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

[liljim]

For clarification, are Denver police trained to shoot at moving vehicles? What other moving targets are they trained to shoot at?

landing 3 shots on a target inside a moving car is absolutely an exceptional feat, even if you emptied an entire large capacity magazine and regardless of distance.

 

[Fred Hall]

A murdered girl? Are you referring to the girl driving the stolen car---the girl out of jail that day for another stolen car and resisting arrest then too? The one who was stoned and drunk, while driving, and refusing orders to get out of the car? It is not like she was an innocent bystander. She even wrote on her twitter page that she felt like she was going to 'die by cop' one day.

I don't believe that any of these facts you list justify opening fire. Calling her stoned and drunk is an exaggeration, as she was below the legal limit and MJ persists in one's body for months. Her rap sheet suggests that she was a bane upon society but regretfully we can't shoot people for that I'm not claiming that she was an innocent bystander, I'm suggesting that the situation may not have called for gunfire. Merely refusing to get out of a car is not sufficient cause to open fire. Jerking the wheel around and gunning the engine is the sole condition that would justify shooting, and I can't think of any aspect of physical evidence that would allow the investigators to determine whether that happened before the shots were fired, a malicious act, or whether it happened after, as a result of the girl's dying spasms. The passengers are all juvenile delinquents but they have no pressing reason to lie, short of saving face. The officers on the other hand have a corpse to explain away.

 

[katydid23]

For clarification, are Denver police trained to shoot at moving vehicles? What other moving targets are they trained to shoot at?

They are trained for moving targets, not necessarily vehicles. It is assumed that whomever they are shooting at is not necessarily going to be stationary.

 

[katydid23]

landing 3 shots on a target inside a moving car is absolutely an exceptional feat, even if you emptied an entire large capacity magazine and regardless of distance.

I disagree that it is considered an 'exceptional feat.' LE trains for years to do exactly that---hit a large moving target.. It is not extraordinary or amazing. It is expected.

 

[katydid23]

I don't believe that any of these facts you list justify opening fire. Calling her stoned and drunk is an exaggeration, as she was below the legal limit and MJ persists in one's body for months. Her rap sheet suggests that she was a bane upon society but regretfully we can't shoot people for that I'm not claiming that she was an innocent bystander, I'm suggesting that the situation may not have called for gunfire. Merely refusing to get out of a car is not sufficient cause to open fire. Jerking the wheel around and gunning the engine is the sole condition that would justify shooting, and I can't think of any aspect of physical evidence that would allow the investigators to determine whether that happened before the shots were fired, a malicious act, or whether it happened after, as a result of the girl's dying spasms. The passengers are all juvenile delinquents but they have no pressing reason to lie, short of saving face. The officers on the other hand have a corpse to explain away.

One of the juvenile defendants already reported that she drove away, trying to escape the cops and that one of the cops was trapped between the car and a fence. And as you said, they had no pressing reason to lie.

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

"They came from the back, speeding," the witness who wished to remain anonymous told 9News. "Jessie tried to drive away. They shot the window. When they walked up, they shot at her window and they shot her."

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.

[ so according to the teen witness, the cops came up, then SHE TRIED TO DRIVE AWAY, then they shot at her from the side window---and she lost control, and went into the pinned officer...]

 

[katydid23]

I don't believe that any of these facts you list justify opening fire. Calling her stoned and drunk is an exaggeration, as she was below the legal limit and MJ persists in one's body for months. Her rap sheet suggests that she was a bane upon society but regretfully we can't shoot people for that I'm not claiming that she was an innocent bystander, I'm suggesting that the situation may not have called for gunfire. Merely refusing to get out of a car is not sufficient cause to open fire. Jerking the wheel around and gunning the engine is the sole condition that would justify shooting, and I can't think of any aspect of physical evidence that would allow the investigators to determine whether that happened before the shots were fired, a malicious act, or whether it happened after, as a result of the girl's dying spasms. The passengers are all juvenile delinquents but they have no pressing reason to lie, short of saving face. The officers on the other hand have a corpse to explain away.

It does not matter if she was 'below' the legal limit. She can not be 'below the legal limit' because of her age. She has NO LEGAL LIMIT to drink and drive.

As for calling for gunfire, how do you know there was no call for gunfire? You are basing your decision on 20/20 hindsight. But the cops had sight of a stolen car, full of passengers, and none would comply with their orders to step out. At that point they had no idea who was inside the car and if they were armed and dangerous or not. Then the driver began trying to escape, driving towards the fence, with the officer trapped between the car and the fence.

Were they supposed to IGNORE that danger and assume it was 'harmless' teens out on a joy ride?

 

[katydid23]

Also, how does the cop know if the car was a carjacking and the owner is being held hostage? Are they supposed to just let the driver drive off, because they MIGHT be a 'harmless' teen girl, drunk and stoned but not armed?

 

[Fred Hall]

"Journalist seemed to think" fractured was broken, then 'broken' was repeated in other MSM.
I'm not sure what journalist thought but see what journalist did -
substituted an inaccurate conclusion for what LE stated.

Respectfully, if LE chief or spokesman stated 'LEO at scene had fractured leg,' and
if journalist wrote in article 'LEO was dead,' and other MSM repeated that,
does it change nature of LEO's actual injury? Does it place responsibility for inaccuracy on LE?
Not in my mind, but JM2cts.

Legal issue is LEOs' perception of situation at the time, not whether later determination leg was fractured or broken.
Is there any doubt that that vehicle (whatever it was, I've forgotten) - was capable - when moving -
of causing serious physical injury or death to that LEO or another person at the time when LEO(s) fired?

Thx Fred Hall, for joining thread.
Lots of different opinions and viewpoints. Interesting for me to read them your and others.

I absolutely agree with you. The DPD is not responsible for other people's journalistic failings. However, while a doctor might diagnose a jogger's sore ankle to be technically a fracture, I can't help but think that most medical laymen use fracture and break interchangeably. Probably Chief White was using the terminology that he had been giving in a medical report, but perhaps a clarification by him might be in order? If we discover that the officer's injury was a stress fracture or sprained ankle I think it will be at odds with what most people understood Chief White's words to mean.

 

[katydid23]

I absolutely agree with you. The DPD is not responsible for other people's journalistic failings. However, while a doctor might diagnose a jogger's sore ankle to be technically a fracture, I can't help but think that most medical laymen use fracture and break interchangeably. Probably Chief White was using the terminology that he had been giving in a medical report, but perhaps a clarification by him might be in order? If we discover that the officer's injury was a stress fracture or sprained ankle I think it will be at odds with what most people understood Chief White's words to mean.

What difference does it make if it was a fracture , a sprain, or a clean break? Why would it matter?

 

[Fred Hall]

It does not matter if she was 'below' the legal limit. She can not be 'below the legal limit' because of her age. She has NO LEGAL LIMIT to drink and drive.

As for calling for gunfire, how do you know there was no call for gunfire? You are basing your decision on 20/20 hindsight. But the cops had sight of a stolen car, full of passengers, and none would comply with their orders to step out. At that point they had no idea who was inside the car and if they were armed and dangerous or not. Then the driver began trying to escape, driving towards the fence, with the officer trapped between the car and the fence.

Were they supposed to IGNORE that danger and assume it was 'harmless' teens out on a joy ride?

Underage drinking is cause to open fire? None of us would be here now if that were the case Attempting to flee by itself is not justification to shoot, the real question is whether the car turned towards the officer before or after the driver was shot.

 

[CoolJ]

FYI there is no difference between "broken" and "fractured"
Fractured = medical terminology
Broken = laymens terms

But I don't think it really matters whether leg was fractured or not. UNLESS it is a lie. It would sure matter then.

And it doesn't matter one bit if this girl was drunk, stoned, car thief, murderer or rapist. What matters is whether or not she used the vehicle as a weapon.
If she was merely trying to get away, this was an unjustified shooting and therefore straight up murder.
If she was driving directly at the LEO with foot on the gas pedal then it was justified. That is what needs to be determined.
It is notable however that there had been 4 shootings by DPD in the previous 6 months with the victim supposedly using a vehicle as a threat.

 

[Fred Hall]

Also, how does the cop know if the car was a carjacking and the owner is being held hostage? Are they supposed to just let the driver drive off, because they MIGHT be a 'harmless' teen girl, drunk and stoned but not armed?

I find this astounding. Officers should open fire on any suspicious car that begins to drive away when approached? We are discussing Denver, not Baghdad.

 

[Fred Hall]

What difference does it make if it was a fracture , a sprain, or a clean break? Why would it matter?

I think there may have been a different public response initially if it had been stated that the officer's injury was minor and that he was ambulatory. I think that most laymen would have heard "fracture" and thought "plaster cast".

 

[liljim]

They are trained for moving targets, not necessarily vehicles. It is assumed that whomever they are shooting at is not necessarily going to be stationary.

we have had this discussion before (not you and i, but on websleuths) and it never seems to be productive.

in virtually any shooting scenario police miss more shots than they land on targets. hitting a target right in front of you 4 or 5 times out 10 is considered good in an on the job shooting incident.

and in any scenario that is difficult (ie moving target, target inside a vehicle, or in this case target both inside a vehicle and vehicle moving) the hit ratio drops off markedly.

this isnt a slight towards police and their training, or an opinion, it is a fact proven true by years of statistics.

 

[Woodland]

They are trained for moving targets, not necessarily vehicles. It is assumed that whomever they are shooting at is not necessarily going to be stationary.

So far we don't know that Denver Police are trained to shoot at moving targets - no links. What we do know is, early in the thread there is a link to Denver Police having a policy against shooting at moving vehicles. That should be kept in mind when discussing justification. Jmo.

 

[MyBelle]

I don't believe that any of these facts you list justify opening fire. Calling her stoned and drunk is an exaggeration, as she was below the legal limit and MJ persists in one's body for months. Her rap sheet suggests that she was a bane upon society but regretfully we can't shoot people for that I'm not claiming that she was an innocent bystander, I'm suggesting that the situation may not have called for gunfire. Merely refusing to get out of a car is not sufficient cause to open fire. Jerking the wheel around and gunning the engine is the sole condition that would justify shooting, and I can't think of any aspect of physical evidence that would allow the investigators to determine whether that happened before the shots were fired, a malicious act, or whether it happened after, as a result of the girl's dying spasms. The passengers are all juvenile delinquents but they have no pressing reason to lie, short of saving face. The officers on the other hand have a corpse to explain away.

There is no "legal limit" for someone under 21. It's illegal. Period. That said, police had no way of knowing her age nor did it matter. The car was stolen, the group refused the order to get out and she was attempting to flee. Two officers came to the same conclusion that she needed to be stopped before she endangered other motorists with the vehicle.


JMO

 

[Woodland]

One of the juvenile defendants already reported that she drove away, trying to escape the cops and that one of the cops was trapped between the car and a fence. And as you said, they had no pressing reason to lie.

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

"They came from the back, speeding," the witness who wished to remain anonymous told 9News. "Jessie tried to drive away. They shot the window. When they walked up, they shot at her window and they shot her."

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.

[ so according to the teen witness, the cops came up, then SHE TRIED TO DRIVE AWAY, then they shot at her from the side window---and she lost control, and went into the pinned officer...]

Have always found this teen's statement intriguing vs DP version of events. A lot of 'they' - as in more than one officer.
They came from the back.
They shot the window.
When they walked up, they shot at her window and they shot her.

So how did the officer get pinned at the front of the car when they shot through the drivers window? What does pinned mean?

 

[hockeymom4]

I disagree that it is considered an 'exceptional feat.' LE trains for years to do exactly that---hit a large moving target.. It is not extraordinary or amazing. It is expected.

Exactly. I live in a big city. I, sadly, know of several instances where this has happened. "The car becomes a weapon when drove at an officer," this has been said by numerous police departments all over and is very accurate. I don't want to disclose my location so I am not going to link an article from my city, but there are no shortage of them across the U.S.

if you look you will see LE is expected to do this. They put their lives on the line everyday to protect ours. Every. Single. Second. Many die. But, when a weapon is being driven at them they should just get hit? Let the car continue on and possibly kill insane people? Gosh could you imagine the blame they would get. No, in a split second (they are good), they react and shoot as expected and trained. They most certainly deserve to protect themselves AND continue to protect the rest of us!

 

[MyBelle]

So far we don't know that Denver Police are trained to shoot at moving targets - no links. What we do know is, early in the thread there is a link to Denver Police having a policy against shooting at moving vehicles. That should be kept in mind when discussing justification. Jmo.

The policy has nothing to do with lack of training and in this case, the officers were successful at hitting their intended target.

JMO

 

[hockeymom4]

So far we don't know that Denver Police are trained to shoot at moving targets - no links. What we do know is, early in the thread there is a link to Denver Police having a policy against shooting at moving vehicles. That should be kept in mind when discussing justification. Jmo.

Please post that link as I have one that says the exact opposite.