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

[katydid23]

The witness said JH was attempting to flee didn't she? I will have a look again at the quote....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-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.

 

[hockeymom4]

First, this is what you said initially.

Post #38, page 2 of this thread. Denver Post article - last few paragraphs outline the policy.

The officers should get out of the way - however there is the usual exception of imminent threat. We don't know yet what, if any, imminent threat existed.

I have quoted the policy of the U.S. Supreme Court and quoted the Police Chief of Denver. What you said above is NOT that. What you actually said is as follows:

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.

That statement is not true. They do not have a policy against shooting at vehicles. I provided you links from the Chief himself that contradicts this statement. There is no policy that says that are not allowed to do so.

Here is actually what how the policy reads.

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.

b. Firing from a moving vehicle: Accuracy may be severely impacted when firing from a moving vehicle, and firing from a moving vehicle may increase the risk of harm to officers or other citizens. Officers should not fire from a moving vehicle except in self defense or defense of another from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

(6) Above all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern when the use of force is considered.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27412773/denver-police-id-officers-fatal-shooting-unarmed-teen

I am so glad I read this because now I know that IF they deem him to have been in danger he was allowed to fire, based on policy. Before I thought he was breaking policy based on your statement saying it is against policy to shoot at moving vehicles.

 

[Fred Hall]

from Fred Hall post ~623
"Apparently there exists amateur footage of the immediate aftermath of the shooting. I wonder if it will be released to the public when the investigation is complete? It will of course show the injured officer on the ground, clutching his broken leg :loser: " bbm

I don't particularly wonder what the footage shows, because I believe it is not legally relevant to the question of whether these shootings by these LEOs that day were justified.

People - and there are at least a couple here - who continue discussing LEO's injury/death or lack thereof as if it an important, crucial, critical, vital element in deciding whether LEO shooting was justified.

Can someone -
please quote & link CO statute re self defense and/or Denver PD policy stating that
LEO's injury or death is a factor in determining whether an LEO's use of firearm was justified?

Upthread, I've posted & linked CO law & Denver PD policy about shooting moving vehicles, in which I can find no reference to LEO's injuries or death as relevant to question of justification
in LEO use of force. What am I missing? Where are those references that I've not found?

Please? Anyone? Thx in adv.

I don't presume that injuries are necessary to legally justify shootings, my interest is in the way in which the initial public concern was countered with the claim by the DPD that an officer had been injured. I'm thinking in terms of public relations. Hedge, obfuscate, buy time until the public has lost interest then release the official report when everyone has forgotten the case.

 

[CoolJ]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-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.

I guess we are reading the same thing and getting a very different viewpoint .... Sounds to me, IF this witness is to be believed, that the reason JH hit the cop was BECAUSE she was shot by his fellow officers. They caused her to lose control.

I'm really confused here how you can get that JH was aiming for the LEO from this quote?? Help me out here?

 

[katydid23]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-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.

when you read the statement above, it is clear that JH drove away first, then was shot. And if you look at the photo you can see where the officer was standing because of the way it was said he was trapped. Between a fence, a brick wall and the fleeing car. That is exactly where the car came to a crashing halt.

People keep saying 'she lost control when she was shot, so that is WHY she hit the cop.' I disagree. She could not have changed the cars direction very much at all after she was shot. Maybe it swerved left or right a bit. But the direction overall, did not change. She was ALWAYS heading in the trapped cops directions.

If a car was being driven by a fleeing felon and you were the cop that it was heading towards, would you want the fleeing suspect to be conscious and have their foot on the gas and their hands on the wheel? Or would it be better if they had no ability to target you purposely?

 

[hockeymom4]

from Fred Hall post ~623
"Apparently there exists amateur footage of the immediate aftermath of the shooting. I wonder if it will be released to the public when the investigation is complete? It will of course show the injured officer on the ground, clutching his broken leg :loser: " bbm

I don't particularly wonder what the footage shows, because I believe it is not legally relevant to the question of whether these shootings by these LEOs that day were justified.

People - and there are at least a couple here - who continue discussing LEO's injury/death or lack thereof as if it an important, crucial, critical, vital element in deciding whether LEO shooting was justified.

Can someone -
please quote & link CO statute re self defense and/or Denver PD policy stating that
LEO's injury or death is a factor in determining whether an LEO's use of firearm was justified?

Upthread, I've posted & linked CO law & Denver PD policy about shooting moving vehicles, in which I can find no reference to LEO's injuries or death as relevant to question of justification
in LEO use of force. What am I missing? Where are those references that I've not found?

Please? Anyone? Thx in adv.

I quoted the Denver policy on firing at a moving vehicle in post 682. Not saying this to you, but in general, when the weapon (what it has become) is coming at the officer and they feel their life in danger, they shoot so that they don't get injured or die. Of course I am sure many do get injured, but I am sure many do not. They are in danger so they are protecting themselves.

I think of it no different than when someone pulls a gun on an officer. Do they need to be injured or die for it to be a justified shooting? Goodness could you imagine.

 

[Woodland]

With all due respect katydid23, you are posting your speculation and assumption as fact. A picture taken after an incident, does not tell how an incident unfolded.

 

[CoolJ]

when you read the statement above, it is clear that JH drove away first, then was shot. And if you look at the photo you can see where the officer was standing because of the way it was said he was trapped. Between a fence, a brick wall and the fleeing car. That is exactly where the car came to a crashing halt.

People keep saying 'she lost control when she was shot, so that is WHY she hit the cop.' I disagree. She could not have changed the cars direction very much at all after she was shot. Maybe it swerved left or right a bit. But the direction overall, did not change. She was ALWAYS heading in the trapped cops directions.

If a car was being driven by a fleeing felon and you were the cop that it was heading towards, would you want the fleeing suspect to be conscious and have their foot on the gas and their hands on the wheel? Or would it be better if they had no ability to target you purposely?

So you agree with the witness...but only the parts bolded by you? The rest, where she says JH lost control is not believable?

 

[katydid23]

I guess we are reading the same thing and getting a very different viewpoint .... Sounds to me, IF this witness is to be believed, that the reason JH hit the cop was BECAUSE she was shot by his fellow officers. They caused her to lose control.

Look at the picture of the crime scene. there was a very small space that was available to her to try and drive through. And that space, by the fence and brick wall, was right where she crashed. Her car was ALREADY heading in that direction when she was shot. That is why she was shot. She was driving towards that small space where the cop was standing.

Once she was shot she would not have been able to change the direction of her car. It might have turned slightly right or left---but general direction never could have changed. JMO

 

[katydid23]

So you agree with the witness...but only the parts bolded by you? The rest, where she says JH lost control is not believable?

Of course she lost control. She was unconscious. But she was already heading towards the cop, imo. Obviously she could not stop the car, thus she ad no control. But she also could not target him and step on the gas. and kill him.

 

[Fred Hall]

After she was shot she could not have turned the car in the opposite direction. She was clearly driving towards the officer when she began to flee.

Was she driving towards him or was she driving past him? The claim seems to be that, instead of making her getaway down the lane, she deliberately and intentionally steered towards an officer who was standing in front of a brick wall.

 

[CoolJ]

Look at the picture of the crime scene. there was a very small space that was available to her to try and drive through. And that space, by the fence and brick wall, was right where she crashed. Her car was ALREADY heading in that direction when she was shot. That is why she was shot. She was driving towards that small space where the cop was standing.

Once she was shot she would not have been able to change the direction of her car. It might have turned slightly right or left---but general direction never could have changed. JMO

Not sure how one would spontaneously react in this situation... Never been shot while driving before but I would assume I would swerve a little more than "slightly left or right"

 

[katydid23]

With all due respect katydid23, you are posting your speculation and assumption as fact. A picture taken after an incident, does not tell how an incident unfolded.

Feel free to scroll on past. I am discussing and speculating, based upon the crime scene photos and the various witness statements. You do not need to agree.

 

[CoolJ]

Of course she lost control. She was unconscious. But she was already heading towards the cop, imo. Obviously she could not stop the car, thus she ad no control. But she also could not target him and step on the gas. and kill him.

But the witness, who you seem to believe, did not say that. She said she was trying to drive away. Not drive directly into the LEO.

 

[katydid23]

Not sure how one would spontaneously react in this situation... Never been shot while driving before but I would assume I would swerve a little more than "slightly left or right"

but IMO your car would not change direction totally. Her car had to be heading towards the cop before she was shot if it was heading in the same general direction afterwards, IMO.

 

[katydid23]

But the witness, who you seem to believe, did not say that. She said she was trying to drive away. Not drive directly into the LEO.

But look at the picture. The only way out was towards the LEO. A very tiny space was available for her to flee through.

 

[Fred Hall]

when you read the statement above, it is clear that JH drove away first, then was shot. And if you look at the photo you can see where the officer was standing because of the way it was said he was trapped. Between a fence, a brick wall and the fleeing car. That is exactly where the car came to a crashing halt.

People keep saying 'she lost control when she was shot, so that is WHY she hit the cop.' I disagree. She could not have changed the cars direction very much at all after she was shot. Maybe it swerved left or right a bit. But the direction overall, did not change. She was ALWAYS heading in the trapped cops directions.

If a car was being driven by a fleeing felon and you were the cop that it was heading towards, would you want the fleeing suspect to be conscious and have their foot on the gas and their hands on the wheel? Or would it be better if they had no ability to target you purposely?

Technically a felon is someone who has been convicted of a felony. While it is likely that the girl had committed the felony of car theft, she was not convicted, due to being shot dead rather than taken alive.

 

[CoolJ]

but IMO your car would not change direction totally. Her car had to be heading towards the cop before she was shot if it was heading in the same general direction afterwards, IMO.

I don't know about that. Not disagreeing with you, you could be right. Just no way to prove that with the information we have. Right now, I tend to believe she was just trying to get away.

 

[katydid23]

Was she driving towards him or was she driving past him? The claim seems to be that, instead of making her getaway down the lane, she deliberately and intentionally steered towards an officer who was standing in front of a brick wall.

Have you seen the crime scene photos? There was a very tiny area available for her to manuveur through. And she took off fast, IN HIS DIRECTION. If she continued in that same way she would have hit him. And IN FACT she did hit him.

 

[katydid23]

I don't know about that. Not disagreeing with you, you could be right. Just no way to prove that with the information we have. Right now, I tend to believe she was just trying to get away.

Is it believable that she would never have hit him, was going no where near him, but they shot for NO REASON and then she hit him after she was shot?