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

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
If we find out she tried to squeeze out of that small space for a fact, then we know the reason she hit the LEO was because she was shot and lost control. The LEO was not in that small space, he was in the corner between fence and building.

How wide do you see that alley as being? # of feet? Anyone?

From pix, if a (full-size?) LE vehicle is parked (more or less) centered in alley and in front of stolen car,
do you think there was enough room for stolen car to drive past it? On either side?
Link to pic supporting this?

Anyone?
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,281
How wide do you see that alley as being? # of feet? Anyone?

From pix, if a (full-size?) LE vehicle is parked (more or less) centered in alley and in front of stolen car,
do you think there was enough room for stolen car to drive past it? On either side?
Link to pic supporting this?

Anyone?


Originally Posted by Yoda



Attachment 68452


OOPS---just go to the page right before this one, and I posted the link. Post # 736
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
I don't believe that any layperson can speak conclusively on how a person might react to being shot. That said, she might have been shot while turning the car around.

Turning car around? Are you saying stolen car & LE car faced front to front
(not saying nose to nose, could have been a car length (or 2 or 5?) between vehicles),
and from that position she might have been turning car around, meaning a 180 degree turn,
in which her objective was to drive the car forward out of alley?
IOW, she did not try to exit alley by putting car in reverse, but m/h/bn trying to turn car around per ^?

Would alley be wide enough? Could this be done w classic three-point turn?
Link to pic or copy of pic supporting ^ possibility, pls. Anyone?

Would it be doable w more turns, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8?
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
attachment.php
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,281
Turning car around? Are you saying stolen car & LE car faced front to front
(not saying nose to nose, could have been a car length (or 2 or 5?) between vehicles),
and from that position she might have been turning car around, meaning a 180 degree turn,
in which her objective was to drive the car forward out of alley?
IOW, she did not try to exit alley by putting car in reverse, but m/h/bn trying to turn car around per ^?

Would alley be wide enough? Could this be done w classic three-point turn?
Link to pic or copy of pic supporting ^ possibility, pls. Anyone?

Would it be doable w more turns, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8?

There is no way she could turn the car around in that tiny alley way. JMO :cow:
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
Turning stolen car around, as mentioned upthread?
Can someone estimate how many turns and back-ups it would take to turn car (before crash) around,
so it could exit alley without trying to squeeze past LE vehicle facing it in pic?
Would it be possible for stolen car to 'squeeze past' LE vehicle?
Second pix seem to give best perspective of showing width of alley, imo.

ETA: Based on pix, alley was narrow.
Looks like alley = ~ 2x width of LE vehicles, and ~3x width of Jessica's car.
But there are other obstacles - utility poles, fences jutting out - which further narrow or funnel the width of a car's possible path.

If Jessica's car was 'oncoming' could LEO have safely moved out of the way, w no risk of being pinned & squashed between car & utility pole or fence, or garages? IDK.
___________________________________________________________________________
From Yoda's post ~ #56


A view of of the scene. I am assuming the two closest vehicles are the reponding officers' vehicles.

closer view

 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
Shall we base further discussion on actual CO. statute & DenverPD policy, instead of a newspaper summary, talking head description, or my personal idea or others' personal ideas about what we think it should be?

Co statute-
when LEO use of deadly physical force is justified
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.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

Denver PD policy on use of force re firing at moving vehicles:
"a. Firing at moving vehicles: Firing at a moving vehicle may have very little impact on stopping the vehicle. 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. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall, if feasible, move out of the way rather than discharging a firearm.
Officer(s) shall not discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupant(s) in response to a threat posed solely by the vehicle unless the officer has an objectively reasonable belief that:
1. The vehicle or suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person and
2. The officer has no reasonable alternative course of action to prevent death or serious physical injury."
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...g-unarmed-teen. bbm.
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
Going back to your question in post #759 al66pine - how many officers were on scene at the time the shooting began?

From post #38, page 2 - Denver Post article.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27412773/denver-police-id-officers-fatal-shooting-unarmed-teen

Denver Police Chief White -

Jordan was the first officer on the scene around 6:30 a.m. Monday after police received a call about a suspicious vehicle. He ran the car's license plate number and learned the Honda sedan had been reported stolen, White said.

This officer was alone at the time he ran the plate number. One has to decide between a few scenarios -

- this officer pulled up behind the Honda in a cruiser and was not noticed by any of the teens
- that the teens did see the cruiser and JH chose to sit there while the officer was parked behind them
- that the officer was out of view of the teens in the Honda

Officer Jordan called for back-up. One has to decide what happened next -

- a second cruiser pulled up in front of the Honda and JH chose to sit there until the officer got out of his vehicle
- the second officer was out of sight of the teens
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
From page 2 post #40 -

http://www.9news.com/story/news/loc...ess-to-cop-shooting-tells-her-story/22449579/

The witness (from printed article) -

"When the cops walked up, they were on [Jessica's] side of the car, and they shot the window and they shot her. That's when she wrecked, and that's when the cop got hit."

The witness from the video -

'More (LE) came from the back, speeding, turned on lights. JH tried to drive away. (Not an exact transcript)

So more than one officer is reported to have approached the vehicle on foot, while others drove into the alley. More than one officer is on admin leave after firing his weapon, according to DP chief.

Just can't believe the first 2 officers and their vehicles were visible to JH and she sat there until they got out of their vehicles. Then decided to flee. Jmo.
 

branwynbreeze

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
1,131
Reaction score
119
Turning stolen car around, as mentioned upthread?
Can someone estimate how many turns and back-ups it would take to turn car (before crash) around,
so it could exit alley without trying to squeeze past LE vehicle facing it in pic?
Would it be possible for stolen car to 'squeeze past' LE vehicle?
Second pix seem to give best perspective of showing width of alley, imo.

ETA: Based on pix, alley was narrow.
Looks like alley = ~ 2x width of LE vehicles, and ~3x width of Jessica's car.
But there are other obstacles - utility poles, fences jutting out - which further narrow or funnel the width of a car's possible path.

If Jessica's car was 'oncoming' could LEO have safely moved out of the way, w no risk of being pinned & squashed between car & utility pole or fence, or garages? IDK.
___________________________________________________________________________
From Yoda's post ~ #56


A view of of the scene. I am assuming the two closest vehicles are the reponding officers' vehicles.

closer view


The issue with figuring that all out is it leaves out the most important variables, the human factor and amount of time this happened in. IMO
 

Fred Hall

New Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Shall we base further discussion on actual CO. statute & DenverPD policy, instead of a newspaper summary, talking head description, or my personal idea or others' personal ideas about what we think it should be?

Co statute-
when LEO use of deadly physical force is justified
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.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/

Denver PD policy on use of force re firing at moving vehicles:
"a. Firing at moving vehicles: Firing at a moving vehicle may have very little impact on stopping the vehicle. 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. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall, if feasible, move out of the way rather than discharging a firearm.
Officer(s) shall not discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupant(s) in response to a threat posed solely by the vehicle unless the officer has an objectively reasonable belief that:
1. The vehicle or suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person and
2. The officer has no reasonable alternative course of action to prevent death or serious physical injury."
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27...g-unarmed-teen. bbm.

I don't think anyone is arguing that an officer can't fire in a life threatening situation. The question is, was it? Putting a car into drive doesn't by itself threaten lives, and if a non-uniformed person had committed this shooting their bail would be rather high :)
 

Fred Hall

New Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Turning stolen car around, as mentioned upthread?
Can someone estimate how many turns and back-ups it would take to turn car (before crash) around,
so it could exit alley without trying to squeeze past LE vehicle facing it in pic?
Would it be possible for stolen car to 'squeeze past' LE vehicle?
Second pix seem to give best perspective of showing width of alley, imo.

ETA: Based on pix, alley was narrow.
Looks like alley = ~ 2x width of LE vehicles, and ~3x width of Jessica's car.
But there are other obstacles - utility poles, fences jutting out - which further narrow or funnel the width of a car's possible path.

If Jessica's car was 'oncoming' could LEO have safely moved out of the way, w no risk of being pinned & squashed between car & utility pole or fence, or garages? IDK.
___________________________________________________________________________
From Yoda's post ~ #56


A view of of the scene. I am assuming the two closest vehicles are the reponding officers' vehicles.

closer view


This lane couldn't be safely shared by pedestrians and cars? I have walked down lanes no wider than this one with the occasional car passing me at 10mph. If a suspicious car started to move one might feel vulnerable, but it requires a higher threshold than that to open fire.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
I don't think anyone is arguing that an officer can't fire in a life threatening situation. The question is, was it? ....
bbm sbm

Respectfully, I've read posts, from day 1 & on, commenting over and over about LEO's injuries -
and (some suggesting or concluding) that LEO must not have been in a life threatening situation,
because he had only a fractured leg or broken leg.
Not verbatim, but that was the gist of the posts.

W that train of thought, ppl are not discussing the case, as they would be instructed to do as jurors,
- w judge saying, you've heard the state's case, defendant's case, now here's jury instructions -
the law for you to apply to the evidence both sides presented.
Some ppl post from their personal view about what they think the law should be, instead of what it is.

For this case, seems fitting to try to apply info we have to applicable law - what the law is.
For discussing what some personally think the law should be, seems like a private forum -
one 'downstairs' - is approp place for that. Maybe a Mod could advise, if ppl cont. posting on that.
The difference here is that we have not seen all of either side's case, just bits & pieces of info, probably some true, some not, and some w inaccuracies made deliberately and other untruths told by accident,
much from sources not present at the shooting.

Give and take is what W/S is all about. I learn something every time I log in. :thinking:
 

Fred Hall

New Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
bbm sbm

Respectfully, I've read posts, from day 1 & on, commenting over and over about LEO's injuries -
and (some suggesting or concluding) that LEO must not have been in a life threatening situation,
because he had only a fractured leg or broken leg.
Not verbatim, but that was the gist of the posts.

W that train of thought, ppl are not discussing the case, as they would be instructed to do as jurors,
- w judge saying, you've heard the state's case, defendant's case, now here's jury instructions -
the law for you to apply to the evidence both sides presented.
Some ppl post from their personal view about what they think the law should be, instead of what it is.

For this case, seems fitting to try to apply info we have to applicable law - what the law is.
For discussing what some personally think the law should be, seems like a private forum -
one 'downstairs' - is approp place for that. Maybe a Mod could advise, if ppl cont. posting on that.
The difference here is that we have not seen all of either side's case, just bits & pieces of info, probably some true, some not, and some w inaccuracies made deliberately and other untruths told by accident,
much from sources not present at the shooting.

Give and take is what W/S is all about. I learn something every time I log in. :thinking:

Your point about poor and incomplete information is well taken. But I don't believe that we have had any contention about the law, our disagreement has been about what we suspect actually physically occurred during this incident. Who did what, how it played out, etc. There has been argument about the interpretation of DPD policy documents, but that is police policy not law. And incidentally this case will never be discussed by a trial jury. The DPD will investigate themselves and find no wrong, the family will sue for wrongful death, the city will settle, and the taxpayers will pay.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,281
I don't think anyone is arguing that an officer can't fire in a life threatening situation. The question is, was it? Putting a car into drive doesn't by itself threaten lives, and if a non-uniformed person had committed this shooting their bail would be rather high :)

Uniformed Officers have responsibilities to protect public safety and their own lives. Along with this responsibility comes certain legal protections, because of the danger which comes with their job responsibilities.

That car was about to flee onto the public streets. being driven by a panicked teen who had been drinking and getting high, and was out on another stolen car charge from days earlier. She was not going to drive safely through those streets. She had 4 other kids along for the ride. It might have ended much worse if she was able to get away from that alley. JMO
 

Yoda

Master
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
6,017
Reaction score
27
I don't think I linked this article before, but passenger's account is slightly different (could be faulty msm reporting too)

"The police version of events was disputed by one of the car’s passengers who spoke with the media Tuesday on the condition of anonymity. She alleges that the police fired first, and that Hernandez lost control of the car after being shot in the neck. “They came from the back, speeding. Jessie tried to drive away,” she told local television station 9News. “They shot the window. When they walked up, they shot at her window and they shot her” at least four times, she said. She also says that they were unaware that the car had been stolen."
​http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/29/denv-j29.html


-
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,281
This lane couldn't be safely shared by pedestrians and cars? I have walked down lanes no wider than this one with the occasional car passing me at 10mph. If a suspicious car started to move one might feel vulnerable, but it requires a higher threshold than that to open fire.

Who says it requires a higher threshold than that? If a cop feels 'vulnerable' to being hit with a moving vehicle, that is not enough?

When the cop makes the split second decision, they have no idea who is fleeing, nor why. they only know it is a stolen car, full of people, unwilling to comply with police orders. Given that info, and the sudden movement of the car, towards a 'vulnerable officer'--[ your words]---I think the threshold was met.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,318
Reaction score
182,281
I don't think I linked this article before, but passengers account is slightly different (could be faulty mom reporting too)

"The police version of events was disputed by one of the car’s passengers who spoke with the media Tuesday on the condition of anonymity. She alleges that the police fired first, and that Hernandez lost control of the car after being shot in the neck. “They came from the back, speeding. Jessie tried to drive away,” she told local television station 9News. “They shot the window. When they walked up, they shot at her window and they shot her” at least four times, she said. She also says that they were unaware that the car had been stolen."


-

The mom meant the other kids were unaware the car was stolen, I believe. The cop knew it was stolen before he called for back up and did not approach until back up arrived.

One of the kids told her mom that she 'had no idea' the car was stolen, but I think mama is pretty naive, or in deep denial.
 
Top