Cops shoot teen who tried to kill them with stolen car. Family collects $1 million

[MaryL]

I live in Denver, and I am very familiar with this case. I am a Denver taxpayer. I don't want to pay the family of a deceased felon that wantonly violated laws and tried to kill cops. I absolutely oppose that. I absolutely oppose that decision. Two wrongs don't make a right, and felons or their familia shouldn't profit from it. In much the same way I also resent Denver politicians making Denver a sanctuary city for illegals without voter consent. This is the sh*t it leads to.

If the police had anything to back up what they originally said, they would not have paid $1 million. No doubt.

It was politically expedient response by a politically correct mayor. The facts? A 16 year old Hispanic female car thief in a stolen car tried to run down cops, they shoot her in response. How difficult can it be? Is that too complicated for you? Apparently, My mayor and the people that made that decision, they actually believe we want to pay for that, that's NOT what WE Denver residents want. NO, it isn't . I can flatly come out and say most Denver residents disagree with this settlement. Crime shouldn't pay.

Excuses. These things are not written off for that large amount of money.

Well, it seems they are now. Someone in a stolen car, a known car thief, tries to run down cops, done it before. Was shot and killed by police. So, perhaps she had Elvis's love child and had the key to the Kennedy assassination? What other facts are there to this? Read that description again. A known car thief in a stolen car tried to run down police got shot in the process. I don't think tax payers of Denver OWE anyone squat Our mayor Hancock has conveniently sold out to the lowest common denominator. This isn't a episode of Bluebloods.

She is innocent until proven guilty. She could have borrowed the car from a friend and didn't know it was stolen.

Well. What a tangled web we weave, the facts stand, I bet this is no comfort to the cops that she tried to run down. So she "Borrowed" a car? Ramirez could have just STOPPED upon police request, too. Nobody is reveling in the death of a sixteen year old girl .It wasn't worth a young life or a million dollars. What what where any of them THINKING?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

If the police had anything to back up what they originally said, they would not have paid $1 million. No doubt.

HAHAHA. Are you really that dumb?. Non-whites do this all the time. They sue over nothing and the politicians give them a fortune. Remember the freddy gray case,? Baltimore gave that family of parasites $5 million and then the investigators said the cops were not at fault.!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

She is innocent until proven guilty. She could have borrowed the car from a friend and didn't know it was stolen.

Borrowed the car??? HAHAHA. Do you have a shred of evidence for that.?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Ramirez could have just STOPPED upon police request, too.

There was no police chase, and she was stopping. She wanted probably to pull up a little to find a good spot to stop which is ok to do.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She is innocent until proven guilty. She could have borrowed the car from a friend and didn't know it was stolen.

Borrowed the car??? HAHAHA. Do you have a shred of evidence for that.?

Do you have any evidence she stole the car?

 

[deannalw]

The mother speaks Spanish... are they even here legally?
I'm not one to automatically jump on the side of or the side against cops and don't know enough yet to truly say.
But I tell you one fucking thing I don't agree with and that's this new trend of awarding family of accident, murder etc. Millions. Of bucks.

 

[MaryL]

Ramirez could have just STOPPED upon police request, too.

There was no police chase, and she was stopping. She wanted probably to pull up a little to find a good spot to stop which is ok to do.

We weren't there were we? I don't think cops just shoot peeps because they where on a power trip.I don't know were her head was AT. Did you ever steal a car and defy police orders to stop? She was a beautiful but stupid. My government paid a million bucks, it boggles my mind here.WHY? I am not getting that, call it a major disconnect. Umm, can we get a Mulligan on that? Hell NO! I don't want to pay for cops just doing their job, it's insane..Who's side are you on here, society or criminals? I don't want my government to pay the surviving family of criminals one red cent.

 

[deannalw]

Like this.

 

[The Professor]

Ramirez could have just STOPPED upon police request, too.

There was no police chase, and she was stopping. She wanted probably to pull up a little to find a good spot to stop which is ok to do.

We weren't there were we? I don't think cops just shoot peeps because they where on a power trip.I don't know were her head was AT. Did you ever steal a car and defy police orders to stop? She was a beautiful but stupid. My government paid a million bucks, it boggles my mind here.WHY? I am not getting that, call it a major disconnect. Umm, can we get a Mulligan on that? Hell NO! I don't want to pay for cops just doing their job, it's insane..Who's side are you on here, society or criminals? I don't want my government to pay the surviving family of criminals one red cent.

There was a time long ago that I felt and thought as you do; however, just as I was wrong back then you are also wrong now. I see things differently now because somewhere along the way I was fortunate enough to have received a JD (Juris Doctorate) and got to know a lot about the law. I also learned the law was not always fair and just nor did it always make sense.

Regarding the case at hand, even if the girl was driving a stolen car and failed to stop when ordered to do so, the police had no right to use deadly force against her. The police are justified in using deadly force in only two situations. First, they may use deadly force if - at the time such force was used – they reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or an innocent third party. Second, the may use force to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon, which is described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury.

If the girl was merely trying to escape, the police had no right to use deadly force to stop her since a car thief is not a dangerous felon by definition. However, if the police reasonably believed she was tying to run them over, they had to right to use deadly force to protect themselves. Furthermore, if after attempting to run them over she drove away and no longer posed a threat, the police could still use deadly force to prevent her escape since at that point she would be considered to be a dangerous felon.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects. The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

CONCLUSION: The entire present case hinges on one question: Did the girl attempt to run over the police with her car? If the answer is “yes” the police had the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and to prevent her escape. However, if the girl made no attempt to run them down but was merely running away, the use of deadly force was not allowed and the city got away cheap with a mere $1,000,000 settlement.