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

[katydid23]

No nothing in that = de-escalation.

LEOs should expect that if they approach a stolen car with suspects in it, the suspects will probably try to get away. So they should have slowly driven up to the car and stopped their vehicles with their push bars against the front and back bumpers of the suspect's car, so as to immobilize it. Then they should have cautiously approached the suspects car and politely and professionally asked the girls one at a time to get out of the car and be hand cuffed. Under no circumstances should they have walked in front of or behind the car.

If at any time the driver still tried to move the vehicle, the officers should have immediately retreated back to the safety of their cars and waited for more back up to arrive. Then negotiated with the suspects to surrender.

They should not have pulled their weapons at all, unless they were threatened. You never point a weapon at anyone unless you intend to shoot them. Pointing a weapon at an unarmed suspect makes the suspect fearful, and could cause them to do something that they might not otherwise do.

WOW. I wonder how long you would stay safe on the job? Have you ever seen a cop car drive 'slowly up to the car and stop their vehicles with their push bars against the front and back bumpers of the suspect's car?'

Probably not because they could get their heads blown off!

These officers pulled their vehicles up as close as possible without putting themselves in danger. And they did ask the perps tp get out of the car. But they obviously did not walk right up to it because they had no idea if the occupants were armed or not.

Of course they needed to pull their weapons. It was a stolen car. They had no idea who was driving or what the situation was. Many gangmembers steal cars to use in major crimes.

I do agree with you that you never point a weapon at someone unless you intend to shoot, iF NECESSARY.

I'm sorry, but your last sentence makes no sense in this situation. How were the cops supposed to know if the driver or the occupants were armed or not? Do you expect the officers to walk up to an occupied stolen vehicle, in an alley in the middle of the night, without their guns drawn? Who would do that? Would you do that?

From reading the above, it seems to me that you are assuming the cops knew it was a car full of teen girls. But the reality is, they had no idea. The fear they had was based upon other interactions with stolen cars, where they would roust a car full of felons with stolen guns. They have to assume that is who they are arresting if they want to stay alive. JMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Maybe the officers could have "deescalated" the situation by taking their gun-belts off and walking toward the suspects car with their hands up. Would Jessica have then surrendered without trying to drive over them?

I don't think so. These officers acted within the law. Jessica didn't. That's why she's dead. JMO.

 

[Minette]

Maybe the officers could have "deescalated" the situation by taking their gun-belts off and walking toward the suspects car with their hands up. Would Jessica have then surrendered without trying to drive over them?

I don't think so. These officers acted within the law. Jessica didn't. That's why she's dead. JMO.

My thoughts exactly. And no point in trying to knock down the straw man, either. IMO.

 

[katydid23]

When occupants of a stolen cr try to drive away, while two cops are pointing guns at them it tends to make the cops believe the suspects are dangerous and desperate. No surprise the cops are going to be frightened at that point.

 

[Woodland]

Maybe the officers could have "deescalated" the situation by taking their gun-belts off and walking toward the suspects car with their hands up. Would Jessica have then surrendered without trying to drive over them?

I don't think so. These officers acted within the law. Jessica didn't. That's why she's dead. JMO.

With all due respect, an old and un-plausible suggestion. No one here has posted, yet, that the cops should have tried to surrender to JH. Unhelpful imo.

 

[katydid23]

With all due respect, an old and un-plausible suggestion. No one here has posted, yet, that the cops should have tried to surrender to JH. Unhelpful imo.

Just about. Saying the cops should have walked right up to the car politely, with no weapons drawn, is almost like they surrendered. JMO

 

[Woodland]

Right here

Thank-you for posting this. As DA MRM suggests on page 1 - Now, if people study and evaluate the facts of this case ...
So, I have done just that.

Would like to post an analysis of the moment by moment events for Officer Gabriel Jordan - in his words and what others said about their perceptions of his movements. I find it most interesting. Will make a series of posts, breaking down the moments, as lengthy posts are no easier to read than this doc.

Will use page references along the way.

 

[Fred Hall]

We don't really know that. It probably would have ended up as a high speed chase. Perhaps a few people would have died.

Funny, the officers didn't give that explanation to the investigators. If they had admitted that they killed the driver because they didn't want it to end up as a high speed chase, I think Morrissey would have had no choice but to charge them.

 

[Fred Hall]

Just about. Saying the cops should have walked right up to the car politely, with no weapons drawn . . .

sbm
I said nothing of the sort. I said that I would walk up to the car with no weapon draw in my hypothetical situation.

edit: sorry, I now realize you were responding to someone else.

 

[Fred Hall]

You make it sound like he jumped out of the way and then made the decision to fire. The whole sequence of events after the car started took seconds. When taking into account reaction times and decision-making time, I believe the car revving its engine and coming towards him, the jumping away, and the firing of the gun took place within a few seconds. The touching of the car and the firing of the gun probably occurred simultaneously. I don't believe that the officer knew if he would be able to make it out of the way of the car when he fired his weapon. The firing was defensive in nature. He didn't know exactly who or what was in the car or what their mindset was. The windows were foggy, they had refused to follow commands to exit the vehicle, and they were coming towards him after realizing they were blocked from behind. In his mind they were blocked in the front by the other patrol vehicle, so their only purpose could be to take him out, correct or not (he has no insight into the driver's mind). You cannot dissect the sequence into second-by-second events. It was a fluid process that required rapid reactions and decisions with limited and incomplete information.

Of course, MOO.

But surely I would have been charged if I had fired these shots.

 

[Fred Hall]

Police officers can shoot a fleeing suspect if he or she feels that the suspect is going to cause "serious physical injury" to anyone. That sounds like what we have in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

The officer made the decision to shoot the driver when the car was moving past him on his left. How could the suspect cause serious physical injury to him at that point?

 

[Fred Hall]

Officers Cleared in Fatal Shooting of Denver Teen Jessica Hernandez
Officers Gabriel Jordan and Daniel Greene's decisions to shoot Jessica Hernandez on Jan. 26 "were justifiable in light of the manner in which she drove the car in close and dangerous proximity to them, threatening the life of Officer Jordan who had little room to avoid the car," Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey wrote in a decision letter. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...unarmed-denver-teen-jessica-hernandez-n370761

Yet avoid it he did. He dodged a car that can't have been traveling more than 5mph and then shot the driver in a fit of rage.

 

[Woodland]

Page 2, reference 1 at bottom of page -

She then “outran the cops.”

Beginning here for possible orientation. If there was some sort of chase of the Honda the night before with JH at the wheel, it's not mentioned anywhere in the doc or before. Unsure if this is something one of the teens assumed or not. My question is, was there a chase the night before the shooting and did LE get a glimpse of the occupants?

If so, then GJ had occasion to learn of this chase when he began his shift at 6:00 am the morning of the shooting (page 3) and that the occupants or the driver was not apprehended. Did GJ know that LE were to search for that stolen Honda and who the occupants might be?

That should be made clear to the public since it's in this posted doc.

Page 3 - GJ responds to the call of a suspicious vehicle and enters the alley where JH was shot, from north end heading south.

Page 4 - he saw Honda on east side of alley, stopped and facing him (north). GJ stopped in front of Honda and ran plate - finds it's stolen. He calls in and awaits back-up. While waiting -

... he did not want the occupants of the Honda to know he was there - then - Before any cover officers arrived, he noticed movement within the car which caused him to believe the occupants had noticed him.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

But surely I would have been charged if I had fired these shots.

I respectfully don't care whether you would have been charged or not in your hypothetical situation that just clouds the issue (in MOO). As has been said before in other threads and, I believe, in this thread, too, LEOs work under a different set of laws. I believe there is a Supreme Court case that governs their use of deadly force...can't remember the name right now. We should look at the facts of this case and the laws that govern the behavior of LE and the courts' interpretations of those laws to determine if this shooting was justified. Arguments about whether I or you or another non-LEO would be charged in the same situation are counter-productive (in MOO).

 

[Fred Hall]

Maybe the officers could have "deescalated" the situation by taking their gun-belts off and walking toward the suspects car with their hands up. Would Jessica have then surrendered without trying to drive over them?

I don't think so. These officers acted within the law. Jessica didn't. That's why she's dead. JMO.

"not acting withing the law" does not justify homicide. Homicide is only legally justified in defense of life and limb, and these officers were not threatened when they shot. You will note that nowhere in the decision letter does Morrissey directly state precisely where the officer was standing at the instant he decided to open fire. This suppression is an obvious attempt to mislead the casual reader into thinking that the officer was in danger when he shot the driver.

 

[Fred Hall]

I respectfully don't care whether you would have been charged or not in your hypothetical situation that just clouds the issue (in MOO). As has been said before in other threads and, I believe, in this thread, too, LEOs work under a different set of laws. I believe there is a Supreme Court case that governs their use of deadly force...can't remember the name right now. We should look at the facts of this case and the laws that govern the behavior of LE and the courts' interpretations of those laws to determine if this shooting was justified. Arguments about whether I or you or another non-LEO would be charged in the same situation are counter-productive (in MOO).

So you agree that I would have been charged? And that a jury would almost certainly convict me, an upstanding citizen, for killing a dirty car thief if they were shown identical bullet angles?

 

[Fred Hall]

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/

Here is what I wrote:

"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."

--- bolds added
I don't draw until the car starts to move towards me in precisely that same physical motion that occurred to the officer in the Hernandez case. I'm not defending my car when I draw; I'll claim to be in fear of my life, just like the officer claimed to have feared for his life when the car started to move. If the officer's physical fear was justified, mine is too, as this hypothetical situation plays out in exactly the same way as the Hernandez shooting, with the sole difference being that I am not a police officer.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

The officer made the decision the shoot the drive when the car was moving past him on his left. How could the suspect cause serious physical injury to him at that point?

The officer made the decision to shoot AS HE ATTEMPTED TO JUMP OUT OF THE WAY OF THE CAR. Did you read this part of the letter regarding the actual physical evidence? That's why only his last shot (of five) went through the driver's side window.

The other bullet defects in the Honda were caused by Officer Jordan’s five gunshots. All five of his shots were fired with a downward trajectory.

-Four of the bullets were fired when the muzzle of the gun was to the front of the windshield and pointed at or near the front windshield. One bullet pierced the metal at the A-pillar near the front windshield and did not enter the car; two bullets pierced the lower front windshield and struck the interior dashboard in an area very close to the windshield; one bullet pierced the front windshield a few inches higher and then struck the interior of the car on the plastic housing of the steering wheel. All four of these shots were fired with a trajectory from front to back in relation to the car.

-One bullet was fired when the muzzle of Officer Jordan’s gun was pointed at the driver side front window. This bullet pierced the driver side front window and struck Hernandez, causing the pelvic wound and the right leg wound.15

The locations of the bullet strikes from Officer Jordan’s gunshots are consistent with his description of being extremely close to the car, pushing off of the car with his left hand, and shooting at the driver with a downward trajectory as the Honda was moving forward, with the gun in his right hand. Specifically, the trajectory of the bullet that pierced the windshield and struck the steering wheel housing corroborates that Officer Jordan was in contact with the car, or right next to it, when that shot was fired. That shot could not have been fired with that trajectory by Officer Jordan if he were not extremely close to the car. (See the photo on page 37 showing the yellow trajectory rod passing through the windshield and into the steering wheel housing at a steep downward angle).

The trajectory of the shot through the driver side window that struck Hernandez in the hip is also consistent with Officer Jordan being extremely close to the car, and is consistent with his description of the shooting.

The pattern of the bullet strikes shows that the muzzle of Officer Jordan’s gun was to the front of the windshield when four shots were fired, and was to the left side of Hernandez when one shot was fired. This evidence of movement of the gun in relation to the car is consistent with Officer Jordan’s description of how he fired his weapon. This supports the conclusion that the bullet that passed through the driver side window was OfficerJordan's final shot.

 

[Woodland]

Page 4 - GJ got out of his vehicle on east side of alley, drew his weapon and stood behind his open drivers door when officer Daniel Greene arrived from south end of alley (also page 6) - DG is facing north and the rear of the Honda. GJ is facing Honda and JH is furthest away from him at this point.

Page 6 - DG exits his vehicle and draws his weapon. The Honda reversed slowly and then moves forward. DG holsters his weapon. Movement of vehicle also on page 16.

Honda reverses again, DG draws his weapon again. Honda hits fence and stops. It is facing north east (on an angle to fence). The wheels are turned to the left (from drivers position) or west. This is not disputed by anyone.

Page 4 - GJ has moved around his vehicle by going to the rear then along the passenger side. He is on west side of alley now, in front of the Honda and moves to the spot where the Honda will hit in a few seconds.

Note - the wheels had to have been turned to the left while reversing into the fence (this is the second reverse motion) because the Honda went from more or less the centre of the alley, in reverse into the fence on the west side and came to a stop on a north east angle to the fence with the wheels turned to the left or west - the wheels are facing the fence. Repeat - not disputed.

The crucial moments begin here imo based on this doc.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

So you agree that I would have been charged? And that a jury would almost certainly convict me, an upstanding citizen, for killing a dirty car thief if they were shown identical bullet angles?

Where in my answer did I say I agreed with you? I said that "I don't care." If I post that "the University of Texas is the best university in the whole wide world" and you respond to me that you don't care, does that mean I can come back in a post and say "so you agree that" the University of Texas is the best university in the whole wide world? Your logic escapes me!!!!

Let me make it simple and less respectful since I'm forced to....I REFUSE to discuss whether or not you would be charged as a civilian under similar circumstances because IT DOES NOT MATTER! We are talking about law enforcement, their actions, and the laws that govern them!