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

[Fred Hall]

Not everyone agrees, apparently.

I would venture that there are two types of people in the world: those who can read the descriptions of the officers' alleged post-shooting acts without being shocked and disgusted, and those who can't.

 

[KaaBoom]

You make it sound like he jumped out of the way and then made the decision to fire.

You make it sound like that is hard to believe. Like American police never do something like that. Because they are so reserved in shooting, and never shoot anybody unless absolutely positively necessary. For example they would never shoot an unarmed black man in the back while he was running away from him. They would never just jump out of a car and shoot a 12 year old black kid playing with a toy gun in two seconds. That would never happen in America.:facepalm:

Of course he jumped out of the way, and then made a decision to fire. That is what all the evidence shows happened. That is what the police do everyday, again and again, administer street justice.

 

[katydid23]

I would venture that there are two types of people in the world: those who can read the descriptions of the officers' alleged post-shooting acts without being shocked and disgusted, and those who can't.

There is no reason to be rude or snarky. JMO Posting things that are designed to insult others here is not right, imo.

 

[katydid23]

You make it sound like that is hard to believe. Like American police never do something like that. Because they are so reserved in shooting, and never shoot anybody unless absolutely positively necessary. For example they would never shoot an unarmed black man in the back while he was running away from him. They would never just jump out of a car and shoot a 12 year old black kid playing with a toy gun in two seconds. That would never happen in America.:facepalm:

Of course he jumped out of the way, and then made a decision to fire. That is what all the evidence shows happened. That is what the police do everyday, again and again, administer street justice.

I think you are a bit over the top in your criticism and description of "American' LE. Are you Canadian?

 

[Fred Hall]

Yes, you can, but that would be stupid. And that might be considered when a decision to go to trial is considered.

And I doubt that you would ever do that. Because you'd have no idea if the car thief was armed or not. So I highly doubt that you would go out to a dark alley at 3 am and stand in front of the car. It would be a bad choice to make.

I'm not denying that it would be stupid; I'm arguing that a jury would be much more likely to convict me if they were presented with the shot angles we see in the Hernandez case than they would be if I was standing in front of the car when I fired.

 

[Fred Hall]

Scheduled for Tuesday per non-MSM Twitter.

I predict that no more than a few dozen will turn up

 

[Woodland]

The

The red straw can't be off. You can't move bullet holes and the other end matches up to the damage in the car. Now you're grasping at straws....maybe red ones :razz:

I don't think anyone moved the bullet hole - pretty sure it's in the same spot. It isn't possible to see where the straw is inside the car.

I would like to think it's correctly lined up, just like I want to think DA MRM would admit hand, palm and or fingerprints will be found when a dirty vehicle is touched. Unfortunately he goes further and advises people not to make any inference from this lack of evidence.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

H

You make it sound like that is hard to believe. Like American police never do something like that. Because they are so reserved in shooting, and never shoot anybody unless absolutely positively necessary. For example they would never shoot an unarmed black man in the back while he was running away from him. They would never just jump out of a car and shoot a 12 year old black kid playing with a toy gun in two seconds. That would never happen in America.:facepalm:

Of course he jumped out of the way, and then made a decision to fire. That is what all the evidence shows happened. That is what the police do everyday, again and again, administer street justice.

My post referred to the sequence of events. I believe the evidence shows he SIMULTANEOUSLY jumped and made the decision to fire. You don't know that he [of course] ...jumped out of the way, and then made a decision to fire."

 

[Woodland]

I predict that no more than a few dozen will turn up

I'm thinking quite a few - taxpayers that are fed up having to pay the high cost of officers wanton acts, and victims of wanton acts.

 

[katydid23]

You make it sound like that is hard to believe. Like American police never do something like that. Because they are so reserved in shooting, and never shoot anybody unless absolutely positively necessary. For example they would never shoot an unarmed black man in the back while he was running away from him. They would never just jump out of a car and shoot a 12 year old black kid playing with a toy gun in two seconds. That would never happen in America.:facepalm:

Of course he jumped out of the way, and then made a decision to fire. That is what all the evidence shows happened. That is what the police do everyday, again and again, administer street justice.

"That is what the police do everyday, again and again, administer street justice."

I just have to shake my head at that comment. I will say instead, that the vast majority of 'street justice' in urban America is administered by the gangs, not by the cops. 43 innocent people were shot by Baltimore locals last month alone.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

I don't think anyone moved the bullet hole - pretty sure it's in the same spot. It isn't possible to see where the straw is inside the car.

I would like to think it's correctly lined up, just like I want to think DA MRM would admit hand, palm and or fingerprints will be found when a dirty vehicle is touched. Unfortunately he goes further and advises people not to make any inference from this lack of evidence.

I'm certainly not a forensic specialist but believe fingerprints, palm, and handprints typically come from body oil, or in some cases, other types of liquids such as blood. The car may have been too dirty to allow the oils from the LEO to adhere in order to lift prints in a standard manner. He did not mention if there were smudges in the dirt--I would have liked to have known that.

 

[katydid23]

I'm not denying that it would be stupid; I'm arguing that a jury would be much more likely to convict me if they were presented with the shot angles we see in the Hernandez case than they would be if I was standing in front of the car when I fired.

But you cannot base it on your hypothetical vs. the scenario with police and same angles. The jury would fault you for being out in the alley at 3 am and stupidly putting yourself in that position. Thus there would be negligence on your part.

Where YOU would be judged harshly, for putting yourself in that dangerous position, the opposite happens with LE. they are given credit for doing so. They sign up for that, are paid for that and trained for that. So if they make a split second decision in a life or death situation, theuy get the benefit of the doubt. And you don't/

 

[KaaBoom]

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.

Oh and they didn't put themselves in any danger doing it the way they did it. They didn't put themselves in any danger walking in front of the suspects car. This case proves how safe it is to do that. The cop didn't even get a sprained foot. Because what he was doing was totally safe. :facepalm:

And no they could not have got their heads blown off, unless the cops would have shot each other. Because they were the only ones armed. But even if there had been armed suspects in the car, it would have been safer to have their cars close by so they could take cover behind them. Standing out in the open is probably the worst place to be in a shootout.

But you want them to keep their cars at a safe distance, and then walk out in the open in front of a moving vehicle. That way when the driver takes off, they can use that as an excuse to shoot them. I think you just like the street justice aspect, just like the cops do. Because what you are arguing is certainly not about the safety of cops.

 

[Woodland]

I'm certainly not a forensic specialist but believe fingerprints, palm, and handprints typically come from body oil, or in some cases, other types of liquids such as blood. The car may have been too dirty to allow the oils from the LEO to adhere in order to lift prints in a standard manner. He did not mention if there were smudges in the dirt--I would have liked to have known that.

They didn't have to be prints that could be lifted using tradition print methods - there only had to be marks in the dust/dirt showing someone placed their hand on the vehicle - in this case a claimed life or death struggle. Should have been something to photograph and prove such a move took place. What isn't present at a crime or any scene can be more telling than what is.

 

[Woodland]

Oh and they didn't put themselves in any danger doing it the way they did it. They didn't put themselves in any danger walking in front of the suspects car. This case proves how safe it is to do that. The cop didn't even get a sprained foot. Because what he was doing was totally safe. :facepalm:

And no they could not have got their heads blown off, unless the cops would have shot each other. Because they were the only ones armed. But even if there had been armed suspects in the car, it would have been safer to have their cars close by so they could take cover behind them. Standing out in the open is probably the worst place to be in a shootout.

But you want them to keep their cars at a safe distance, and then walk out in the open in front of a moving vehicle. That way when the driver takes off, they can use that as an excuse to shoot them. I think you just like the street justice aspect, just like the cops do. Because what you are arguing is certainly not about the safety of cops.

This is what makes me wonder how much they knew about who was in the car. Were they noticed the night before as the teens thought according to their statements in the letter.

 

[al66pine]

Bullet holes don't have angles...at least not ones that we can see from photos online. :gaah:

bbm

Respectfully, bullet holes do have 'angles.' But not visible from online photos - at least bullet holes through windshields, at least not to our to non-ballistics trained eyes.
In reviewing groupings on paper targets w corrugated cardboard backing at the range, even amateurs or novices can see them.

 

[katydid23]

Oh and they didn't put themselves in any danger doing it the way they did it. They didn't put themselves in any danger walking in front of the suspects car. This case proves how safe it is to do that. The cop didn't even get a sprained foot. Because what he was doing was totally safe. :facepalm:

And no they could not have got their heads blown off, unless the cops would have shot each other. Because they were the only ones armed. But even if there had been armed suspects in the car, it would have been safer to have their cars close by so they could take cover behind them. Standing out in the open is probably the worst place to be in a shootout.

But you want them to keep their cars at a safe distance, and then walk out in the open in front of a moving vehicle. That way when the driver takes off, they can use that as an excuse to shoot them. I think you just like the street justice aspect, just like the cops do. Because what you are arguing is certainly not about the safety of cops.

The cops did not know if the occupants were armed or not. I think that is what is missing from your assumptions. Cops do not drive up slowly and touch the bumpers of stolen vehicles because they have no way of knowing if the driver has an AK47 or not.

Yes, it is dangerous no matter which tactic they use. But it is safer to walk up with guns drawn, and eyes on the car windows. They cant pull right up to the car, because then they are sitting ducks when they first pull up and when they try and exit their vehicles.

And I am arguing in terms of police safety. That is my utmost concern. Day and night it is my utmost concern. I want my baby granddaughter to have her father in her life.

 

[katydid23]

This is what makes me wonder how much they knew about who was in the car. Were they noticed the night before as the teens thought according to their statements in the letter.

You really think these officers WANTED to shoot a 17 yr old girl?

 

[al66pine]

CO statute re LEO's Use of Physical Force in Making Arrest or Preventing Escape
(here whole thing, next post excerpting w app. text, imo. my bolding & underscoring)

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:

(I) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or

(II) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or

(III) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.
(here, downsizing the font, as I think not app. Feel free to use it & disagree)
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

(4) For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not authorized.

(6) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (5) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:

(a) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force and does not know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

(8) A guard or peace officer employed in a detention facility is justified:

(a) In using deadly physical force when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner convicted of, charged with, or held for a felony or confined under the maximum security rules of any detention facility as such facility is defined in subsection (9) of this section;

(b) In using reasonable and appropriate physical force, but not deadly physical force, in all other circumstances when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility.

(9) "Detention facility" as used in subsection (8) of this section means any place maintained for the confinement, pursuant to law, of persons charged with or convicted of an offense, held pursuant to the "Colorado Children's Code", held for extradition, or otherwise confined pursuant to an order of a court.

^. * 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. 18-1-707 (2014)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

 

[Fred Hall]

You really think these officers WANTED to shoot a 17 yr old girl?

In the heat of the moment, I suspect they did. They probably wished they hadn't soon after though.