning them, I hope forensics can show exactly what happened. I only sketched a possible scenario where the police are not allowed to open fire. He might have attempted to get out of the way at the last moment, but was it feasible for him to get out of the way at any moment? That question can't be answered without more info. If he got out of the way and hurt his leg then this means his life was no longer in danger, and from that moment any shooting would have been unjustified. Did that happen? He should never put himself in the path of a vehicle that could pose a risk. Did that happen? There is plenty to investigate before one can draw conclusions IMO.

Anyway, it is good that people discuss the policy and that there might be changes ahead. The first signs are there.
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/2...llow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

 

[MyBelle]

I have no idea who is lying or not. There are 4 witnesses in the car. I doubt they are smart enough to coordinate a lie that good. Besides questioning them, I hope forensics can show exactly what happened. I only sketched a possible scenario where the police are not allowed to open fire. He might have attempted to get out of the way at the last moment, but was it feasible for him to get out of the way at any moment? That question can't be answered without more info. If he got out of the way and hurt his leg then this means his life was no longer in danger, and from that moment any shooting would have been unjustified. Did that happen? He should never put himself in the path of a vehicle that could pose a risk. Did that happen? There is plenty to investigate before one can draw conclusions IMO.

Anyway, it is good that people discuss the policy and that there might be changes ahead. The first signs are there.
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/2...llow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll

You doubt four teens out after curfew, who are riding in a stolen car are capable of formulating a lie after the fact? Really? I don't share your doubt.

If the officer got out of the way and injured his leg that doesn't mean he knew his life was no longer in danger. Neither he nor his colleague had any idea whether a person iin the car had a lethal weapon such as a gun.

I have sufficient facts with which to draw a conclusion that this was a justifiable officer shooting.
JMO

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Is it possible there's confusion regarding which officer it was that shot the criminal? I'm of the impression that some may think that the officer in which the criminal struck is the one that discharged his gun, however I'm of the belief that the officers reporting as backup to the situation are the ones that shot the criminal (through the side window). I believe they did that as the criminal struck the original officer (responding to the suspicious vehicle call). That car was stolen and was being used as a deadly weapon much in the same way terrorists stole and steered those planes (as deadly weapons) into the WTC & Pentagon. As far as I'm concerned, those officers that shot the criminal may have saved many lives given the criminal's track record...including the friends she had in the stolen car with her.

I wonder why NONE of the parents reported their teens out after curfew. Did they let them stay out all night long? Did they give them all permission to stay out all night long? That's neglect.

 

[MyBelle]

Is it possible there's confusion regarding which officer it was that shot the criminal? I'm of the impression that some may think that the officer in which the criminal struck is the one that discharged his gun, however I'm of the belief that the officers reporting as backup to the situation are the ones that shot the criminal (through the side window). I believe they did that as the criminal struck the original officer (responding to the suspicious vehicle call). That car was stolen and was being used as a deadly weapon much in the same way terrorists stole and steered those planes (as deadly weapons) into the WTC & Pentagon. As far as I'm concerned, those officers that shot the criminal may have saved many lives given the criminal's track record...including the friends she had in the stolen car with her.

I wonder why NONE of the parents reported their teens out after curfew. dis they let them stay out all night long? Did they give them all permission to stay out all night long? That's neglect.

Of course it is possible there is confusion but I doubt that is the reason some question the officers actions. I think such questions totally rest with the desire to place blame and to obtain financial compensation.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

I think that it should be illegal for people to incite riotous situations by manipulating criminal acts into something more innocent or normal. We have laws in place so as to prevent living in discord. The more that people continue to do these things, the more likely we are to end up in some sort of farout dystopian society. We have to adhere to appropriate laws in order to have our freedoms. I love our freedom of speech and all but sometimes I wish people that run their mouths to cause dissension could be stifled. I'm of the belief they should be incarcerated sometimes, much in the same way murderers, rapists & thieves are. The tongue is a wicked thing.

Fact: Abide by the law and you won't get in trouble.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

http://www.9news.com/story/news/loc...olved-in-jessica-hernandez-shooting/22487703/

DPD identifies officers involved in teen shooting
Robert Garrison, KUSA 7:37 p.m. MST January 29, 2015

Denver Police Chief Robert White said Hernandez was shot after the stolen car she was in hit one of his officers.

"As they approached [the car], the driver of the vehicle struck the original officer at which time the officers fired several shots," he said.

 

[Jersey*Girl]

Key point...

Denver Police policy on discharge of firearms
http://www.scribd.com/doc/254025851

 

[ninij9]

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.

Yes! I agree, good point. this is my perception also, which is why she shouldn't have put the car in to drive putting him in grave danger.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I am asking for real proof. Not opinions of proof that turn out to be just speculations. Without real proof I choose to keep an open mind about this case. I don't understand why anybody would choose differently without real proof but so be it.

That's your choice.

I'm discussing and sharing my opinion. That's kinda what we do here.

 

[ninij9]

I think that it should be illegal for people to incite riotous situations by manipulating criminal acts into something more innocent or normal. We have laws in place so as to prevent living in discord. The more that people continue to do these things, the more likely we are to end up in some sort of farout dystopian society. We have to adhere to appropriate laws in order to have our freedoms. I love our freedom of speech and all but sometimes I wish people that run their mouths to cause dissension could be stifled. I'm of the belief they should be incarcerated sometimes, much in the same way murderers, rapists & thieves are. The tongue is a wicked thing.

Fact: Abide by the law and you won't get in trouble.

BAM. YES. THIS. ::thank you::

 

[TrackerSam]

I think that it should be illegal for people to incite riotous situations by manipulating criminal acts into something more innocent or normal. We have laws in place so as to prevent living in discord. The more that people continue to do these things, the more likely we are to end up in some sort of farout dystopian society. We have to adhere to appropriate laws in order to have our freedoms. I love our freedom of speech and all but sometimes I wish people that run their mouths to cause dissension could be stifled. I'm of the belief they should be incarcerated sometimes, much in the same way murderers, rapists & thieves are. The tongue is a wicked thing.

Fact: Abide by the law and you won't get in trouble.

Free speech entails all speech, not just popular speech. How would you decide who has a voice?

 

[Woodland]

In this raw news video the day of the shooting, A reporter asks the chief if the officer was struck before shots were fired. The chief reponds he doesn't know and the investigation will determine that.

So media put out an original story that is misleading, knowing full well that the chief clarified it would be determined when the shots were fired. SMH

http://youtu.be/WrNi8GreqZQ

In response to post #533, for clarification.

 

[AZmom1980]

While I do feel bad for Jessica's family, I feel that this shooting was justified. I honestly don't know what people expect the officer to do in this situation. When there's a 3,000 pound weapon coming at you, pepper spray won't stop it, rubber bullets won't stop it, and a taser would not stop it. What else was he suppose to do? Jessica hit him once, who's to say that she wouldn't hit him again?

I'm having a very hard time believing the other passengers stories. I don't believe that the officer just started firing into the vehicle because Jessica would not get out. That doesn't make any sense.