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

[katydid23]

The officers were justified because they reasonably believed the teen was accelerating toward Jordan and that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering a serious injury, the district attorney wrote in his decision letter.

Jordan suffered a chip fracture in his ankle during the incident, but he told investigators that he didn't think he was hit by the car. Instead, he used his left hand to push off the driver's side of the car as he used his right hand to fire his gun into the windshield, the letter said.


She bumped into one of the police cars while in reverse. Then, she started moving forward and revved the engine, the officers said during interviews. The car angled toward left toward Jordan.

A neighbor who had gone outside when she first heard police yelling gave an account that supported the officers' stories, the letter said.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2...ges-denver-cops-who-fatally-shot-teenage-girl


I think the above is important info to keep in mind. A neighbor who watched the one minute incident go down supported the cop's version.

 

[Fred Hall]

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.

Exactly. He successfully moved out of the way of the car, then proceeded to shoot the driver as she passed him, firing his final shot through the driver's side window into her body as she lay mortally wounded across the center console.

 

[Montjoy]

I have (and have previously had) jobs in which risk is part of the contract, just like LE, or for that matter firefighters, nurses, etc.

One of the current risk factors for my job is a bit different, though. I have to know how to deal with bears -- specifically, Ursus maritimus, or what most people call the polar bear.

Like a soldier, I have rules of engagement. I can't just take a potshot at one I see in the distance (and I wouldn't, even if I could). But even if one comes into hunting range for him or her, I have to follow a protocol. (And my training, and maybe luck, have paid off so far.)

This tension can create some sleepless nights. But it's the job I signed up for, and I'm being paid for being willing to take on some risk in situations where I have rules that I must obey to mitigate my risk.

So, to bring this back to the conversation, I can't understand why a LEO would fire through a side window to take out a driver (and potentially shoot a passenger) because I'm not willing to take a shot at something I consider a non-immediate risk.

 

[Fred Hall]

A neighbor who watched the one minute incident go down supported the cop's version.

sbm
"cop's version"? I don't think there is any debate over what physically happened. My contention is that, given the fact that the officer started to shoot when the car had already begun to pass him, he did not have a reasonable fear of injury or death.

 

[Fred Hall]

I have (and have previously had) jobs in which risk is part of the contract, just like LE, or for that matter firefighters, nurses, etc.

One of the current risk factors for my job is a bit different, though. I have to know how to deal with bears -- specifically, Ursus maritimus, or what most people call the polar bear.

Like a soldier, I have rules of engagement. I can't just take a potshot at one I see in the distance (and I wouldn't, even if I could). But even if one comes into hunting range for him or her, I have to follow a protocol. (And my training, and maybe luck, have paid off so far.)

This tension can create some sleepless nights. But it's the job I signed up for, and I'm being paid for being willing to take on some risk in situations where I have rules that I must obey to mitigate my risk.

So, to bring this back to the conversation, I can't understand why a LEO would fire through a side window to take out a driver (and potentially shoot a passenger) because I'm not willing to take a shot at something I consider a non-immediate risk.

It's because polar bears have rights. Not like these dirty street punks /s

 

[katydid23]

sbm
"cop's version"? I don't think there is any debate over what physically happened. My contention is that, given the fact that the officer started to shoot when the car had already begun to pass him, he did not have a reasonable fear of injury or death.

The neighbor saw that the car was headed towards the officer and she saw when they shot and why. And she supported their version of events. That says a lot to me.

 

[Montjoy]

Fred, I am sure that I'm not the only one here to recognize that your comment about "it was not a hovercraft" really does spell out the whole story here.

 

[Fred Hall]

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.

Well, that's fine then. There is a big difference between pursuing a car and shooting at it.

 

[Rhino-Esq]

RIP Jessica

 

[al66pine]

But in my hypothetical situation my car is being stolen in front of me — an adversarial position. I confront the thief without drawing my gun and order him out of the car. He refuses and begins to drive off, putting me in exactly the same location relative to the car as the first officer that fired was in. If that officer was justified in fearing for his life, I am too. And even "civilians",as you call them, can use lethal force in defense of their lives.

bbm

Nearly 12 hrs behind, so, sorry if someone has already quoted & linked CO statute re self defense for non LEOs. From my post on first page of thread:
Colorado Statute, Self Defense (not specific to LE) (my bolding & underscoring, below)
"18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person"
"(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose."

"(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:"

"(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or"

Imo, a person like you in your ^ self-described 'adversarial position' seeing his car being stolen cannot use physical force and claim justification under this statute because per your post, you are not (yet) defending self or a third person. At this point, imo, you are defending the car, i.e., property, not yourself, not another human.

Agree or disagree w line of thinking so far?
If agreeing that you cannot (yet) use physical force, do you also agree you cannot yet use deadly force under this statute and claim self defense?

Hoping later tdy, I can post more specifically.


___________________________________________________________
I'm sizing down the font because, imo, the rest of the sec. is not app. But feel free to read, disagree, and post, explaining why.
(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

^COLORADO REVISED STATUTES^
* This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the
Second Regular Session of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly
of the State of Colorado (2014)
and changes approved by the electorate at the November 2014 election *
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-704 (2014)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

 

[katydid23]

I have (and have previously had) jobs in which risk is part of the contract, just like LE, or for that matter firefighters, nurses, etc.

One of the current risk factors for my job is a bit different, though. I have to know how to deal with bears -- specifically, Ursus maritimus, or what most people call the polar bear.

Like a soldier, I have rules of engagement. I can't just take a potshot at one I see in the distance (and I wouldn't, even if I could). But even if one comes into hunting range for him or her, I have to follow a protocol. (And my training, and maybe luck, have paid off so far.)

This tension can create some sleepless nights. But it's the job I signed up for, and I'm being paid for being willing to take on some risk in situations where I have rules that I must obey to mitigate my risk.

So, to bring this back to the conversation, I can't understand why a LEO would fire through a side window to take out a driver (and potentially shoot a passenger) because I'm not willing to take a shot at something I consider a non-immediate risk.

I don't think you can compare polar bears to humans driving a car and maybe being armed. If a bear charges you, then you know his intent. If he doesn't, then you are good. Not so at night on the street, standing alongside a stolen car full of suspects. Very different situation with a lot of potential dangerous scenarios.

 

[Fred Hall]

The neighbor saw that the car was headed towards the officer and she saw when they shot and why. And she supported their version of events. That says a lot to me.

The kids in the car disagreed about how much pot they had smoked that night. Beyond that, there are no conflicting versions of events. Ballistic evidence and eyewitness testimony both indicate that the car was heading towards the officer initially, and that he dodged it and shot the driver as she passed.

 

[Montjoy]

It's because polar bears have rights. Not like these dirty street punks /s

For better or worse, and making a judgement here is above my moral pay grade, I do think that more people would think that polar bears have more rights than people who, using this as an example, LE on the street suspect as felons.

Thing is, it is so much harder to de-escalate an interaction with a polar bear than it is with a 17 year old girl.

 

[katydid23]

The kids in the car disagreed about how much pot they had smoked that night. Beyond that, there are no conflicting versions of events. Ballistic evidence and eyewitness testimony both indicate that the car was heading towards the officer initially, and that he dodged it and shot the driver as she passed.

right. Looks like he shot a split second too late because he was dodging the car that was coming at him. I doubt he would ever be convicted of murder for that. I know you disagree.

 

[katydid23]

For better or worse, and making a judgement here is above my moral pay grade, I do think that more people would think that polar bears have more rights than people who, using this as an example, LE on the street suspect as felons.

Thing is, it is so much harder to de-escalate an interaction with a polar bear than it is with a 17 year old girl.

The cops had no idea it was a 17 yr old girl. All they knew was that it was a stolen car, in the middle of the night, and the driver was running even though the cops had their guns pointed at the car. It could have been an murder suspect running from the cops for all they knew.

How do you 'de-esclate' when the suspect takes off in a stolen car? The chase is on at that point.

 

[Montjoy]

I don't think you can compare polar bears to humans driving a car and maybe being armed. If a bear charges you, then you know his intent. If he doesn't, then you are good. Not so at night on the street, standing alongside a stolen car full of suspects. Very different situation with a lot of potential dangerous scenarios.

Actually, I would submit that this is fundamentally incorrect. If someone has training, and if they are willing to abide by what they have been taught, they usually can do many things to de-escalate the situation or mitigate risk. That was basically the whole reason I shared the information about polar bears.

But in a way, you're right, it's not a perfect comparison -- someone can be hit by a car driving at 12 mph and still live, in fact, most will; but if a polar bear charges you and you're not doing anything to protect yourself, you're going to be polar bear poop in a couple of days.

 

[katydid23]

Actually, I would submit that this is fundamentally incorrect. If someone has training, and if they are willing to abide by what they have been taught, they usually can do many things to de-escalate the situation or mitigate risk. That was basically the whole reason I shared the information about polar bears.

But in a way, you're right, it's not a perfect comparison -- someone can be hit by a car driving at 12 mph and still live, in fact, most will; but if a polar bear charges you and you're not doing anything to protect yourself, you're going to be polar bear poop in a couple of days.

So a cop is supposed to allow himself to be hit by a car going 12 miles an hour, and run over, because he will still live?

 

[Montjoy]

So a cop is supposed to allow himself to be hit by a car going 12 miles an hour, and run over, because he will still live?

No, but that wasn't what happened, was it? The cop in question got out of the way of the car and then shot through a side window.

 

[katydid23]

Actually, I would submit that this is fundamentally incorrect. If someone has training, and if they are willing to abide by what they have been taught, they usually can do many things to de-escalate the situation or mitigate risk. That was basically the whole reason I shared the information about polar bears.

But in a way, you're right, it's not a perfect comparison -- someone can be hit by a car driving at 12 mph and still live, in fact, most will; but if a polar bear charges you and you're not doing anything to protect yourself, you're going to be polar bear poop in a couple of days.

Also, in terms of training and mitigating risk, the cop waited for back up, then they approached from front and back, blocking the car from both front and back. And then pulled their weapons and asked the driver to step out of the car. Is that not a step towards de-escalation? What would you suggest they should have done?

 

[Fred Hall]

The cops had no idea it was a 17 yr old girl. All they knew was that it was a stolen car, in the middle of the night, and the driver was running even though the cops had their guns pointed at the car. It could have been an murder suspect running from the cops for all they knew.

How do you 'de-esclate' when the suspect takes off in a stolen car? The chase is on at that point.

Precisely. The "chase". When a suspicious car drives away you don't open fire, you pursue it.