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

[Fred Hall]

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

Morrissey claims that he would have found the Hernandez shooting to be justified if it had been made by a private citizen, but I very much doubt that he actually would have. I think that knew that the shooting was extremely dubious, but didn't want to ruin his career by prosecuting police officers.

 

[al66pine]

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.

Montjoy, Why thank you.:blushing:
If there's one thing I'm good at, it's conceding mistakes and making apologies.
A lotta experience, ya know? As time passes, seems there should be fewer, but not necessarily.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Morrissey claims that he would have found the Hernandez shooting to be justified if it had been made by a private citizen, but I very much doubt that he actually would have. I think that knew that the shooting was extremely dubious, but didn't want to ruin his career by prosecuting police officers.

I haven't seen anything that supports your ideas.

 

[Fred Hall]

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.

If she had been murdered by a gang member, it would not have been a surprise. Nor would have been legally justified.

 

[Fred Hall]

I haven't seen anything that supports your ideas.

If Morrissey had thought that the shooting was justified solely because the shooters were acting in their official capacity, wouldn't he have only cited C.R.S. 18-1-707, which applies exclusively to "peace officers"?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

If Morrissey had thought that the shooting was justified solely because the shooters were acting in their official capacity, wouldn't he have only cited C.R.S. 18-1-707, which applies exclusively to "peace officers"?

I'm not sure this supports your ideas posted above.

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

The officers where not making an arrest or trying to prevent an escape. They fired their guns when Jessica tried to run one of them down. That makes 18-1-704 the proper statue.
JMO
http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/...k-zSkAb&_md5=e208322f1ce601a51027ee32589a2b08

 

[Fred Hall]

I'm not sure this supports your ideas posted above.

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

The officers where not making an arrest or trying to prevent an escape. They fired their guns when Jessica tried to run one of them down. That makes 18-1-704 the proper statue.

http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/...k-zSkAb&_md5=e208322f1ce601a51027ee32589a2b08

And wouldn't C.R.S. 18-1-704 have justified my acting in the same way if I had a legitimate reason to be there? Say, if I was confronting someone who was stealing my car and the thief tried to "run me down"?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

And wouldn't C.R.S. 18-1-704 have justified my acting in the same way if I had a legitimate reason to be there? Say, if I was confronting someone who was stealing my car?

Sure. Why not?

 

[Fred Hall]

Sure. Why not?

While I might be able to escape charges if ballistic evidence placed me forward of the front bumper, I can't help but think that I would be in trouble if I fired from beside the car hood as Officer Jordan did.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

While I might be able to escape charges if ballistic evidence placed me forward of the front bumper, I can't help but think that I would be in trouble if I fired from beside the car hood as Officer Jordan did.

If you had witness's like this case saying the driver accelerated the car at you I think you would be fine. JMO.

 

[al66pine]

I'm not sure this supports your ideas posted above.
18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape
The officers where not making an arrest or trying to prevent an escape. They fired their guns when Jessica tried to run one of them down. That makes 18-1-704 the proper statue. JMO
http://web.lexisnexis.com/research/...k-zSkAb&_md5=e208322f1ce601a51027ee32589a2b08

RANCH
Can you lend a hand here? I'm hitting lexisnexis subscription wall/paywall.
A quote or summary, if you can?
Or were you just providing link to lexisnexis for text to CO statute cited? Or anyone? TIA.

 

[al66pine]

Fred Hall,
I stand in awe of your technical expertise & wizardry for bringing this text over w formatting intact. TYVM.

It seems there's still flexibility for exceptions to the policy, per these phrases:
"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."bbm
And at tail end of policy:
"Above all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern when the use of force is considered." bbm

JM2cts, could be wrong.

 

[Fred Hall]

Fred Hall,
I stand in awe of your technical expertise & wizardly for bringing this text over w formatting intact. TYVM.

It seems there's still flexibility for exceptions to the policy, per these phrases:
"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." bbm
And at tail end of policy:
"Above all, the safety of the public and the officer must be the overriding concern when the use of force is considered." bbm

JM2cts, could be wrong.

I haven't yet seen any expert analysis of whether the Hernandez shooting would retrospectively conform to these new guidelines, although I would think that the revised policy still allows for gunfire if a driver was making an obvious and sustained effort to run people down.

 

[al66pine]

My bolding & snipping below, re new DPD policy:
".... 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. ...." bbm

What is DPD policy re conducting felony stops? Google did not help me, but wiki discusses felony stops generally (which may or may not apply in Denver):
"A "felony" or "high-risk" traffic stop occurs when police stop a vehicle which they have strong reason to believe contains a driver or passenger suspected of having committed a serious crime, especially of a nature that would lead the police to believe the suspect(s) may be armed (such as an armed robbery, assault with a weapon, or an outstanding felony warrant for the registered owner). In a high risk stop, officers attempt to provide their own safety by issuing instructions to maintain absolute control over every step of the proceedings.They will have additional officers on scene for back-up, often waiting for additional officers to join up before initiating the stop. They will typically have their weapons drawn, and stay back from the suspect vehicle, using their patrol cars for cover.... They will address the driver and any passengers over the PA speaker of the patrol car, typically instructing the driver to turn the engine off, remove the keys from the ignition, and sometimes toss them out the window. They will instruct the occupants, one at a time, to exit the vehicle with empty hands showing, place their hands on top of or behind their heads, walk backwards some distance, and then lay flat on the ground, where they will remain until all occupants have done likewise, at which point officers will move up, apply handcuffs, do a body search and then secure the suspects in the patrol cars. The vehicle is then typically searched for weapons and other evidence in accordance with the arresting Department's Standard Operating Procedures "S.O.P.'s"."bbm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop.

If Denver PD policy calls for ^, then LEOs approach w guns drawn, etc., in essence, treating everyone in stopped vehicle - driver & occupants - like felons. Did ppl who clamored for changing discharge-of-firearms policy think new policy would require LEOs to treat more ppl like felons? Another case of unintended consequences? JM2cts, could be misunderstanding, could be all wrong.

 

[Fred Hall]

My bolding & snipping below, re new DPD policy:
".... 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. ...." bbm

What is DPD policy re conducting felony stops? Google did not help me, but wiki discusses felony stops generally (which may or may not apply in Denver):
"A "felony" or "high-risk" traffic stop occurs when police stop a vehicle which they have strong reason to believe contains a driver or passenger suspected of having committed a serious crime, especially of a nature that would lead the police to believe the suspect(s) may be armed (such as an armed robbery, assault with a weapon, or an outstanding felony warrant for the registered owner). In a high risk stop, officers attempt to provide their own safety by issuing instructions to maintain absolute control over every step of the proceedings.They will have additional officers on scene for back-up, often waiting for additional officers to join up before initiating the stop. They will typically have their weapons drawn, and stay back from the suspect vehicle, using their patrol cars for cover.... They will address the driver and any passengers over the PA speaker of the patrol car, typically instructing the driver to turn the engine off, remove the keys from the ignition, and sometimes toss them out the window. They will instruct the occupants, one at a time, to exit the vehicle with empty hands showing, place their hands on top of or behind their heads, walk backwards some distance, and then lay flat on the ground, where they will remain until all occupants have done likewise, at which point officers will move up, apply handcuffs, do a body search and then secure the suspects in the patrol cars. The vehicle is then typically searched for weapons and other evidence in accordance with the arresting Department's Standard Operating Procedures "S.O.P.'s"."bbm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_stop.

If Denver PD policy calls for ^, then LEOs approach w guns drawn, etc., in essence, treating everyone in stopped vehicle - driver & occupants - like felons. Did ppl who clamored for changing discharge-of-firearms policy think new policy would require LEOs to treat more ppl like felons? Another case of unintended consequences? JM2cts, could be misunderstanding, could be all wrong.

I agree with you; it sounds like they are intending to use the felony stop tactic in situations that do not actually involve felony suspects. It is my opinion that these situations don't call for felony stops or gunfire — officers should just avoid standing in front of cars and jump out of the way if they find themselves in that position, as Officer Jordan did. I note that if Jordan had stood still and shot the driver through the middle of the windshield, he would have been struck by the driver-less car. The only reason he was not struck is the fact that he dodged the car prior to shooting its driver. Obviously, if a driver turns around and come back for another go, the officers are dealing with someone who is intentionally trying to ram them and would be justified in opening fire.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

This is exactly what I've been saying all along. IMO this is what matters.

Morrissey explained his decision in the case to police saying: 'If there is one message I hope our community understands from this case, it is that this shooting was completely preventable,'

'It would not have occurred if Hernandez had simply complied with lawful police orders.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olen-car-not-face-charges-ignored-orders.html

Also from link:

Greene had pulled up behind the Honda, and Jordan pulled up in front. They both drew their weapons and ordered the teens out of the car.

Instead, Hernandez slowly backed into Greene's patrol car, then drove slowly toward Jordan, according to the officers' accounts contained in Morrissey's letter.

Hernandez reversed again, hit a fence and then accelerated forward toward Jordan, who said the car was so close he pushed it with his hand.



IMO the officers did what they had to do.

 

[Fred Hall]

IMO the officers did what they had to do.

sbm
While some may think that the officers' actions were excusable given the situation, they did not actually have to do what they did. If they had held their fire, neither of the officers would have been struck, as the stolen car had already begun to pass them when they shot its driver.

 

[Minette]

If she had been murdered by a gang member, it would not have been a surprise. Nor would have been legally justified.

She was in a gang? I did not know that.

 

[Fred Hall]

She was in a gang? I did not know that.

I haven't seen any suggestion that she was a member of a street gang, although this article implies that she was part of an ring of car thieves. From the article:

"The people that were arrested are connected in the same auto theft ring that Jessica Hernandez was involved with," said Westminster Police Department spokeswoman Cheri Spottke.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, thats their job. To recover stolen property and arrest people. Why should anybody get paid to get home safe? Thats every person's personal responsibility. Nobody should get paid for it. My god, talk about a sense of entitlement. I just got home safe, I think I should get paid for that. :facepalm:

Stop wasting my tax money for these people to do nothing but protect themselves.

If you were locked in your bathroom at 3 am, while armed home invaders were trying to get to you, you could call 911 and the officers would race to your home. They would personally put their OWN LIVES at risk to save yours. And I have no doubt that you would call them in a heartbeat if you needed them. So it does annoy me the way some here scoff and mock the notion that they need to worry about their own safety. JMO