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

[katydid23]

When people discuss police /civilian altercations, they often try to look at it as if both parties are civilians. But it is not that way legally. Cops have different rules and regulations. They need to because of their specific situation. Cops are LEGALLY allowed to move one level higher in defending themselves.

If someone begins to fight with a guy in a bar, the guy is not allowed to pull out a weapon and shoot. You need to fight back with appropriate response. But a cop CAN LEGALLY DO SO before a civilian can. That is the way it is and the way it needs to be. We give them those rights so they can do their job. Otherwise who'd want that job?

There seems to be a social movement that wants to make it 'equal.' An escaping felon is supposed to be given the right to punch a cop in the face and wrestle with him, and the cop is just supposed to wrestle around and fight like he is another kid on the schoolyard, just so it's 'fair.' :rolleyes.:

 

[Fred Hall]

Why would it be manslaughter if they began shooting when she began driving? Are they supposed to wait until she is accelerating and it is too late?

It is routine protocol to control the scene by putting on the cuffs during an altercation. They dont know if she is armed or not.

Cops are trained to err on the side of caution. They have certain protocol drilled into them that gives them the tactical advantage. If you are the one going into battle everyday, as they are required to do, you need that or you will be the dead one.

The cops are not the ones 'starting' the confrontations. JH started this one by stealing a car, drinking/drugging illegally, going for a drive all night, and refusing to comply when caught. She started this entire process. So it ended badly because the cards are stacked against her. Cops have the tactical advantage and they always will. If someone starts driving at one of them that is trapped, they are LEGALLY allowed to open fire. That is not manslaughter.

Shooting someone dead is erring on the side of caution? And soldiers go into battle. Cops go to work.

 

[katydid23]

Shooting someone dead is erring on the side of caution? And soldiers go into battle. Cops go to work.

Cops go to battle too. You may not think so but they do. And if they don't act like they are in battle they die prematurely.

And YES, shooting someone dead is erring on the side of caution. When that someone is doing something dangerous that can cause your death or someone else's, it is.

You may not see them as soldiers, but they are put in that position about 5% of the time. The problem is, they don't know WHICH 5% it is going to be. The threat to them comes out of nowhere, suddenly. It is a very stressful way to spend your 8 hour shift.

Tell me another job where the employees are routinely ambushed and killed by strangers and people shrug?

 

[katydid23]

If JH was shot when putting the car into drive, and the car was stationary or nearly stationary, then she wasn't aiming the car at an officer. No justification for shooting her, imo.

I say it is a justified shoot if they are commanding her to STOP and she puts it in Drive and begins to go. The shooting would commence as the car is taking off. The cop in danger was very close to the car, so they could not wait .

 

[Fred Hall]

Cops go to battle too. You may not think so but they do. And if they don't act like they are in battle they die prematurely.

And YES, shooting someone dead is erring on the side of caution. When that someone is doing something dangerous that can cause your death or someone else's, it is.

You may not see them as soldiers, but they are put in that position about 5% of the time. The problem is, they don't know WHICH 5% it is going to be. The threat to them comes out of nowhere, suddenly. It is a very stressful way to spend your 8 hour shift.

Tell me another job where the employees are routinely ambushed and killed by strangers and people shrug?

Cops go into battle in the same sense that I return to the salt mines. I think that a police chief would hesitate to describe his officers as "going into battle" in front of the media. It would be a little, y'know, weird.

 

[Fred Hall]

I say it is a justified shoot if they are commanding her to STOP and she puts it in Drive and begins to go. The shooting would commence as the car is taking off. The cop in danger was very close to the car, so they could not wait .

An officer was standing in front of a parked car in spite of all his training not to do so?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Shooting someone dead is erring on the side of caution? And soldiers go into battle. Cops go to work.

You don't think their "work" is a battle?

Well then.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

And they do all they do to protect US!
They risk their lives on a daily basis to protect US!
They kiss their kids goodbye and go to "work" to protect our children, knowing they may never kiss their kids again.

And some people act like they are just punching a time clock. That is absurd IMO.

When a cop tells you to get out of a car, get out of the car.
When a cop tells you to get out of the street, get out of the street.
When a cop tells you to drop your shovel, drop your shovel.

You see, cops are armed for a reason. To protect themselves and innocent civilians. If you punch a cop in the face repeatedly, you are committing suicide. When you aim your car at a cop, you are committing suicide.

I saw a picture on FB the other day and it would be funny if it weren't so sad.
To all those who are always on the side of the criminal... Next time you need help or protection, call a crack head.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I say it is a justified shoot if they are commanding her to STOP and she puts it in Drive and begins to go. The shooting would commence as the car is taking off. The cop in danger was very close to the car, so they could not wait .

I agree.

She is dead because of HER actions.
No doubt about it.

She made choices that she knew were dangerous. She even tweeted that. She knew the consequences of her actions. And chose them anyway.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

You want to see a dangerous free for all? Then take away a cop's right to defend himself/herself.

 

[katydid23]

Cops go into battle in the same sense that I return to the salt mines. I think that a police chief would hesitate to describe his officers as "going into battle" in front of the media. It would be a little, y'know, weird.

I am not saying they would say so in a press conference. But I do know what my family members have been taught in the academy. One of the often spoken principals when making a traffic stop is ==" assume everyone in that vehicle wants to kill you, if you want to go home tonight."

 

[katydid23]

An officer was standing in front of a parked car in spite of all his training not to do so?

I don't think he was standing directly in front of the car. I think he was to the side, up ahead of the car. He would not have been in danger because his vehicle was blocking her way. Which is why they were surprised when she suddenly started to flee and to do so she would have to go right up against the fence where he was standing.

And yes, in spite of all of their training, when one is in the street, things are spontaneous and always moving, changing.

JH tweeted that she thought some day she was going to 'die by cop.' That says to me that she was probably being erratic and impulsive in her interactions with the cops that night.

 

[Fred Hall]

I had gotten the idea somehow that the amateur video of the shooting aftermath had been seized as evidence by the DPD. But now I see it described as being in the possession of the Denver Post. Would there be any legal reasons preventing them from releasing it? Perhaps the DPD asked them very nicely not to.

 

[al66pine]

I had gotten the idea somehow that the amateur video of the shooting aftermath had been seized as evidence by the DPD. But now I see it described as being in the possession of the Denver Post. Would there be any legal reasons preventing them from releasing it? Perhaps the DPD asked them very nicely not to.

bbm

Not doubting you Fred, just want to see orig. source and catch up w anything else I've missed. BBM, link, pls, anyone? Thx in adv.


Who shot vid - e.g., passenger in stolen car, or DP reporter, or resident w home/apt facing alley, or dog walker, or jogger, etc?
Legal reasons for DP not to release it- i.e., post on news website, etc.? IDK.

1. If DP's own reporter or cam op recorded it, IIUC, not a situation where reporter's privilege* or shield law** applies, as that relates to situation where media refuses to disclose or testify about source of info, not to situation where media keeps a lid on info.

2. If DP paid cam op (passenger, resident, jogger, etc) for recording, maybe contract prohibits release to public.
Not likely, imo --- why w/ a paper buy a recording if not for release?

3. If LE employee or MedExam'r employee recorded it, and someone in one of those agencies leaked it to DP or other media,
well, who knows?

4. Poss'ly DP's back-scratching or informal courtesy agreement not to release, w recording provider. Not likely, imo. Also, not a 'legal reason.'

5. Perhaps the DPD asked them very nicely not to release? Poss. Not a legal reason.

_________________________________________________________________________________.
*in the United States (also journalist's privilege, newsman's privilege, or press privilege), is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources."[SUP][1][/SUP] It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment right many jurisdictions by statutory law or judicial decision have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery. [SUP][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter's_privilege[/SUP]

** A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters' privilege, or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

 

[Woodland]

Not understanding what amounts to belittling, imo, of posters that question some actions by LE. Have always found this a poor reflection on LE. Jmo.

Pretty sure most, if not all posters here agree JH made poor decisions in life and particularly the day she was shot to death. Have not read where anyone is holding up a banner saying her actions were justified, legit or acceptable in any way.

What some are questioning, in this case, is the response by LE to those poor decisions. LE needs to be in a life threatening situation or protecting someone else in a life threatening situation before aiming and firing their weapon at anyone. That's also the law as I understand it. I do question LE response in this situation - if people don't question some of LE's actions from time to time, imo, a free for all would also ensue (reference to a previous post), with feelings of mistrust and revenge on both sides. Suspect no one is looking or hoping for another Ferguson, where LE actions ran rampant and unchecked for years and boiled over into a terrible situation no one is winning. Nipping these things in the bud goes a long way towards peace for everyone. Jmo.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

All I can say is WOW. IMO this is a very close scenario to what would have happened if Jessica would have been allowed to leave that alley.


San Francisco police shoot dead woman who drove car at officers

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime...-drove-car-at-officers/ar-BBil1dJ?ocid=LENDHP

Two plainclothes San Francisco police officers shot and killed a woman on Tuesday evening after she drove her car at them, ran into parked cars, and veered onto the sidewalk, police said.

The incident occurred around 7 p.m. local time, when the officers approached the driver, who was parked at a gas station near the city's downtown, as part of a possible stolen vehicle investigation, the police department said in a statement.
When the officers identified themselves as police, she drove toward them and then out of the gas station, the statement said.
The officers chased her on foot and the woman turned toward them, going the wrong way on the one way street. She drove onto the sidewalk, hit a building and several vehicles and forced a motorcyclist to ditch his bike to get out of her way, the statement said.

 

[Woodland]

There is no evidence that JH was attempting to ram the vehicle she was in, into a wall or a person before she hit the wall. The pics reveal no damage to the front end.

 

[katydid23]

There is no evidence that JH was attempting to ram the vehicle she was in, into a wall or a person before she hit the wall. The pics reveal no damage to the front end.

I don't understand what you are saying. Isnt she crashed into a wall in the pictures above?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There is no evidence that JH was attempting to ram the vehicle she was in, into a wall or a person before she hit the wall. The pics reveal no damage to the front end.

How do you know there is no evidence? I don't think anybody here has seen the investigative file have they? Measurements? Official up close photos?

It is all being investigated and we don't know what evidence exists as of now.

I will believe two cops' versions of events over a criminal's who had tweeted about hating cops and tried to run from them risking serious injury to LE or others weeks before this happened.

JMO

 

[Woodland]

A vehicle needs damage to the front end to be crashed into a wall, imo - this one came to a stop in front of the wall.

I'll believe LE as well, if the evidence lines up with their version of events. An LE version that varies from the evidence won't convince me they are telling the truth.