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

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
That is a judgment call whether it was a bad shoot or not. But you cannot use 20/20 hindsight. It looks and feels a lot different when you are the one on foot, in the street, standing alongside the thousands of pounds of moving metal.

Juries usually side with the cops because they take that into account. The cops have a split second to decide and they are going with 'worst case scenario' when they decide to shoot or not. And since it is reported that the cop was hit, they will likely be seen as justified. JMO

I am not sure the citizens will be on the hook in this one. Her recent record and her social media rants and admissions will work against her, imo.

I don't think her record or social media posts will play a part in what happened in the alley - any probe will be about what happened in the alley.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,870
Reaction score
27,606
I'm trying to visualize this witness' account of the shooting.

Jessica drove forward and was passing police officers who had positioned themselves on each side of the car when the first shots rang out, T**** said.

“They were right next to it, like really close,” she recalled. “Then she went unconscious and that’s when we crashed into the fence.”

T**** said Jessica hit the officer after she was shot and lost control of the car.

If both officers where positioned on the side of the car, how could Jessica hit one of them? That doesn't make any sense to me. JMO.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/passenger-latina-teen-killed-by-cops-speaks#.nrv7254Zk
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
I disagree that this indicates it was not justified. Of course she did not have much speed YET---she was just taking off. It does not matter though.

The officer was in a bad position according to the cops version. And according to the teen in the car, he was between the car and the fence. So this car was trying to flee---BY ALL ACCOUNTS---and was heading in the direction of a cop on foot.....JUSTIFIED IMO

According to the teen - the officer was between the car and fence after the shooting. Not before.

If JH reversed, then went forward, I'm thinking the officer that was pinned was moving along side the vehicle when he shot her - and that neither was moving very fast. He didn't anticipate the movement after he shot her. Jmo.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,415
I agree that these choices you list led to the shooting, they just don't legally justify it. That requires the ramming aspect of the story.

The list above shows that it is likely she would panic and drive off towards an officer. It shows a likelihood of her acting in an erratic impulsive manner. No 'ramming' need to occur to justify a shooting. Only an officers opinion that one of them was in immediate potential danger. And I think that threshold was met.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,415

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,415
I don't think her record or social media posts will play a part in what happened in the alley - any probe will be about what happened in the alley.

I disagree. They always look at what happened BEFORE the alley to determine the suspects state of mind during the incident. If she was an honor student coming home from volunteering at a homeless shelter, it would be a different story in trial. But knowing that she admits to doing psychedelics and hard drugs daily, and drinking and brags about stealing cars, will be a negative for her family in the trial. JMO
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,870
Reaction score
27,606
The witness who said that the officers where on the side of the car and the shots cause Jessica to lose control and hit the officer has to be lying about something because the scenario is impossible. I think she's lying about both officers being on each side of the car "like really close".

I say that because one officers leg was injured in this incident. That supports the part where she says that Jessica hit an officer. If both officers were to the side then she couldn't hit one of them. JMO.
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
I disagree. They always look at what happened BEFORE the alley to determine the suspects state of mind during the incident. If she was an honor student coming home from volunteering at a homeless shelter, it would be a different story in trial. But knowing that she admits to doing psychedelics and hard drugs daily, and drinking and brags about stealing cars, will be a negative for her family in the trial. JMO

Negative publicity maybe - but it's the circumstances of the shooting that will be analyzed. Did the cops that shot JH know her history when they shot her? Is that why they shot her?
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,870
Reaction score
27,606
I think one of the cops was to the side of the car but in front of it, by where she ultimately crashed.

I don't think that the officer who was hit was to the side of the car at all. I think he was standing in front of the car and may have been to the left of center line. A car has a front, back and two sides. You can't be standing on one side and the front at the same time.

JMO
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
This version states the officers were standing on either side of the car when the shots were fired. Nothing about an officer pinned first.
She was driving past the officers and was shot? She couldn't have had much speed.
Not justified if this info is correct imo.

Agreeing that if car did not move toward officer, seems like shooting would be unjustified. But, but, but

Nothing - in article - about officer being pinned, because it did not happen or - ?

1. she was not attentive to the circumstances at the time, talking w other occupants?
2. her attention was directed elsewhere, say, eyes on her phone, texting at the time?
3. being impaired thru alcohol or drugs when it when it happened, she did not notice it?
4. afterward, girl in car told her, but she, unsure about it, did not mention it to MSM?
5. she saw it, remembered it, inadvertently did not mention it to MSM?
6. she saw it, remembered it, deliberately did not mention it to MSM?
7. she saw it, recounted it to MSM, but MSM reporter did not include in that story?

Just because MSM story did not include ref to LEO being pinned before the shooting,
I'm not concluding that he was not pinned, or car did not collide w him, before the shooting.

Before prosecutor would bring criminal charges against LEO(s) and basing it in part,
on her testimony, I believe -
- pre-trial, prosecutor would be asking her those ^ Qs.
- at trial, LEO's atty would ask more questions when she takes the stand.

JM2cts.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,415
Negative publicity maybe - but it's the circumstances of the shooting that will be analyzed. Did the cops that shot JH know her history when they shot her? Is that why they shot her?

No, of course they didn't. But when trying to decide how credible a story is, you look at those who were involved. What are their previous behavior patterns?
If the cops say she was acting erratically and impulsive, and then it is discovered from her own media that she HATES the cops and says she will probably DIE at their hands one day [ which she did say on twitter page weeks earlier] ----that would make the cops version more credible, imo.

It also makes it more likely they were telling the truth that she made the decision to flee. Some of her FB fans are saying she never heard their demands, was just sitting there and the cops shot for no reason.

Reading her recent rants on twitter make it believable that she refused to comply and tried to flee, endangering the officer. It will work against her family in their lawsuit, imo.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,022
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the danger has to be immediate to justify lethal force....
bbm sbm

Per CO statute: justified when "imminent use of deadly physical force"
I'm trying to think about distinction between 'immediate' and 'imminent' use of deadly force.

___________________________________________________________________________
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/
 

al66pine

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


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.
bbm

No doubt, you walked on lanes/alleys no wider than this w occasional car passing at slow speeds.
Me too, when, a vehicle moves in center of alley, like where the LE vehicle is parked ^.

Normally I try not to insert myself into the case, but will here, as I lived in a home for several yrs, w similar alley, w trashcans, utility poles, jutting into alley. Many tight squeezes & close calls as well as actual collisions, multiple utility poles crashes, trashcan knock-downs, door dings & major body work.
(not me, my car personally, just observing some atm, & hearing some after the fact. In fact, our alley may have been a bit wider. An LEO lived a few doors down, so we often saw his cruiser there.

As a hypo pedestrian close to left fence in ^ alley to left of where LE vehicle is parked (as shown),
and stolen car (Toyota?) moves toward to pass, I don't see a safe outcome for me, a ped.

If car had not already hit bldg, and was moving toward me, appears, car w/collide w me, sideswipe me,
push trashcan into me, maybe impact fence and push it toward me, etc.
A civvy ped - even w/out LE auth to arrest driver, which wd/be mos def a threat to JH as driver -
I'd feel more than vulnerable.
I'd believe myself to be in imminent danger of great bodily harm. JM2cts.
 

Fred Hall

New Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
attachment.php


bbm

No doubt, you walked on lanes/alleys no wider than this w occasional car passing at slow speeds.
Me too, when, a vehicle moves in center of alley, like where the LE vehicle is parked ^.

Normally I try not to insert myself into the case, but will here, as I lived in a home for several yrs, w similar alley, w trashcans, utility poles, jutting into alley. Many tight squeezes & close calls as well as actual collisions, multiple utility poles crashes, trashcan knock-downs, door dings & major body work.
(not me, my car personally, just observing some atm, & hearing some after the fact. In fact, our alley may have been a bit wider. An LEO lived a few doors down, so we often saw his cruiser there.

As a hypo pedestrian close to left fence in ^ alley to left of where LE vehicle is parked (as shown),
and stolen car (Toyota?) moves toward to pass, I don't see a safe outcome for me, a ped.

If car had not already hit bldg, and was moving toward me, appears, car w/collide w me, sideswipe me,
push trashcan into me, maybe impact fence and push it toward me, etc.
A civvy ped - even w/out LE auth to arrest driver, which wd/be mos def a threat to JH as driver -
I'd feel more than vulnerable.
I'd believe myself to be in imminent danger of great bodily harm. JM2cts.


Your argument is persuasive. However I still think speed should be a factor. It may not matter legally, but a car that is trying to slip through an opening at 3mph does not present a danger of great bodily harm. If the engine roars and the car leaps forward one might have a justified fear but with no dash-cams nobody will ever know. I doubt the officers will admit that they shot into a suspicious car because it was moving past them in a narrow lane at walking speed, if that is what happened. They will stick to the attempted ramming story. As an aside, if the passengers had seen the cops there's no way in my mind they weren't exhorting the driver to flee. The thought that they might be shot at would not have entered their heads.
 

Fred Hall

New Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Three shots. that takes about 1/4 of a second to shoot. Have you ever been to the target range and seen how accurate working cops are?

According to this an expert will take about 1/2 second to get off 3 shots. Would it be possible to land these shots accurately on a target that is moving? Or one that is accelerating rather than traveling at a constant speed? How far did the car move in that half second? One would expect the direction that the driver was being struck from to change as the car moved past the shooter, since at 10mph the car would have moved 7ft from first shot to last. Yet it seems that all shots struck the driver from nearly directly side-on. How far from the car would the shooter have to be to produce these angles? Is it plausible that an officer landed 3 shots with a handgun on a human sized target that is moving at 10mph laterally past him at this range? :) It seems likely that the car was stationary or nearly so when the shots were fired.
 

liljim

Former Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
5
According to this an expert will take about 1/2 second to get off 3 shots. Would it be possible to land these shots accurately on a target that is moving? Or one that is accelerating rather than traveling at a constant speed? How far did the car move in that half second? One would expect the direction that the driver was being struck from to change as the car moved past the shooter, since at 10mph the car would have moved 7ft from first shot to last. Yet it seems that all shots struck the driver from nearly directly side-on. How far from the car would the shooter have to be to produce these angles? Is it plausible that an officer landed 3 shots with a handgun on a human sized target that is moving at 10mph laterally past him at this range? :) It seems likely that the car was stationary or nearly so when the shots were fired.

not surprised to see this argument having to be made again, some people just get it in their heads that LE are all expert marksman that rarely miss and that the stress of an on the job shooting situation has no effect on them, they continually ignore any statistics, studies, expert testimony to the contrary... the vast majority of LE has never even fired their weapon on the job.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,415
According to this an expert will take about 1/2 second to get off 3 shots. Would it be possible to land these shots accurately on a target that is moving? Or one that is accelerating rather than traveling at a constant speed? How far did the car move in that half second? One would expect the direction that the driver was being struck from to change as the car moved past the shooter, since at 10mph the car would have moved 7ft from first shot to last. Yet it seems that all shots struck the driver from nearly directly side-on. How far from the car would the shooter have to be to produce these angles? Is it plausible that an officer landed 3 shots with a handgun on a human sized target that is moving at 10mph laterally past him at this range? :) It seems likely that the car was stationary or nearly so when the shots were fired.

Okay. lol I said 'about' a 1/4 of a second and this expert said 'about' 1/2 a second. I'd say I was pretty close. :wink:

'About' 1/2 a second is not very specific. And the automatic weapons used by cops are very very quick. I'd say my 1/4 second is more accurate.

It may have been nearly stationary. He probably began shooting as soon as he saw her put it into DRIVE. He could have gotten all 3 shots off before the car moved very far at all. Plus, the arm moves as the car moves, and it can alter the angle. JMO :cow:
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,835
If JH was shot when putting the car into drive, and the car was stationary or nearly stationary, then she wasn't aiming the car at an officer. No justification for shooting her, imo.
 

Fred Hall

New Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Messages
233
Reaction score
0
Okay. lol I said 'about' a 1/4 of a second and this expert said 'about' 1/2 a second. I'd say I was pretty close. :wink:

'About' 1/2 a second is not very specific. And the automatic weapons used by cops are very very quick. I'd say my 1/4 second is more accurate.

It may have been nearly stationary. He probably began shooting as soon as he saw her put it into DRIVE. He could have gotten all 3 shots off before the car moved very far at all. Plus, the arm moves as the car moves, and it can alter the angle. JMO :cow:

I think this would constitute manslaughter at least. The fact that the officers, rather than realizing their error and giving first aid, continued to physically assault her makes second-degree murder a possibility in this scenario.
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,324
Reaction score
182,415
I think this would constitute manslaughter at least. The fact that the officers, rather than realizing their error and giving first aid, continued to physically assault her makes second-degree murder a possibility in this scenario.

Why would it be manslaughter if they began shooting when she began driving? Are they supposed to wait until she is accelerating and it is too late?

It is routine protocol to control the scene by putting on the cuffs during an altercation. They dont know if she is armed or not.

Cops are trained to err on the side of caution. They have certain protocol drilled into them that gives them the tactical advantage. If you are the one going into battle everyday, as they are required to do, you need that or you will be the dead one.

The cops are not the ones 'starting' the confrontations. JH started this one by stealing a car, drinking/drugging illegally, going for a drive all night, and refusing to comply when caught. She started this entire process. So it ended badly because the cards are stacked against her. Cops have the tactical advantage and they always will. If someone starts driving at one of them that is trapped, they are LEGALLY allowed to open fire. That is not manslaughter.
 
Top