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

[Woodland]

Officer DG - page 7 -

As…it drove past me, Officer Jordan was still to my left or to the north of me. I heard one or two shots from his gun. Believing that,
you know, knowing that he was to my left and believing that he was in the…path of the car, that he may be run over -- I then fired my weapon at the driver.

Imo, this is a very telling statement that GJ did not have a struggle at/with the front end of the Honda. DG is not aware that GJ is having a life or death struggle with the front end of the moving Honda. I don't see how he could not be aware if that was taking place as he was standing beside the drivers window.

DG states 'as the car drove past me I heard 1 or 2 shots'. So the Honda was not moving before shots were fired. DG thought something might take place as the Honda moved and that is why GJ fired.

 

[Woodland]

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

No - I already explained what I think happened.

 

[Woodland]

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.

I can see the angle of the shots.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

H

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.

...that's why I added at least not ones we can see from photos online.

 

[katydid23]

No - I already explained what I think happened.

OK. but when I read this:


"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."



That^^^ makes it sound like you think they knew who was in the car and shot her on purpose?

 

[katydid23]

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

in the 'heat' of what moment?

The statement I was referring to was someone implying the cops KNEW who was in the car. [see below]

"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."

 

[Fred Hall]

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/

Would you consider me to have a legitimate fear of injury or death if I were involved in an precisely physically identical altercation? I'm getting the impression that you think Officer Jordan was in danger but that I wouldn't be, as if I am made of rubber and he is made of glass

 

[al66pine]

(2) = meat & potatoes, as it applies in these events, imo. (my bolding & underscoring & comments in blue).

18-1-707
"(1) ... physical force ..." (non deadly)

"(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."
.​

^^^^^^^^^^LEO Use of Deadly force = Justified ^^^^^^^^^

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colora

 

[Woodland]

OK. but when I read this:


"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."



That^^^ makes it sound like you think they knew who was in the car and shot her on purpose?

Not even close. I wonder why GJ did not take more caution. With all due respect, accepting differing opinions will always exist might help some interpretation.

 

[Fred Hall]

in the 'heat' of what moment?

The statement I was referring to was someone implying the cops KNEW who was in the car. [see below]

"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."

In the heat of the moment wherein a suspect refuses to submit and instead attempts to flee. We all know that cops hate runners.

 

[katydid23]

Officer DG - page 7 -

As…it drove past me, Officer Jordan was still to my left or to the north of me. I heard one or two shots from his gun. Believing that,
you know, knowing that he was to my left and believing that he was in the…path of the car, that he may be run over -- I then fired my weapon at the driver.

Imo, this is a very telling statement that GJ did not have a struggle at/with the front end of the Honda. DG is not aware that GJ is having a life or death struggle with the front end of the moving Honda. I don't see how he could not be aware if that was taking place as he was standing beside the drivers window.

DG states 'as the car drove past me I heard 1 or 2 shots'. So the Honda was not moving before shots were fired. DG thought something might take place as the Honda moved and that is why GJ fired.

I do not understand you interpretation of the officers words. You say:

"...this is a very telling statement that GJ did not have a struggle at/with the front end of the Honda. DG is not aware that GJ is having a life or death struggle with the front end of the moving Honda."


and what I see is DG saying:


"As…it drove past me, Officer Jordan was still to my left or to the north of me. I heard one or two shots from his gun. Believing that,
you know, knowing that he was to my left and believing that he was in the…path of the car, that he may be run over -- I then fired my weapon at the driver."


Sorry, but I do not understand your saying that DG is not aware that GJ is having a life and death struggle. IMO, DG is stating exactly that. He thought his partner was in the path of the fleeing car and he heard two shots. Sounds like a life or death struggle to me.

 

[katydid23]

Would you consider me to have a legitimate fear of injury or death if I were involved in an precisely physically identical altercation? I'm getting the impression that you think Officer Jordan was in danger but that I wouldn't be, as if I am made of rubber and he is made of glass

I am thinking that you would have no legitimate reason to be standing in front of a stolen vehicle and trying to block them. And because of that you might be found guilty if you pulled a weapon out because you are not an officer.

 

[Fred Hall]

Not even close. I wonder why GJ did not take more caution.

If he had thought that there might be dangerous criminals in the car, he would have definitely taken more caution. He would have probably stayed by his cruiser and waited for backup. He certainly wouldn't have run up to the suspicious car and banged on the driver's window while the car was moving.
From page 6 of the decision letter:

Since the car was moving slowly, Officer Greene said he holstered his gun and ran up
beside the driver’s door of the Honda. He could only see the silhouette of the driver. He said he
began banging on the driver’s window with his left hand, ordering the driver to stop. The driver
stopped, but then put the vehicle in reverse again and began backing up.

 

[Fred Hall]

I am thinking that you would have no legitimate reason to be standing in front of a stolen vehicle and trying to block them. And because of that you might be found guilty if you pulled a weapon out because you are not an officer.

In my hypothetical situation, my own car is being stolen in front of me.

 

[katydid23]

Not even close. I wonder why GJ did not take more caution. With all due respect, accepting differing opinions will always exist might help some interpretation.

I think that having two officers standing close to a vehicle, with their weapons raised, ready to fire, is an example of them taking great caution. MOST people would throw the keys out of the car and give up. the fact that she didn't shows a great deal about her decision making processes, imo. She was impulsive and reckless, and if anyone is at fault for her being shot that night, it is her, imo.

 

[katydid23]

In my hypothetical situation, my own car is being stolen in front of me.

So what. You cannot use deadly force on a car thief.

 

[Woodland]

I do not understand you interpretation of the officers words. You say:

"...this is a very telling statement that GJ did not have a struggle at/with the front end of the Honda. DG is not aware that GJ is having a life or death struggle with the front end of the moving Honda."


and what I see is GJ saying:


"As…it drove past me, Officer Jordan was still to my left or to the north of me. I heard one or two shots from his gun. Believing that,
you know, knowing that he was to my left and believing that he was in the…path of the car, that he may be run over -- I then fired my weapon at the driver."


Sorry, but I do not understand your saying that DG is not aware that GJ is having a life and death struggle. IMO, DG is stating exactly that. He thought his partner was in the path of the fleeing car and he heard two shots. Sounds like a life or death struggle to me.

Bolded and underlined by me -

The initials are incorrect - DG makes the statement following the bolded and underlined initials. Maybe that will make a difference?

 

[katydid23]

If he had thought that there might be dangerous criminals in the car, he would have definitely taken more caution. He would have probably stayed by his cruiser and waited for backup. He certainly wouldn't have run up to the suspicious car and banged on the driver's window while the car was moving.
From page 6 of the decision letter:

He did wait for back up.

And what is so scary about a slow moving vehicle. haven't you been arguing it was NOT a dangerous thing? :wink:

 

[katydid23]

Bolded and underlined by me -

The initials are incorrect - DG makes the statement following the bolded and underlined initials. Maybe that will make a difference?

sorry, that was a typo.

 

[Woodland]

He did wait for back up.

And what is so scary about a slow moving vehicle. haven't you been arguing it was NOT a dangerous thing? :wink:

They seemed not to be afraid of getting shot.