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

[DexterMorgan]

OH MY...THANK YOU. I thought I was going nuts because I was sure I had remembered a previous stolen car incident. And the reason I remembered was because I was so upset with JH because I worked with high school kids for years, mostly with At Risk teens. And I was always willing to help them overcome past 'mistakes.' But when I read that she had just that day been released after two prior incidents with resisting arrest, no license, and stolen cars, then I knew that this was a kid with some major issues going on. It was not just a one time mistake that she needed to get past. She was seriously saying EFF YOU to her family and to the cops. JMO

That pretty much sums it up. Good job. There is really no wiggle room for argument after that post. My job is done here. Lol. Thanks for making it easy.

 

[Fred Hall]

"22 On January 22, 2015, just four days prior to this shooting, a Thornton police officer saw Hernandez in the driver seat of a parked Honda Civic that had been stolen the day before. When the officer announced his presence, Hernandez looked at him and ran away. She was later found and arrested, and then released." bbm

sbm
While I don't doubt that Hernandez stole the car, this doesn't actually say that she was charged with stealing it, or that she was out on bail. Whatever the case, I notice that the above-mentioned car and the one involved in the shooting are both Honda Civics — they must have been the only model that she knew how to hot-wire.

 

[Fred Hall]

She is known as a very left leaning progressive, so no surprise that her article was so derogatory and one-sided. JMO

sbm
:facepalm:

 

[katydid23]

sbm
While I don't doubt that Hernandez stole the car, this doesn't actually say that she was charged with stealing it, or that she was out on bail. Whatever the case, I notice that the above-mentioned car and the one involved in the shooting are both Honda Civics — they must have been the only model that she knew how to hot-wire.

She had no license and she kept driving around in cars that didn't belong to her, while high/drunk. And when caught, she'd take off at high speed and run from the cops. She did that THREE TIMES within a one week period. That is self destructive, erratic behavior. And that is the kind of thing that can escalate a situation and make it go sideways. JMO

 

[Woodland]

I am sorry JH is dead. I am sorry her parent(s) had no control over her actions. I'm sorry she made a series of choices that ended in her death. And I'm sorry that people seem to believe that law enforcement is supposed to take the place of parents, to be understanding in the face of a potentially deadly situation, that 'this is just a kid, she doesn't actually mean to ram me with this car' and to risk their own lives in an encounter with an out of control child. But I will say--sorrowfully--that once your child gets to a place in which you have no control, in which he or she breaks the law repeatedly, has violent or potentially violent interactions with other and/or LE, perhaps it is time to consider your failures as a parent and not the failures of law enforcement. Because it is NOT the job of LE to parent your child, to excuse your child from breaking the law, to pardon your child from endangering others, it is the job of LE to protect the peace and to enforce the laws of society. It is up to the judicial system to determine the punishment(s) for various crimes, but in a situation in which someone (whether it is your beloved teenaged child or a much older criminal is breaking the law) society expects/demands that LE protect society as a whole over any given individual. You have a problem with that? Take it up with your duly elected representatives and work to change the laws, because whether you like it or not, in the absence of an egregious illegal act on the part of LE (which is IMO absent in THIS case, or we wouldn't have people constructing ever more particular straw men that have to be shot down rather than dealing with the actual facts) LE is acting on the will of society overall. Maybe you don't like it because they have guns and *have been given the authority by society to use deadly force* but if you have a problem with the overall concept of deadly force being used to enforce the law you are way, WAY too late in objecting by the time you get to the actual end result of same.

IMO.

BBM

Once again, putting words into the mouths of posters who have a different opinion - not one poster has said a single bolded word above nor much of the rest of the quoted post. Once again, old, and with all due respect, lame.

Imo, all this does is put a greater distance between the varying opinions. Maybe that's the point?

 

[Woodland]

bbm in Fred's text; sbm

Fred Hall. Glad you pointed this out. Why did Dist. Atty include ^ (not ltd to LE) self defense section in his report?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing w your ^implication, but wonder if anyone else has thoughts about other reasons he included this. Anyone?

Doing his level best to negate charges against the officer imo. What will the implication with this 'ruling' be in a wrongful death suit?

 

[Fred Hall]

The Denver Post reports that the DPD has changed its policy regarding shooting a moving cars. The first paragraph of the article reads:

Denver Police Department officers no longer can shoot at a moving vehicle because they believe a driver is using the car as a weapon.

EDIT: In the time since I posted the above, the first paragraph of the article has been changed to read thus:

The Denver Police Department will prohibit officers from shooting at moving cars unless someone inside is firing at them, a change in policy that mirrors one being adopted by police departments nationwide.

I can't find any acknowledgment of this alteration. While the page is loading in my browser, this time-stamp appears:

Posted: 06/09/2015 08:05:02 AM MDT Updated: 06/09/2015 05:27:44 PM MDT

 

[Fred Hall]

She had no license and she kept driving around in cars that didn't belong to her, while high/drunk. And when caught, she'd take off at high speed and run from the cops. She did that THREE TIMES within a one week period. That is self destructive, erratic behavior. And that is the kind of thing that can escalate a situation and make it go sideways. JMO

No argument here I will only add that the officers would not have been struck by the car if they had held their fire. Hernandez would probably have been caught in the following days or weeks, and would not have been likely to receive parole again.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

No argument here I will only add that the officers would not have been struck by the car if they had held their fire. Hernandez would probably have been caught in the following days or weeks, and would not have been likely to receive parole again.

Or, while trying to flee the 4th, 5th, 6th... time, she could have seriously injured or killed a cop or an innocent civilian.

She showed time and time again that she did not value anyone's life. Not LEOs', not her friends/fellow car thieves', not even her own. She was a ticking time bomb.

I'm sorry she had to die. But her choices and actions are the reason she's dead.

JMO

 

[al66pine]

BBM. Once again, putting words into the mouths of posters who have a different opinion - not one poster has said a single bolded word above nor much of the rest of the quoted post. Once again, old, and with all due respect, lame.
Imo, all this does is put a greater distance between the varying opinions. Maybe that's the point?

Woodland,
In rereading Minette's post, I see your interpretation - about 'putting words into the mouths of posters.'

On first read, I saw her post completely differently and still do.
I saw her post as commenting about expectations or beliefs of some ppl - whoever they may be, wherever, whatever number - not about W/S posters. When Minette said "once your child ... breaks the law repeatedly" I did not understand her to refer to W/S parent-posters.

Again, I see what you're saying and will keep it in mind to help me phrase more carefully in my own posts.

 

[Fred Hall]

Or, while trying to flee the 4th, 5th, 6th... time, she could have seriously injured or killed a cop or an innocent civilian.

sbm
She certainly could have. However, Morrissey didn't use this line of reasoning in his defense of the officers' actions — perhaps because the above is not a legal justification for homicide.

 

[Fred Hall]

I'm sorry she had to die. But her choices and actions are the reason she's dead. JMO

sbm
In part. But surely the officers' decision to shoot her has at least something to do with it.

 

[Minette]

Woodland,
In rereading minette's post, I see your interpretation - about 'putting words into the mouths of posters.'

On first read, I saw her post completely differently and still do.
I saw her post as commenting about expectations or beliefs of some ppl - whoever they may be, wherever, whatever number - not about W/S posters. When minette said "once your child ... breaks the law repeatedly" I did not understand her to refer to W/S parent-posters.

Again, I see what you're saying and will keep it in mind to help me phrase more carefully in my own posts.

Thank you alpine, you are right in your interpretation. This case makes me so a angry because it was such a waste of a young life due to her own actions. And when you strip out age, gender, and sexual orientation it becomes 'repeat car thief drives at police in stolen car, is shot.' Hardly even a surprise.

 

[al66pine]

The Denver Post reports that the DPD has changed its policy regarding shooting a moving cars. The first paragraph of the article reads:

EDIT: In the time since I posted the above, the first paragraph of the article has been changed to read thus:
I can't find any acknowledgment of this alteration. While the page is loading in my browser, this time-stamp appears: However, it is quickly replaced by this:

Fred Hall,
Very observant of you. Off to read the new DPD policy itself.

 

[Montjoy]

Woodland,
In rereading Minette's post, I see your interpretation - about 'putting words into the mouths of posters.'

On first read, I saw her post completely differently and still do.
I saw her post as commenting about expectations or beliefs of some ppl - whoever they may be, wherever, whatever number - not about W/S posters. When Minette said "once your child ... breaks the law repeatedly" I did not understand her to refer to W/S parent-posters.

Again, I see what you're saying and will keep it in mind to help me phrase more carefully in my own posts.

This is totally aside from the content of the posts, but I have to say that I give full props to anyone who is woman or man enough to concede a mistake. It's more than a courtesy to those affected, but it's one to the greater thread/forum/community. So, thank you.

 

[Fred Hall]

The revised DPD policy document says this:

Moving vehicles
a.
Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving or fleeing vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officer or another person present by means other than the moving vehicle.
b.
Officers shall exercise good judgment and not move into or remain in the path of a moving vehicle. Moving into or remaining in the path of a moving vehicle, whether deliberate or inadvertent, shall not be justification for discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any occupant. An officer in the path of a vehicle shall attempt to move to a position of safety rather than discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any of the occupants.

 

[al66pine]

Dang this is hard to read, with no outline-formatting. Can anybody get the file here, to read w/out having to jump from screen to screen, preferably w ability to copy & paste? This also lost the red, designating amended sections. Pls?


"DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT OMS 105.05 – Discharge of Firearms
APPROVED – June 8, 2015 Page 1 of 2
105.05 Discharge of Firearms (revised 06-2015) (1) Officers shall not discharge any firearm in the performance of their duties except as authorized by law and the rules, regulations and procedures of the Denver Police Department. (2) All members of the Denver Police Department shall safely handle firearms while performing on-duty assignments and at all times while carrying/handling firearms while off-duty. (3) When all reasonable alternatives appear impractical, a law enforcement officer may resort to the lawful use of firearms under the following conditions when he/she reasonably believes that it is necessary. When feasible, it is necessary, to give some warning before engaging in the use of deadly force. If possible, identify yourself as a police officer, give the command you want followed, and state your intention to shoot. a. To defend him/herself, or a third person from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force (C.R.S. §18-1-707); or b. To affect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he/she reasonably believes: 1. Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or 2. Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or 3. 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. §18-1-707). 4. The following definitions shall apply to all of OMS 105.04(3) a. and b: a. REASONABLE BELIEF: When facts or circumstances the officer reasonably believes, knows, or should know, are such as to cause an ordinary and prudent police officer to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances. b. DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE: That force, the intended, natural, and probable consequence of which is to produce death and which does, in fact, produce death. c. SERIOUS BODILY INJURY: Bodily injury which, either at the time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, a substantial risk or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks, fractures (to include breaks or fractures of hard tissue such as bone, teeth, or cartilage) or burns of the second or third degree. c. A law enforcement officer may also engage in the lawful use of firearms under the following conditions: 1. To kill a dangerous animal or one that humane treatment requires its removal from further suffering and alternative methods of disposition are impractical. 2. To participate in authorized training at a target range. 3. To participate in any legitimate sporting activity. (4) Officers will not discharge firearms under the following conditions: a. At another person unless the circumstances are such that the officer would be justified under the law if the shot killed the person. b. Where there is likelihood of serious injury to persons other than the person to be apprehended. c. As a warning or attention shots. d. Solely to protect property. e. At a moving vehicle, see below (5) Moving vehicles a. Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving or fleeing vehicle unless deadly force is being used against the police officer or another person present by means other than the moving vehicle. b. Officers shall exercise good judgment and not move into or remain in the path of a moving vehicle. Moving into or remaining in the path of a moving vehicle, whether deliberate or inadvertent, shall not be justification for discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any occupant. An officer in the path of a vehicle shall attempt to move to a position of safety rather than discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any of the occupants. c. Firing at moving vehicles is prohibited for the following reasons: 1. Firing at a moving vehicle may have very little impact on stopping the vehicle. 2. Disabling the driver may result in an uncontrolled vehicle, and the likelihood of injury to occupants of the vehicle (who may not be involved in the crime) may be increased when the vehicle is either out of control or shots are fired into the passenger compartment. d. It is understood that the policy in regards to discharging a firearm at a moving vehicle, like all written policies, may not cover every situation. Any deviations shall be examined rigorously on a case-by-case basis. e. Officers are discouraged from immediately approaching a stopped vehicle at the conclusion of a pursuit or other high-risk stop. Where reasonably possible, officers shall use the felony stop tactic. f. Firing from a moving vehicle: Accuracy may be severely impacted when firing from a moving vehicle, and firing from a moving vehicle may increase the risk of harm to officers or other citizens. Officers should not fire from a moving vehicle except in self defense or defense of another from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. (6) Above all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern when the use of force is considered."

 

[Fred Hall]

In his conclusion on page 25 of the decision letter, Morrissey explicitly states that he finds the shooting to be justified under C.R.S. 18-1-704, which applies to private citizens.

Similarly, regarding the justification set forth in C.R.S. 18-1-704, I conclude that a jury would find, as I do, that:
-The officers reasonably believed that the acceleration of the Honda toward Officer Jordan was an unlawful use or imminent use of force by the driver;
-The officers had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe, that Officer Jordan was in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury;
-The officers reasonably believed less than deadly physical force was inadequate to defend Officer Jordan under the circumstances.
These findings would result in a jury finding that the officers’ use of deadly force was justified under C.R.S. 18-1-704, and therefore was not unlawful.

 

[Fred Hall]

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT
OMS 105.05 - Discharge of Firearms
105.05 Discharge of Firearms (revised 06-2015)
(1)
Officers shall not discharge any firearm in the performance of their duties except as
authorized by law and the rules, regulations and procedures of the Denver Police
Department.
(2)
All members of the Denver Police Department shall safely handle firearms while
performing on-duty assignments and at all times while carrying/handling firearms while
off-duty.
(3)
When all reasonable alternatives appear impractical, a law enforcement officer may
resort to the lawful use of firearms under the following conditions when he/she
reasonably believes that it is necessary. When feasible, it is necessary, to give some
warning before engaging in the use of deadly force. If possible, identify yourself as a
police officer, give the command you want followed, and state your intention to shoot.
a.
To defend him/herself, or a third person from what he/she reasonably believes to
be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force (C.R.S. §18-1-707); or
b.
To affect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he/she reasonably believes:
1.
Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or
threatened use of a deadly weapon; or
2.
Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or
3.
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. §18-1-707).
4.
The following definitions shall apply to all of OMS 105.04(3) a. and b:
a.
REASONABLE BELIEF: When facts or circumstances the officer
reasonably believes, knows, or should know, are such as to
cause an ordinary and prudent police officer to act or think in a
similar way under similar circumstances.
b.
DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE: That force, the intended, natural,
and probable consequence of which is to produce death and
which does, in fact, produce death.
c.
SERIOUS BODILY INJURY: Bodily injury which, either at the
time of the actual injury or at a later time, involves a substantial
risk of death, a substantial risk of serious permanent
disfigurement, a substantial risk or protracted loss or impairment
of the function of any part or organ of the body, or breaks,
fractures (to include breaks or fractures of hard tissue such as
bone, teeth, or cartilage) or burns of the second or third degree.
c.
A law enforcement officer may also engage in the lawful use of firearms under
the following conditions:
1.
To kill a dangerous animal or one that humane treatment requires its
removal from further suffering and alternative methods of disposition are
impractical.
2.
To participate in authorized training at a target range.
3.
To participate in any legitimate sporting activity.
(4)
Officers will not discharge firearms under the following conditions:
a.
At another person unless the circumstances are such that the officer would be
justified under the law if the shot killed the person.
b.
Where there is likelihood of serious injury to persons other than the person to be
apprehended.
c.
As a warning or attention shots
d.
Solely to protect property.
e.
At a moving vehicle, see below
(5)
Moving vehicles
a.
Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving or fleeing vehicle unless deadly force
is being used against the police officer or another person present by means other
than the moving vehicle.
b.
Officers shall exercise good judgment and not move into or remain in the path of a
moving vehicle. Moving into or remaining in the path of a moving vehicle, whether
deliberate or inadvertent, shall not be justification for discharging a firearm at the
vehicle or any occupant. An officer in the path of a vehicle shall attempt to move to
a position of safety rather than discharging a firearm at the vehicle or any of the
occupants.
c.
Firing at moving vehicles is prohibited for the following reasons:
1.
Firing at a moving vehicle may have very little impact on stopping the
vehicle.
2.
Disabling the driver may result in an uncontrolled vehicle, and the
likelihood of injury to occupants of the vehicle (who may not be involved
in the crime) may be increased when the vehicle is either out of control
or shots are fired into the passenger compartment.
d.
It is understood that the policy in regards to discharging a firearm at a moving
vehicle, like all written policies, may not cover every situation. Any deviations shall
be examined rigorously on a case-by-case basis.
e.
Officers are discouraged from immediately approaching a stopped vehicle at the
conclusion of a pursuit or other high-risk stop. Where reasonably possible, officers
shall use the felony stop tactic.
f.
Firing from a moving vehicle: Accuracy may be severely impacted when firing
from a moving vehicle, and firing from a moving vehicle may increase the risk of
harm to officers or other citizens. Officers should not fire from a moving vehicle
except in self defense or defense of another from what the officer reasonably
believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.
(6)
Above all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern when
the use of force is considered.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person

Colorado statute 18-1-704 uses the word "person" thru out. It doesn't single out civilians or police officers. It is appropriate in this case.

JMO.

http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/...t-zSkAz&_md5=a421fff58788f3d991c3cd4fba819863