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

[katydid23]

They seemed not to be afraid of getting shot.

They are always afraid of getting shot. But they have to do what needs to be done in the safest way possible. If they were not afraid of getting shot they would not have had their weapons drawn.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Bottom line.

You are a teen in a stolen car who will only get a slap on the wrist for joyriding. You are old enough to know that things can go bad very quick once you try to escape law enforcement.

You have others in the car who knows this as well. So simply pull over and surrender. Get probation and move on.

Now what if your daughter was a passenger in the car. I doubt you would want the driver to try and escape the law by driving off with guns drawn.

I'm sorry the girl died. But since she was the driver. She had a choice to comply. I'm sure the passenger parents are just happy that their kids are alive.

So to all youngsters. Don't put yourself or friends at risk when dealing with the police. It's not worth the possible outcome.

Jmo

 

[katydid23]

So true, Dexter. Nothing much at all would have happened if they were taken in that night. They'd be home in their own beds the next night. Very sad all around.

When cops are aiming guns at you and screaming to STOP, just do it.

 

[Fred Hall]

(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

Morrissey has bolded different parts than the ones you have.
From page 21-22 of the decision letter:

Applicable Statutes Regarding Justification for Deadly Physical Force
C.R.S. 18-1-707 specifies when a peace officer is justified in using physical force and
deadly physical force when the officer is making an arrest or preventing an escape from custody.
Subsections (1) and (2) provide:
(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.
C.R.S. 18-1-704 is the general Colorado statute pertaining to self-defense and
defense of others. This statute is not restricted to peace officers when making an arrest or
preventing escape from custody. As pertinent to this case, 18-1-704 states:
(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; ….

 

[KaaBoom]

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.

I doubt the cops knew who was in the car. They probably knew that the occupants of the car could possibly be dangerous.

To explain my rational more.

If I was a cop, first what my goal would not be. My goal would not be to get home safe. I'm not that much of a coward. I would be willing to take a reasonable amount of risk to do my job.

What my goals would be. 1. To recover the victims property in as undamaged a condition as possible. It's seems to me that should be the #1 goal of law enforcement. The victim wants his car back. If the car gets wrecked or shot full of bullet holes, then the LEO has let the victim down. Thats why I would want to box the car in to make sure that it couldn't go any where. I especially wouldn't want to get in a high speed chase, and have the suspect crash into innocent bystanders. Then there would be even more victims. If the suspects jumped out and run, thats OK. I can call for a police dog to track them. At least I have recovered the car for the victim.

My #2 goal would be to arrest the suspects. As a LEO I would be sworn to uphold the constitution and that includes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of suspects. If I fail to take a suspect into custody alive then I would be depriving him of his right to due process. Which would mean that I would have failed to uphold the constitution.

Police need to be trained in how to recover victims property, and take suspects into custody without killing them. If the cops can't do that, and their only goal is to get home safe, then they are useless, and we really don't need them.

 

[al66pine]

Fwiw, appears to be instructions the jury w/h/rcvd if LEO had been tried in JH's death, and if he offered defense of justification. Jury instructions parallel language of statute. Moo, imo, jmo.

USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN MAKING AN​

ARREST OR IN PREVENTING AN ESCAPE—PEACE OFFICER
​

It is an affirmative defense to the crime of _________________________
(insert name of crime) that the defendant

1. was a peace officer, and

2. used deadly physical force,

[3. to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.]

—or—​

[3. to effect an arrest or prevent the escape fromcustody, of a person whom he reasonably believed [had committed or attempted tocommit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon] [wasattempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon] [had indicated, other than by amotor vehicle violation, that he was likely to endanger human life or toinflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay].]

In addition to provingall of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, theprosecution also has the burden to disprove the affirmative defense beyond areasonable doubt.
After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution hasfailed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more elements of theaffirmative defense, you must return a verdict of not guilty.

NOTES ON USE

This instruction should only be used if thevictim dies. Delete inapplicablebracketed material. Definitions of “peace officer”, “deadly physical force”,“deadly weapon” and “serious bodily injury” must be given, as appropriate, whenthis instruc­tion is used.
SOURCE& AUTHORITY

§18-1-707 (2), C.R.S. ______________________________________________________________

www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme... · Web view
... permission under the laws of the State of Colorado] ... IN MAKING AN. ARREST OR IN PREVENTING AN . ESCAPE ... §18-1-707(7), C.R.S. USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE …

 

[Woodland]

Bottom line.

You are a teen in a stolen car who will only get a slap on the wrist for joyriding. You are old enough to know that things can go bad very quick once you try to escape law enforcement.

You have others in the car who knows this as well. So simply pull over and surrender. Get probation and move on.

Now what if your daughter was a passenger in the car. I doubt you would want the driver to try and escape the law by driving off with guns drawn.

I'm sorry the girl died. But since she was the driver. She had a choice to comply. I'm sure the passenger parents are just happy that their kids are alive.

So to all youngsters. Don't put yourself or friends at risk when dealing with the police. It's not worth the possible outcome.

Jmo

Teens cannot predict the outcome of their actions at all times - they are invincible in their minds, because their brains are still developing. Being able to 'see around corners' ie predict all outcomes happens at more like 25. Anyone that can figure out how to instill 25 year old + brains in a teen will be more wealthy than Gates.

 

[Fred Hall]

Bottom line.

You are a teen in a stolen car who will only get a slap on the wrist for joyriding. You are old enough to know that things can go bad very quick once you try to escape law enforcement.

You have others in the car who knows this as well. So simply pull over and surrender. Get probation and move on.

Now what if your daughter was a passenger in the car. I doubt you would want the driver to try and escape the law by driving off with guns drawn.

I'm sorry the girl died. But since she was the driver. She had a choice to comply. I'm sure the passenger parents are just happy that their kids are alive.

So to all youngsters. Don't put yourself or friends at risk when dealing with the police. It's not worth the possible outcome.

Jmo

No one here is saying that it was clever to do what those kids did. We are arguing about the legal defensibility of the officers' actions. The law is not "Comply or Die", as the Walter Scott case illustrates.

 

[DexterMorgan]

It shouldn't take a case like this for kids to learn common sense. The law is even nice enough to call stealing a car Joyriding if a youngster is behind the wheel and as long as the car wasn't stolen violently.

Now i understand that youngsters are just having a laugh which is still unacceptable especially if it was your car that was stolen.

But now things get deeper when further common sense is not kicking when it is time to give up while guns are drawn on you by the police.

Kids need to realize that life isn't fun and games and nothing matters but right now enjoyment.

Kids need to wake up and snap out of it.

Jmo. But too bad she know longer has the chance. So hopefully others can learn something from this. Jmo

 

[katydid23]

I doubt the cops knew who was in the car. They probably knew that the occupants of the car could possibly be dangerous.

To explain my rational more.

If I was a cop, first what my goal would not be. My goal would not be to get home safe. I'm not that much of a coward. I would be willing to take a reasonable amount of risk to do my job.

What my goals would be. 1. To recover the victims property in as undamaged a condition as possible. It's seems to me that should be the #1 goal of law enforcement. The victim wants his car back. If the car gets wrecked or shot full of bullet holes, then the LEO has let the victim down. Thats why I would want to box the car in to make sure that it couldn't go any where. I especially wouldn't want to get in a high speed chase, and have the suspect crash into innocent bystanders. Then there would be even more victims. If the suspects jumped out and run, thats OK. I can call for a police dog to track them. At least I have recovered the car for the victim.

My #2 goal would be to arrest the suspects. As a LEO I would be sworn to uphold the constitution and that includes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of suspects. If I fail to take a suspect into custody alive then I would be depriving him of his right to due process. Which would mean that I would have failed to uphold the constitution.

Police need to be trained in how to recover victims property, and take suspects into custody without killing them. If the cops can't do that, and their only goal is to get home safe, then they are useless, and we really don't need them.

Seriously? If you were a cop, your number one priority would be returning people's property back to them, above your own safety? Oh OK...good luck with that.

You think the NUMBER ONE GOAL of Law Enforcement is to return people's property to them safely? Over and above the officer's life or death? LOL Now I understand...

 

[Fred Hall]

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:

This officer didn't seem to think it was a dangerous thing either.

 

[katydid23]

Teens cannot predict the outcome of their actions at all times - they are invincible in their minds, because their brains are still developing. Being able to 'see around corners' ie predict all outcomes happens at more like 25. Anyone that can figure out how to instill 25 year old + brains in a teen will be more wealthy than Gates.

A 17 yr old knows it is wrong to steal a car and drink before you drive it on a suspended license. She knew, even with her undeveloped brain, what it means when two cops are pointing guns at you. She just didn't care.

 

[Woodland]

It shouldn't take a case like this for kids to learn common sense. The law is even nice enough to call stealing a car Joyriding if a youngster is behind the wheel and as long as the car wasn't stolen violently.

Now i understand that youngsters are just having a laugh which is still unacceptable especially if it was your car that was stolen.

But now things get deeper when further common sense is not kicking when it is time to give up while guns are drawn on you by the police.

Kids need to realize that life isn't fun and games and nothing matters but right now enjoyment.

Kids need to wake up and snap out of it.

Jmo. But too bad she know longer has the chance. So hopefully others can learn something from this. Jmo

BBM

You can make a lot of money by making that happen.

 

[Fred Hall]

It shouldn't take a case like this for kids to learn common sense. The law is even nice enough to call stealing a car Joyriding if a youngster is behind the wheel and as long as the car wasn't stolen violently.

Now i understand that youngsters are just having a laugh which is still unacceptable especially if it was your car that was stolen.

But now things get deeper when further common sense is not kicking when it is time to give up while guns are drawn on you by the police.

Kids need to realize that life isn't fun and games and nothing matters but right now enjoyment.

Kids need to wake up and snap out of it.

Jmo. But too bad she know longer has the chance. So hopefully others can learn something from this. Jmo

We all like to complain about the younger generation, but this has no bearing on the legal justification of the shooting.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Teens cannot predict the outcome of their actions at all times - they are invincible in their minds, because their brains are still developing. Being able to 'see around corners' ie predict all outcomes happens at more like 25. Anyone that can figure out how to instill 25 year old + brains in a teen will be more wealthy than Gates.

And this is what we now tell are teens when not complying to LE when they have guns drawn on them.

Do we now just let our kids not take responsibility for basic things that should have been known.

These were not 13 year olds fresh out of a suburban middle school. Jmo.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I doubt the cops knew who was in the car. They probably knew that the occupants of the car could possibly be dangerous.

To explain my rational more.

If I was a cop, first what my goal would not be. My goal would not be to get home safe. I'm not that much of a coward. I would be willing to take a reasonable amount of risk to do my job.

What my goals would be. 1. To recover the victims property in as undamaged a condition as possible. It's seems to me that should be the #1 goal of law enforcement. The victim wants his car back. If the car gets wrecked or shot full of bullet holes, then the LEO has let the victim down. Thats why I would want to box the car in to make sure that it couldn't go any where. I especially wouldn't want to get in a high speed chase, and have the suspect crash into innocent bystanders. Then there would be even more victims. If the suspects jumped out and run, thats OK. I can call for a police dog to track them. At least I have recovered the car for the victim.

My #2 goal would be to arrest the suspects. As a LEO I would be sworn to uphold the constitution and that includes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of suspects. If I fail to take a suspect into custody alive then I would be depriving him of his right to due process. Which would mean that I would have failed to uphold the constitution.

Police need to be trained in how to recover victims property, and take suspects into custody without killing them. If the cops can't do that, and their only goal is to get home safe, then they are useless, and we really don't need them.

I think apprehending the suspect would be first and foremost. Preservation of the car would be the least of my worries.

 

[Woodland]

Seriously? If you were a cop, your number one priority would be returning people's property back to them, above your own safety? Oh OK...good luck with that.

You think the NUMBER ONE GOAL of Law Enforcement is to return people's property to them safely? Over and above the officer's life or death? LOL Now I understand...

If this is representative of LE thinking - condescending/sarcastic - everyone is sunk.

If LE thinking was non-military and non-combat the approach would be different.

 

[Fred Hall]

As a LEO I would be sworn to uphold the constitution and that includes the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of suspects.

sbm
What is this con-ster-too-shun you speak of? /s

 

[DexterMorgan]

BBM

You can make a lot of money by making that happen.

Lol. I wish i could. I just know that soon my kids may be in a tough position that may or may not be no fault of their own.

But I just hope they analysis the outcome before making decisions. And I definitely hope that friends that they are with is smart enough not to play daredevil with my kids lives.

 

[al66pine]

Fred Hall-
For your benefit, quoting jury instructions for situations in which non-LEO, i.e., a civilian, shoots & kills driver, faces trial, and offers defense of justification.
You may wish to compare to different jury instructions which would be used if LEO were being tried & offered justification defense.
Nothing in these instructions about LEO trying to effect an arrest or preventing escape, because, well, non-LEOs don't have those responsibilities.
And hoping if these instructions are not current, someone will correct me.

______________________________________________________________

USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE - DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE
(Imminent Danger of Death or Serious Bodily Injury by Victim)

It is an affirmative defense to the crime of________________ that the defendant
(Insert name of crime)
used deadly physical force because:

1. in order to defend [himself] [or] [a third person] from what he reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person,
2. he used a degree of force which he reasonably believed to be necessary for that purpose, and
3. he/she reasonably believed a lesser degree of force was inadequate, and
4. had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe, that he or another person was in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury.
[The defendant is not required to retreat in order to claim the right to employ force in his/her defense.]

[The defendant is not justified in using physical force if:
1. with intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person,
2. he/she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by that person.]

In addition to proving all of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution also has the burden to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

After considering the evidence concerning the affirmative defense, with all the other evidence in this case, if you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, you must return a verdict of not guilty.

NOTES ON USE​

Delete inapplicable bracket material. This instruction should only be used if the victim dies.
The definitions of “deadly physical force” and “great bodily injury” must be defined. “Great bodily injury” has same meaning as “serious bodily injury”. People v. Reed. 695P.2d 806 (Colo. App. 1984). If combat by agreement is an issue then the definition of “combat by agreement” should be used. If the victim is alleged to have used unjustified physical force, see the special rule on use of physical force. If there is a question as to whether the victim is the initial aggressor, use the general instruction on Non-justifiable Use of physical Force. If the defendant is threatened by multiple assailants, the instruction must be modified consistent with People v. Jones, 675 P.2d 9 (Colo. 1994).
The use of the bracketed material should be limited to the issues presented by the evidence in the case.

SOURCE &AUTHORITY​

§18-1-704 C.R.S. People v. Cuevas, 740 P.2d 25 (Colo.App. 1987)
Idrogo v. People, 818 P.2d 752 (Colo. 1991)
People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341 (Colo. 2000)
People v. Garcia, 28 P.3d 340 (Colo. 2001)
__________________________________________________________________
same source as a few posts back. Above instruction starts ~ screen 60, in link below.


www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/File/Court_Probation/Supreme... · Web view
... permission under the laws of the State of Colorado] ...