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

[Montjoy]

And he might doubt it because you would not be a likely target, as a cop usually is. Cops are often targeted by the perps they try to arrest. That's why they get the benefit of the doubt. JMO

Actually, I would really be surprised to find out that the police are more often targets of crime than members of the general public. But forgive the OT, as this has nothing to do with this case.

 

[katydid23]

Here is a clue. If you are pointing your gun through the driver's side window, the car is not driving at you.

When he first pointed his gun he was pointing at the front hood of the car. It was coming at him so AS HE WAS AIMING he pushed himself off the car, safely to the side , and fired. By the time the shots hit it was the front end of the drivers side window.

 

[katydid23]

Actually, I would really be surprised to find out that the police are more often targets of crime than members of the general public. But forgive the OT, as this has nothing to do with this case.

When a cop is making an arrest, it is the cop that is the target at that key dangerous time, not the general public.

 

[katydid23]

rsbm --

Aside from her family and friends, and I'm not referring to anyone in particular here, but I think that it's really hard for some people to be objective about possible LE abuses of force. And I understand that.

Oh, of course you are not referring to anyone here....:wink:

 

[katydid23]

sbm
You're right — I read that into your statement, and I shouldn't have tried to put words in your mouth. I'm just dismayed that there is so much emotive discourse and so little discussion of the physical evidence going on in the media and elsewhere. I find it a little disconcerting that this non-violent car thief who had an attack of the stupid is going to be remembered as a deranged murderer who tried to kill two cops. The only positive thing from this affair is the fact that it has been over four months and no one else has been killed in similar circumstances. This is telling, as I'd wager that every few weeks in Denver a suspect refuses to get out of a vehicle and instead drives away past pedestrian officers. Perhaps the Hernandez case has put the fear of god into the DPD.

True. And isn't that great. So wonderful to hear that the cops are just standing back and letting felony suspects drive away.

 

[Fred Hall]

And he might doubt it because you would not be a likely target, as a cop usually is. Cops are often targeted by the perps they try to arrest. That's why they get the benefit of the doubt. JMO

But it's not a question of whether I'm a likely target. In my hypothetical scenario, I am past that point. The car is moving past me, and I begin to shoot at the driver as the front bumper passes me on my left, in exactly the same manner as the officer in the Hernandez case. If the officer can claim to fear for his life at that point, so can I, as the presumed threat to the officer came from the motion of the car, not the intent of the driver.

 

[katydid23]

Why do you have to keep exaggerating to try to justify this? First you said she was out on bail for car theft, she wasn't. Now you say she was driving at high speed. With all due respect, that is just laughable. If she had driven away at the speed, using police terminology, that would have been a low speed chase, if there ever was one. And again, she was not driving toward them. All evidence suggests that she was trying to drive away.

So, no, most people would not be scared in that situation, and I don't believe those cops were scared either. They were just looking for an excuse to administer some street justice.

I misremembered the 'out on bail' part,sorry. I had remembered that she had just been 'released' that very day, so I thought it was bail.
But she was in Juvenile Hall for driving on suspended, taking her mothers vehicle, speeding and resisting arrest. Not a big differenvce between what I said and what actually happened, imo. And either way, there is no way she should have been out driving a stolen car that night.

She was driving pretty fast, imo. Who tries to run away from cops without driving away fast?

Why would you say the cops weren't scared? They don't know who is driving, if they are armed, if their intent is to harm them or not. Of course they were scared.

How do you know what the cops intent was ?

 

[CoolJ]

But it's not a question of whether I'm a likely target. In my hypothetical scenario, I am past that point. The car is moving past me, and I begin to shoot at the driver as the front bumper passes me on my left, in exactly the same manner as the officer in the Hernandez case. If the officer can claim to fear for his life at that point, so can I, as the presumed threat to the officer came from the motion of the car, not the intent of the driver.

You know, I think if this actually happened and you could show the person driving the car may have had a reason to injure you, I think you may have a legitimate defense.

 

[katydid23]

But it's not a question of whether I'm a likely target. In my hypothetical scenario, I am past that point. The car is moving past me, and I begin to shoot at the driver as the front bumper passes me on my left, in exactly the same manner as the officer in the Hernandez case. If the officer can claim to fear for his life at that point, so can I, as the presumed threat to the officer came from the motion of the car, not the intent of the driver.

I think the problem you would have with a jury is that you are not REQUIRED to be out there trying to stop the driver of the stolen car. You, as a civilian, should call 911 and wait. The officer is expected and paid to be on the street stopping that car, and you are not. So a jury would give him the benefit of the doubt. But you, not so much.

 

[CoolJ]

sbm
You're right — I read that into your statement, and I shouldn't have tried to put words in your mouth. I'm just dismayed that there is so much emotive discourse and so little discussion of the physical evidence going on in the media and elsewhere. I find it a little disconcerting that this non-violent car thief who had an attack of the stupid is going to be remembered as a deranged murderer who tried to kill two cops. The only positive thing from this affair is the fact that it has been over four months and no one else has been killed in similar circumstances. This is telling, as I'd wager that every few weeks in Denver a suspect refuses to get out of a vehicle and instead drives away past pedestrian officers. Perhaps the Hernandez case has put the fear of god into the DPD.

BBM
I said this before but I want to reiterate that I do not think JH was trying injure anyone. The evidence seems to indicate she was trying to flee.

 

[Fred Hall]

True. And isn't that great. So wonderful to hear that the cops are just standing back and letting felony suspects drive away.

Cheer up. There are these things called number plates

 

[Fred Hall]

BBM
I said this before but I want to reiterate that I do not think JH was trying injure anyone. The evidence seems to indicate she was trying to flee.

We know that because we've read the DA's decision letter. But the average person who just scans the headlines will see "No charges against Denver cops who shot Jessica Hernandez" and say to themselves, "Of course there were no charges — she rammed that poor police officer and broke his leg".

 

[katydid23]

Cheer up. There are these things called number plates

Since we all know that stolen car's number plates will lead us to the car thief...:no:

Gangmembers often steal cars to use in armed robberies and drive-bys. And that is why cops are so focused on stopping and searching those cars.

 

[Fred Hall]

Since we all know that stolen car's number plates will lead us to the car thief...:no:

Gangmembers often steal cars to use in armed robberies and drive-bys. And that is why cops are so focused on stopping and searching those cars.

Are you suggesting that it is more desirable to open fire on a car than to take the risk that the car might be used in a crime at some point in the future?

 

[Montjoy]

I'm not a lawyer (though I did work as a researcher for the American Bar Foundation eons ago). I still have to wonder if any LE rules allow the scenario that's been suggested here:

Oh, there's someone I suspect as a possible felon -- I'm out of danger right now, but perhaps I can or should pop off a few rounds into that car having several people in it as it drives past me.

Even when I was a kid I kind of thought it was odd that police would shoot at fleeing suspects (and let's remember, we're talking about suspects here). My dad, who probably has as many LE friends as anyone here, as do I, reassured me that the police couldn't (or shouldn't) do that.

 

[Fred Hall]

You know, I think if this actually happened and you could show the person driving the car may have had a reason to injure you, I think you may have a legitimate defense.

But I would still be charged. And I think a jury would throw me away after the prosecutor shows them photos of this car and explains where I was standing when I fired, as they would not believe that I had a reasonable fear of injury or death.

 

[Fred Hall]

I think the problem you would have with a jury is that you are not REQUIRED to be out there trying to stop the driver of the stolen car. You, as a civilian, should call 911 and wait. The officer is expected and paid to be on the street stopping that car, and you are not. So a jury would give him the benefit of the doubt. But you, not so much.

I would certainly have a problem with a jury I've gotten the impression that you think the officers were at risk at the instant they fired, but that I wouldn't be at risk if I were in exactly the same physical situation. Here's a question — do you think the officers would have been injured by the motion of the car if they had held their fire?

 

[katydid23]

Are you suggesting that it is more desirable to open fire on a car than to take the risk that the car might be used in a crime at some point in the future?

No, just saying that cops do not like to stand back and watch cars drive away from traffic stops, obviously. That's why we see so many high speed chases.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not a lawyer (though I did work as a researcher for the American Bar Foundation eons ago). I still have to wonder if any LE rules allow the scenario that's been suggested here:

Oh, there's someone I suspect as a possible felon -- I'm out of danger right now, but perhaps I can or should pop off a few rounds into that car having several people in it as it drives past me.

Even when I was a kid I kind of thought it was odd that police would shoot at fleeing suspects (and let's remember, we're talking about suspects here). My dad, who probably has as many LE friends as anyone here, as do I, reassured me that the police couldn't (or shouldn't) do that.

The scenario as described above does not sound familiar to me.

 

[katydid23]

I would certainly have a problem with a jury I've gotten the impression that you think the officers were at risk at the instant they fired, but that I wouldn't be at risk if I were in exactly the same physical situation. Here's a question — do you think the officers would have been injured by the motion of the car if they had held their fire?

One of the cops would have been injured by the car if he had not jumped out of the way. Which is why he had his gun pointing at the car in the first place, imo. He may have gotten the shots off a little too late, but he was justified in shooting when he first began to do so.