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

jjenny

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
31,697
Reaction score
47,065
A vehicle needs damage to the front end to be crashed into a wall, imo - this one came to a stop in front of the wall.

I'll believe LE as well, if the evidence lines up with their version of events. An LE version that varies from the evidence won't convince me they are telling the truth.

Where exactly do you see this vehicle with no front end damage?
 

katydid23

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
62,151
Reaction score
180,483
A vehicle needs damage to the front end to be crashed into a wall, imo - this one came to a stop in front of the wall.

I'll believe LE as well, if the evidence lines up with their version of events. An LE version that varies from the evidence won't convince me they are telling the truth.

How did it 'come' to a stop? Wasn't the driver incapacitated?'
 

liljim

Former Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
5
if i had to guess, i would say it rolled to the wall and fence and stopped, not accelerated into, not at a high rate of speed.

but since you dont know exactly where the shots were fired in relation to where the vehicle is at the end, you cant really deduce much from these things anyway.
 

Fred Hall

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

Not doubting you Fred, just want to see orig. source and catch up w anything else I've missed. BBM, link, pls, anyone? Thx in adv.


Who shot vid - e.g., passenger in stolen car, or DP reporter, or resident w home/apt facing alley, or dog walker, or jogger, etc?
Legal reasons for DP not to release it- i.e., post on news website, etc.? IDK.

1. If DP's own reporter or cam op recorded it, IIUC, not a situation where reporter's privilege* or shield law** applies, as that relates to situation where media refuses to disclose or testify about source of info, not to situation where media keeps a lid on info.

2. If DP paid cam op (passenger, resident, jogger, etc) for recording, maybe contract prohibits release to public.
Not likely, imo --- why w/ a paper buy a recording if not for release?

3. If LE employee or MedExam'r employee recorded it, and someone in one of those agencies leaked it to DP or other media,
well, who knows?

4. Poss'ly DP's back-scratching or informal courtesy agreement not to release, w recording provider. Not likely, imo. Also, not a 'legal reason.'

5. Perhaps the DPD asked them very nicely not to release? Poss. Not a legal reason.

_________________________________________________________________________________.
*in the United States (also journalist's privilege, newsman's privilege, or press privilege), is a "reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources."[SUP][1][/SUP] It may be described in the US as the qualified (limited) First Amendment right many jurisdictions by statutory law or judicial decision have given to journalists in protecting their confidential sources from discovery. [SUP][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporter's_privilege
[/SUP]


** A shield law is legislation designed to protect reporters' privilege, or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process. Currently the U.S. federal government has not enacted any national shield laws, but most states do have shield laws or other protections for reporters in place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_States

This Denver Post article reads:
A neighbor captured a video of the female suspect being searched by police after she was shot. In the video, the teen is handcuffed and rolled on her stomach and back on the ground, appearing to be searched. The girl is limp, silent and motionless as officers move her about.
A later story states this:
Someone at the scene took a video showing police dragging her from the car and rolling her body back and forth.
The fact that the journalist had apparently seen the video implies that it was in the Denver Post's possession, but I suppose he could have viewed it informally on someone's smartphone. The DP doesn't state who has custody of the video now.
 

CoolJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
4,241
Reaction score
2,117
When was the last time any information was released in regards to this case?
As of now, we don't know what happened. We haven't even really heard the story of the officers involved. Any conclusions made about whether this shooting was justified or not would be based purely on emotions and bias.
This case needs to be investigated by an independent body. As do all LE involved shootings. JMO
 

Woodland

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,498
Reaction score
1,833
If the officers rolled JH back and forth on the ground after she was shot, will not be impressed with their actions. Will find it not only disrespectful, but also bordering on an attempt to make sure she didn't live. Suspect others will view it the same way - might account for the silence from LE? How does one explain the need for that - if it happened?
 

liljim

Former Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
5
If the officers rolled JH back and forth on the ground after she was shot, will not be impressed with their actions. Will find it not only disrespectful, but also bordering on an attempt to make sure she didn't live. Suspect others will view it the same way - might account for the silence from LE? How does one explain the need for that - if it happened?

well depending on exactly how it was done it may just be standard protocol, it is never easy to watch but the police do search and handcuff people that they have shot as regular procedure, and they do not provide first aid.

but if for some reason they were particularly rough or something then that would be an issue.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,017
....What some are questioning, in this case, is the response by LE to those poor decisions.
LE needs to be in a life threatening situation or protecting someone else in a life threatening situation before aiming and firing their weapon at anyone.
That's also the law as I understand it.... Jmo.
bbm sbm

W the admittedly sketchy information publicly avail ATM, each of us is entitled to form or make up our own opinions about
whether these LEOs were or were not justified in firing their weapons in this situation. And to change our opinions as more info is avail.
But imo, not entitled to misstate law by omitting important parts, and posting only selected parts as being the law.

Hoping if there is any judicial proceeding that ppl deciding will read entire statute (or jury instructions summarizing it) and
not ignore important parts of the law. Have a nice day, everyone.

ETA:
CO statute 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 theuse or imminent use of deadly physical force; or...". bbm.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/colorado/ (If link does not work, pls try search w CO statute 18-1-707)

He may use deadly force to defend himself or other, from what he reasonably believes to be imminent use of deadly force.
IOW, to justify LEO's use of deadly force, he does not have to have already sustained deadly force used against him.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,017
http://media.thedenverchannel.com/p...r-2_1422284088460_12810922_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
http://content-img.newsinc.com/jpg/1529/28449664/18842476.jpg?t=1422473520
no significant front end damage visible although you cant see the entire front.
does not look like there was much of an impact tho, fence not damaged.
bbm

Appears to me fence was not knocked flat, but was damaged (yes, could be preexisting damage, but seems consistent w stolen car impact pix).

1. Front bumper touchestwo fence panels (~right angle to ea other), attached to corner post, which may h/bn knocked askew a bit.
2. Short fence panel touching bumper is split from corner post ('listing to port') from bumper on up & is no longer at 90 deg. angle to brick wall.
^Both are consistent w car's impact being more than a mere car tap into fence.

3. Look at fence panels 'vertical seams' where (probably 6' or 8') sections are attached, esp. gap 1'-2' to left of garbage can in alley.
That 'vertical seam' gap or split is bigger than other seams to right of garbage can.
Fwiw, appears fence on lot car ran into is newer (lighter-colored, less-weathered) than fence at lot to left & behind car.

Agreeing, car's impact was not strong enough to knock corner post to ground, did not flatten fence panels to ground,
but appears to have impacted enough to cause damage to fence at that corner, imo.

Just observing fence features in pix. Looking forward to high res photos, forensic reports, whether in court or through other public info release.
 

liljim

Former Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
5
i have no idea what image you are talking about, in the images i posted no significant impact damage of any sort can be seen in the fence that the car is right next to/up against.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,017
Anyone here ready to stand in alley in front of a car (same kind as stolen car) moving toward you at a 'slow' rate of speed?

You may pick the speed at which it will run over you standing either -
---w no obstacle behind you, to prevent your fall to ground.
---in the the up-against-the-fence position.
Just curious, cause I'm not raising my hand for this.

Anyone who thinks a smallish, slow-moving car does not present imminent deadly physical force can show us how safe it is. Or not so safe.
 

liljim

Former Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
5
well first i wouldnt be standing in front of the car , and second even if i was and was armed i would not shoot at the car, but third and most importantly none of that has anything to do with what law enforcement should do or is required to do in that situation.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,017
liljim post said "no significant impact damage of any sort can be seen in the fence."
I agree fence was not knocked down, was not flattened, but I believe the angle of narrow panel suggests fence was struck
(or possibly a pre-existing lean). IDK what force or speed of car, not an engineer.


ois-newport-st-denver-2_1422284088460_12810922_ver1.0_640_480.jpg


^ Short fence panel touching bumper is split from corner post ('listing to port') from bumper on up & is no longer at 90 deg. angle to brick wall.
^consistent w car's impact being more than a mere car tap into fence (or possibly a pre-existing lean).
Wish I could circle the tall part of fence, where the gap shows, just in front of bumper & against brick wall.
 

liljim

Former Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
5
"1. Front bumper touchestwo fence panels (~right angle to ea other), attached to corner post, which may h/bn knocked askew a bit.
2. Short fence panel touching bumper is split from corner post ('listing to port') from bumper on up & is no longer at 90 deg. angle to brick wall.
^Both are consistent w car's impact being more than a mere car tap into fence."

ok i see what you mean here, but i disagree. this will be my last response on this issue because i think it is irrelevant anyway.

a tap from an unaccelerated car rolling to a stop and hitting that fence could absolutely cause a panel to come loose, or a picket to break, etc

nothing you see in that picture gives any indication that the car hit the fence with any significant impact at all, and regardless - we dont know if the fence was like that already.

the car clearly did not accelerate into the fence and did not hit the fence with any significant force. i think we can agree on that.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,017
liljim post said "no significant impact damage of any sort can be seen in the fence."


attachment.php


Look at fence panels 'vertical seams' where (probably 6' or 8') sections are attached, esp. gap 1'-2' to left of garbage can in alley.
That 'vertical seam' gap or split is bigger than other seams to right of garbage can.
Fwiw, appears fence on lot car ran into is newer (lighter-colored, less-weathered) than fence at lot to left & behind car.

Agreeing, car's impact was not strong enough to knock corner post to ground, did not flatten fence panels to ground,
but appears to have impacted enough to cause damage to fence at that corner, imo.

From experience in having had this type of fence installed at two homes, I may be more aware than casual observer about fence defects.
Ditto what a car 'tap' - maybe like this one - can do.
Car 'tap' on wooden fence corner can necessitate expensive repairs (tear out two panels, dig up concrete, pour fresh concrete for new post,
set in new corner post and put up two new panels, have fence re-treated to try to match color.
After a car 'tap' even at slow speed into corner post, in a few months, it starts leaning. Then normal pedestrian gate opening-and-closing later
causes rest of fence to sag, then gate does not open or close properly, looks crappy. Been there, done that.
 

liljim

Former Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
5
im not sure what you are debating here, we both agree there is minimal damage that could have been caused by a slow car rolling into and tapping the fence, we both agree that we have no idea what condition fence was in before this.

if it is over my use of the word significant then i guess it is just a matter of opinion and your interpretation.

i have installed many fences and repaired them.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,017
"
...more than a mere car tap into fence."

ok i see what you mean here, but i disagree. this will be my last response on this issue because i think it is irrelevant anyway.
a tap from an unaccelerated car rolling to a stop and hitting that fence could absolutely cause a panel to come loose, or a picket to break, etc
nothing you see in that picture gives any indication that the car hit the fence with any significant impact at all, and regardless - we dont know if the fence was like that already.
the car clearly did not accelerate into the fence and did not hit the fence with any significant force. i think we can agree on that.

Ok, fair enough to disagree, still appreciate your views, liljim.
My point (which got lost in my excruciatingly long posts, LOL) about impact was -
Even if fence was not hit 'hard' enough to flatten, that same force could be deadly force to human.

Judging by caved-in roof of brick outbuilding, owner is not maintenance-obsessive (LOL), so fence could have pre-existing lean, as we said.
 

al66pine

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
7,476
Reaction score
27,017
....i have installed many fences and repaired them.
sbm

Well, if only you had mentioned ^it^ earlier, wudda asked for your advice about a recent repair, before handyman made a mess of it. ;)
Thx agn.
 
Top