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

[Kimberlyd125]

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.

And was the car pointing towards others? Innocent citizens? Pedestrians on the side of the road?
Can you tell me no one else would have been killed that day had they not stopped her erratic, illegal, dangerous actions? How many innocent people would have been in her path during a chase?

If she's willing to drive a car towards armed officers, what makes you think a mom pushing a baby on the next block or a little old lady crossing the street would have made her even tap her brakes?
IMO the public was in extreme danger every second JH was out stealing, eluding, drinking, smoking pot...

She was so far out of control. She even mentioned on her twitter she would probably die by cop. She knew how she was living. She knew it would catch up to her. And she just didn't care.
That's what made her so dangerous. She had nothing to lose. She wanted that life and that death. So she could be somebody people would remember.

It is my opinion, LE did what they had to do. All she had to do was follow orders and get out of that car. She, instead, drove it towards officers. How dumb was she??? I realize you don't agree. We can disagree.

She's dead because she chose to be.

JMO

 

[Fred Hall]

And was the car pointing towards others? Innocent citizens? Pedestrians on the side of the road?
Can you tell me no one else would have been killed that day had they not stopped her erratic, illegal, dangerous actions? How many innocent people would have been in her path during a chase?

If she's willing to drive a car towards armed officers, what makes you think a mom pushing a baby on the next block or a little old lady crossing the street would have made her even tap her brakes?
IMO the public was in extreme danger every second JH was out stealing, eluding, drinking, smoking pot...

sbm
I gather you think that the killing of Hernandez was justified in some general sense. Do you also think that it was legally justified? Are you of the opinion that her shooting was justified according to statutes C.R.S. 18-1-707 or C.R.S. 18-1-704?

18-1-704 Use Of Physical Force In Defense Of A Person
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 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; or
(b.) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
(c.) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
(a.) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or
(b.) He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or
(c.) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law


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:
(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.
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 perspective 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

bbm

 

[Kimberlyd125]

sbm
I gather you think that the killing of Hernandez was justified in some general sense. Do you also think that it was legally justified? Are you of the opinion that her shooting was justified according to statutes C.R.S. 18-1-707 or C.R.S. 18-1-704?

bbm

I've said from the beginning IMO it was justified.

All of my posts are my opinion unless I provide a link.

 

[Fred Hall]

I've said from the beginning IMO it was justified.

sbm
But legally justified? In C.R.S. 18-1-707, the use of force statute that applies to peace officers, dangerous driving appears to be explicitly excluded as a justification for lethal force.

And was the car pointing towards others? Innocent citizens? Pedestrians on the side of the road?
Can you tell me no one else would have been killed that day had they not stopped her erratic, illegal, dangerous actions? How many innocent people would have been in her path during a chase?

If she's willing to drive a car towards armed officers, what makes you think a mom pushing a baby on the next block or a little old lady crossing the street would have made her even tap her brakes?
IMO the public was in extreme danger every second JH was out stealing, eluding, drinking, smoking pot...

sbm

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:
(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.

bbm

 

[Montjoy]

I've said from the beginning IMO it was justified.

All of my posts are my opinion unless I provide a link.

Respectfully, and forgive if this seems personalized -- as it has nothing to do with you as a person (one who likes competetive softball/fastpitch, etc.,) the question wasn't about whether or not you thought it was justified, but it was about which statute you thought justified it.

eta: I've played many versions of this similar game, and in many places softball is harder to play than baseball. There are also many versions of softball. In the Chicagoland area, there are some pretty crazy forms of the game, to the extent that there are some specialists in certain types of injuries that occur when playing their form of softball -- 18 inch circumference, and without gloves (at least for men), etc.

eta - there used to be some softball barnstorming/touring teams that could pretty much wipe their cleats with any teams they played, amateur or professional, so I don't think that the designations are relevant. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can play either game at a high level.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Respectfully, and forgive if this seems personalized -- as it has nothing to do with you as a person (one who likes competetive softball/fastpitch, etc.,) the question wasn't about whether or not you thought it was justified, but it was about which statute you thought justified it.

eta: I've played many versions of this similar game, and in many places softball is harder to play than baseball. There are also many versions of softball. In the Chicagoland area, there are some pretty crazy forms of the game, to the extent that there are some specialists in certain types of injuries that occur when playing their form of softball -- 18 inch circumference, and without gloves (at least for men), etc.

eta - there used to be some softball barnstorming/touring teams that could pretty much wipe their cleats with any teams they played, amateur or professional, so I don't think that the designations are relevant. I have a lot of respect for anyone who can play either game at a high level.

I admit I haven't read all the statutes. And really don't plan to. I pop in and out. Like most, I'm a busy Mom. I enjoy having conversations about a lot of topics here but I don't feel like I should have to be a legal expert or read pages of statutes to give my opinion.

I've followed the case from the beginning. I have always been of the opinion this was justified. That's my non-expert opinion.
It seems a lot of experts agree so maybe I'm not that far off the mark with my thoughts.

If the officer felt like his life was threatened while a criminal was ignoring orders, driving erratically in a very small space, and close enough for the officer to push off of the car, I feel he was justified in his actions. If he truly felt like his life or another innocent life was in danger, he had every right to protect himself and others. Had she followed orders she would be alive today.

Just my non-qualified, non-legal opinion.

OT: SOFTBALL! My daughter is 17 and quite a beast, if I do say so myself. She is a pitcher and power hitter. She's our only child so we pretty much live the game. All year. She goes from school ball, to summer travel ball, to fall travel ball. Hey, we do get Christmas off. Lol
She will be a senior this year.
I'm taking a little break from packing for an out of town weekend tournament right now. Doing my typical popping in for a minute routine.

JMO

 

[Fred Hall]

I've followed the case from the beginning. I have always been of the opinion this was justified. That's my non-expert opinion.
It seems a lot of experts agree so maybe I'm not that far off the mark with my thoughts.

sbm
Probably a lot of experts do agree, if by "expert" you mean "police officer". The only legally trained persons I have seen comment on the case so far are the DA and the Hernandez's lawyer, and neither are impartial parties. I cited the relevant statutes in response to your statement that Hernandez was a dangerous driver, and your implication that this justified shooting her. In actuality, a concern that the driver of a car might, at some point in the future, fail to brake for a "little old lady crossing the street" does not legally justify the use of deadly force in Colorado, or anywhere else in the western world.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I think we can all agree that this was a very quick, very dangerous situation. Who made it dangerous?

Would JH been shot if she had left the car in park and stepped out like she was ordered to do? Again, I think we can all agree that she would not have been.

Did the car actually have to run over the officer to make it life threatening? I think we can all agree, that if he was able to push off from the car she came extremely close. Too close.

These officers had to make a split decision in a very quick, dangerous situation because a teenage criminal used very poor judgement to say the least.

JMO JH is to blame for her own death.

 

[Fred Hall]

I think we can all agree that this was a very quick, very dangerous situation. Who made it dangerous?

Would JH been shot if she had left the car in park and stepped out like she was ordered to do? Again, I think we can all agree that she would not have been.

Did the car actually have to run over the officer to make it life threatening? I think we can all agree, that if he was able to push off from the car she came extremely close. Too close.

These officers had to make a split decision in a very quick, dangerous situation because a teenage criminal used very poor judgement to say the least.

JMO JH is to blame for her own death.

The officers don't seem to have thought the situation was all that dangerous, as they both approached the moving car on foot. From page 4 of the report:

Officer Jordan said after the Honda crashed into the fence it stopped momentarily and he moved around his SUV to approach it. He circled around the back of the SUV and ran along its passenger side, southward toward the Honda.

From page 6:

. . . the driver put the Honda in reverse and backed slowly southbound into the front of Officer Greene’s police car.The driver then put the Honda into drive and drove slowly northbound. 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.

If the officers had felt unsafe, I'm sure that they would have retreated to their vehicles. Instead, both of them approached the stolen Honda as it continued to maneuver. It would seem that they were confident in their ability to get out of the way of the car, and this confidence was well placed as neither of them were struck. I think that members of the public would not be impressed if they were to be shown a CGI reenactment of the incident, and I predict now that the city will settle rather than risk a civil jury seeing the case.

 

[LonghornSpeakEasy]

<modsnip>

Examples of officers putting their lives at risk to save hostages:

http://www.cbs46.com/story/21942230/police-swat-officers-had-no-time-to-spare-to-save-firefighter-hostages

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-13/news/chi-arlington-heights-police-officer-shot-20131212_1_ex-girlfriend-police-officer-wounded-officer

http://wgntv.com/2014/08/19/police-activity-in-harvey-officer-injured/

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/28/local/la-me-1128-inglewood-shooting-20131128

 

[Woodland]

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.

Bolded and snipped by me.

Officer Jordan did not touch the car as per the evidence - the letter simply asks that you accept that he did.

From page 5 of DA MRM letter - Officer Jordan statement -

&#8220;And as it&#8217;s coming at me, at some point, I had hit the car&#8230;with my hand pushing away, with part of&#8230;my hand. I don&#8217;t remember exactly where in front of the car but I remember being in front of the car and getting&#8230;to the side and pushing like this and I could still feel -- [crying] --

From page 19 -

No fingerprints or palm prints identifiable to Officer Jordan were found on the Honda. 13

Explanation of note 13 at bottom of page 19 -

13 - No conclusion can be drawn from this. Multiple factors affect whether friction ridge detail from a finger or palm will be transferred to a surface and whether it can be detected. The fact that the Honda was very dirty was one of several factors that could inhibit the transfer of prints.

If someone touches a clean or dirty car there will be evidence of that - finger/palm print, DNA or a smudge in the dirt. See the video of Scott shot by Slager - Officer Slager walks up to Scott's vehicle and touches the rear light - if it had to be proven later (without video) that Slager had been near the car, his print/DNA will be there - that was the explanation given.

All that was needed here was a photograph of a smudge on the front of the car - or the side - or wherever Jordan wants to say he touched the car.

If a suspect tried to say they touched a car while getting out of the way of an incident, and left no mark to prove that, it will be used against them in a court of law.

 

[katydid23]

A neighbor who witnessed the entire event reported seeing the officer push off of the car.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

All that was needed here was a photograph of a smudge on the front of the car - or the side - or wherever Jordan wants to say he touched the car.

SBM

A photograph of a smudge would not prove anything. There would be no way to tell how long it was there and who or what made it.

JMO.

 

[Fred Hall]

A neighbor who witnessed the entire event reported seeing the officer push off of the car.

She said that she saw an officer get hit and "bounce off". Her words on page 13-14:

". . . I did see an officer get hit, and it was kind of like he bounced off of it -- you know what I mean?" . . . She demonstrated that the &#8220;bounce off&#8221; occurred on the driver side of the car near the front. Ms. Engler said: &#8220;&#8230;I saw him move like more into like the front -- kind of like side, but like the front side of the car, and that&#8217;s when she accelerated into him.&#8221;

 

[Fred Hall]

The decision letter makes no mention of drug testing the officers involved. From page 2 of this document:

The protocol also allows for any officer to voluntarily submit to intoxicant testing if they chose. The most common circumstance under which an officer might elect to do so would be in a shooting while working at an establishment that serves alcohol beverages. Compelled intoxicant testing can be conducted if there are indications of possible intoxication and legal standards are met.

 

[al66pine]

From Woodland's post 1395 (below):
"If someone touches a clean or dirty car there will be evidence of that - finger/palm print, DNA or a smudge in the dirt."

Not going to dispute this ^, as based on common sense, I believe it's likely there would be evd, provided procedures for all 3 had bn done.

I think LE w/h done procedures for all 3, if pivotal to determining a material, relevant issue. But whether LEO touched/pushed the car is not material to determining whether he "reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force" per CO statute 18-1-707.

Woodland: "All that was needed here was a photograph of a smudge on the front of the car - or the side -...."
A smudge photo could be viewed as corroborating LEO's stmt, but imo, it's doubtful an expert could state unequivocally that smudge was caused by someone touching/pushing car. Some ppl would say: 'Just a smudge, could be from anyone or anything.' Not particularly probative.

DA explained why no conclusion can be drawn from no fingerprints being ID'ed as LEO's. Imo, not surprising as likely both hand & car were moving.

DNA tests on car? Seems like that would require more intensive, extended forensic work, and imo, like a smudge photo would not be particularly probative. Ppl who disbelieve LEO's belief of threat would say - after the shootings and before arrival of other LEOs & ambulance, LEO-shooter could have touched hand on hood or side of car & deposited his DNA.

Ultimately whether LEO touched/pushed car is not material to issue of his belief of threat.
JM2cts, could be wrong.

_____________________________________________________________

Bolded and snipped by me.
Officer Jordan did not touch the car as per the evidence - the letter simply asks that you accept that he did.
From page 5 of DA MRM letter - Officer Jordan statement -
“And as it’s coming at me, at some point, I had hit the car…with my hand pushing away, with part of…my hand. I don’t remember exactly where in front of the car but I remember being in front of the car and getting…to the side and pushing like this and I could still feel -- [crying] --
From page 19 -
No fingerprints or palm prints identifiable to Officer Jordan were found on the Honda. 13
Explanation of note 13 at bottom of page 19 -
13 - No conclusion can be drawn from this. Multiple factors affect whether friction ridge detail from a finger or palm will be transferred to a surface and whether it can be detected. The fact that the Honda was very dirty was one of several factors that could inhibit the transfer of prints.
If someone touches a clean or dirty car there will be evidence of that - finger/palm print, DNA or a smudge in the dirt. See the video of Scott shot by Slager - Officer Slager walks up to Scott's vehicle and touches the rear light - if it had to be proven later (without video) that Slager had been near the car, his print/DNA will be there - that was the explanation given.
All that was needed here was a photograph of a smudge on the front of the car - or the side - or wherever Jordan wants to say he touched the car.
If a suspect tried to say they touched a car while getting out of the way of an incident, and left no mark to prove that, it will be used against them in a court of law.

 

[Fred Hall]

The decision letter leaves many questions unanswered. A witness claimed to have been threatened when she attempted to record the post-shooting scene:

She said she yelled to Brianna, who was still on their property, behind a fence, to record what was happening as officers pulled a lifeless Hernandez from the car.
"At that time, (the officers) put Jessie down and they were on their knees yelling at Brianna that she better not record. She better not," Diaz said. "She got scared. She got intimated. These are big officers and she didn&#8217;t want to make things worse."

These are enormously serious accusations. Were they true? We don't know. What of the vanished post-shooting video discussed up-thread? Where is it? Why did it disappear? We don't know. How did Hernandez incur the post-mortem injuries to her face and chest? Will the civil case bring any of the above to light? Will the video of the shooting aftermath be subpoenaed?

 

[Fred Hall]

I think that these officers would have been in very serious trouble if DPD vehicles were equipped with dash-cams, as the shooting and its aftermath would have been seen by millions of people rather than the several hundred that have most likely read the decision letter, and the case would have been much harder to sweep under the rug.

 

[Fred Hall]

From Woodland's post 1395 (below):
"If someone touches a clean or dirty car there will be evidence of that - finger/palm print, DNA or a smudge in the dirt."

Not going to dispute this ^, as based on common sense, I believe it's likely there would be evd, provided procedures for all 3 had bn done.

I think LE w/h done procedures for all 3, if pivotal to determining a material, relevant issue. But whether LEO touched/pushed the car is not material to determining whether he "reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force" per CO statute 18-1-707.

Woodland: "All that was needed here was a photograph of a smudge on the front of the car - or the side -...."
A smudge photo could be viewed as corroborating LEO's stmt, but imo, it's doubtful an expert could state unequivocally that smudge was caused by someone touching/pushing car. Some ppl would say: 'Just a smudge, could be from anyone or anything.' Not particularly probative.

DA explained why no conclusion can be drawn from no fingerprints being ID'ed as LEO's. Imo, not surprising as likely both hand & car were moving.

DNA tests on car? Seems like that would require more intensive, extended forensic work, and imo, like a smudge photo would not be particularly probative. Ppl who disbelieve LEO's belief of threat would say - after the shootings and before arrival of other LEOs & ambulance, LEO-shooter could have touched hand on hood or side of car & deposited his DNA.

Ultimately whether LEO touched/pushed car is not material to issue of his belief of threat.
JM2cts, could be wrong.

_____________________________________________________________

Jordan's having touched the car is certainly not a necessary condition for a justified shooting. However, "pushing away" a moving car will definitely leave a mark if the car is dirty, and I find it odd that no attempt was made to identify this mark. It would have been distinctive, having been created with much more force than the casual smudge, and, while not as conclusive as a palm-print, it would have had enough relevance to be included in the report. I also find it interesting that we are not told the angles of Officer Jordan's gunshots. We are shown the trajectory rods protruding from the front of the car, but from only one point-of-view &#8212; insufficient to precisely gauge the bullet directions. Surely they could have created overhead and side-on diagrams, or at least measured the angles and listed them in the report.

 

[Sillybilly]

Folks, let's get back to discussing THIS case, and stop the bickering over other cases, and the general snark/sniping at each other. Don't like a post? Disagree respectfully or don't respond, use the Alert button, and scroll and roll.

Back to the case at hand.

:tyou: