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

New Posts

A

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
8,797
Reaction score
37,346
Published ~ 1 hour ago, w injury & shooting ~ 6:30am, few details,
"Two Denver police officers shot and killed a young woman who struck and injured one of the officers in a stolen car,.."
"Police Chief...at the scene, said an officer had been called to check on a car that had raised suspicions.
... determined it had been reported stolen, another officer arrived.

... officers then "approached the vehicle on foot when the driver drove the car into one of the officers."
...both officers then opened fire. The officer hit by the car was taken to a hospital with a leg injury."
".... passenger in the car and was being dropped off after a night of hanging out with friends." sbm bbm
http://www.stltoday.com/news/nation...cle_3582facd-4782-5265-aac7-d7d796acbde4.html

A neighborhood resident who heard the gunshots said: " You've got stun guns. You've got rubber bullets."

Oh really? Shoot stun guns and rubber bullets at a stolen moving car that has already hit you?
Snark alert. And if those don't work, maybe step up to rubber-band guns? Ping-pong ball launchers?

SMH at neighbor's idea - stun guns or rubber bullets against moving car.

Not commenting on whether LEO's shoot was or was not justified, although that's open for discussion, esp after more info is avail.
Please this is not a gun control post or thread. Maybe 'Basement' (Pol. Pavilion?) is a better place for gun control discussion.

JM2cts.
 
Trying to run over someone with a vehicle (purposely) is attempted murder.

Removed rest of my post until I get solid info. :)
 
(my bolding & underscoring, below)

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 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 in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 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.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

^COLORADO REVISED STATUTES^
* This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the
Second Regular Session of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly
of the State of Colorado (2014)
and changes approved by the electorate at the November 2014 election *
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-704 (2014)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

Gonna go look for section app. to LE use of force in CO.
 
(my bolding & underscoring, below)
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:

(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.

(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 prospective 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.

^. * This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the
Second Regular Session of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly
of the State of Colorado (2014)
and changes approved by the electorate at the November 2014 election *
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 7. JUSTIFICATION AND EXEMPTIONS FROM CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-707 (2014)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
 
Some interesting reading at lexis.com link above, annotations w links to court cases discussing self defense and use of force.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/
And back to the statute itself.
18-1-707....
"(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...". bbm. from above lexis link

Anybody else reading the statute like I am --- Justified LEO use of deadly force. JM2cts.
 
Can't wait until I see the tweets/posts that the officers should have shot the tires out or something.

OH! Maybe used the tazer to disable the vehicle?

:sigh:
 
JLSChook said:
Can't wait until I see the tweets/posts that the officers should have shot the tires out or something.

OH! Maybe used the tazer to disable the vehicle?

:sigh:
Click to expand...
I like your avatar. We may be related. Lol. You bring the table and the suspect; and I'll bring the plastic wrap. Lol.
 
A neighborhood resident who heard the gunshots said: " You've got stun guns. You've got rubber bullets."

=======================================================================================


I am getting so tired of this prevailing attitude lately, that an officer that is attacked, is supposed to take the attackers 'safety' as their number one priority. It does not matter if a perp is coming at you with a moving car, or trying to grab your gun, or pulling out a hidden knife, or punching you in the face, your number one priority should be to make sure your attacker is not badly injured? This is just getting ridiculous.

An officer is always trained to step UP the level of force in defending oneself, not step it down. You do not taser someone who is coming at you with a moving vehicle or a knife or gun. Not if you want to go home to your family that night.
 
Stun guns and rubber bullets are going to be useless against someone in a moving vehicle.
 
Imo, the person that mentioned stun guns and rubber bullets meant that in a broader sense, in that LE has other methods/tools at their disposal, not just loaded deadly guns.

The details will be interesting. Did this teen intend to hit the officer or was she trying to flee and hit the officer? Did she stop after hitting the officer? I can see the other teens in the car yelling at her to stop once she hit the officer - we'll have to wait and see.
How did the officers manage to shoot her and only her in the vehicle? If the vehicle was moving away from them, find it hard to imagine they would have a clear shot at only her. If she stopped and they shot her, well, that will be a problem in some of the public view imo. Let's hope she didn't stop so the officers will be more justified in their actions.
 
I fail to see what difference does it make if she intended to flee or she intended to hit the officer. The end result would be the same if she hit him with the car.
 
100% justified IMO.

When are people going to learn?
 
Imo, giving LE carte blanche on when someone needs to die is the current core problem with LE-Public relations.

Another point I look forward to hearing about this LE shooting is, when the officers were pulling the teens from the car, reportedly moments after the shooting, was the car in park? If so, who put the car in park? Or was it up against a building or fence that would render the vehicle stable so it wouldn't roll? I would like to think the officers were not pulling people from a vehicle that would potentially roll - the officers and the people being pulled out would be at risk.

Imo, it will matter who put the car in park and when, if in fact it was put in park. If it was the driver, before she died, the teens inside will know. If it was LE after the fact, the teens inside will know. A pivotal moment imo.
 
Have we heard enough facts to call this shooting justified or not justified?
 
Yoda said:
This view it appears you can see the bullet holes in the driver's window and looks like one in the rear drivers side window.

View attachment 68323
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/2015/01/27/teen-killed-in-denver-officer-involved-shooting/22408439/
Click to expand...

Yes, Yoda, looks like bullet holes into the side windows (I think).
Enlarging image, does anyone else see on hood broken aqua-greenish-windshield-glass? Or am I imagining it?
If so, maybe one LEO or maybe both were in front of car, when shooting?
Or maybe one LEO in front of car, the other on driver's side, when both shot?

ETA: Could green-blue-ish color on hood be a reflection of the LEO cruiser's light bar?
From Yoda's other pix or other source, can we tell if front windshield has bullet holes or is spidered?
Anyone? Thx in adv.
 
Woodland said:
Imo, giving LE carte blanche on when someone needs to die is the current core problem with LE-Public relations.

Another point I look forward to hearing about this LE shooting is, when the officers were pulling the teens from the car, reportedly moments after the shooting, was the car in park? If so, who put the car in park? Or was it up against a building or fence that would render the vehicle stable so it wouldn't roll? I would like to think the officers were not pulling people from a vehicle that would potentially roll - the officers and the people being pulled out would be at risk.

Imo, it will matter who put the car in park and when, if in fact it was put in park. If it was the driver, before she died, the teens inside will know. If it was LE after the fact, the teens inside will know. A pivotal moment imo.
Click to expand...

I see the problem in "public relations" is that some members of the public seem to think they can do whatever it is they do, and police is supposed to look the other way, jump out of the way, run away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 209 more.
Total: 3,959 (members: 210, guests: 3,749)

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
3,749
Total visitors
3,959
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,827
Messages
17,959,694
Members
228,620
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top