NJ: Man sues after officers allegedly shot, paralyzed him while he retrieved ice tea from car

Surprising this is only coming out after this more time than usual. Who's right and wrong here? Will this lead to more protests:

 

He was sitting in the vehicle when a car pulled next to him, and a group of men in plainclothes allegedly jumped out of the vehicle and began yelling at him.

Henderson picked up his phone to call for support but the men smashed the driver's side window and shot him in the neck, Smith alleged.

​

Yeh… I am going to call BS on this one. Initial reports say they were attempting a motor vehicle stop and he attempted to flee. Force can be used to stop someone from fleeing in a motor vehicle if they deem the situation dangerous.

 

I need more info....plains clothes cops stopping vehicles for no reason? Not sure I'm on the cops side on this ...need more to fill out the holes...

 

I don't know anything about it, but I'm uniformly against police use of excessive/unconstitutional force no matter the races involved.

Still, I am suspicious of stories claiming "man reaches into car to retrieve bouquet of flowers for dying children with cancer and is shot by police"

 

If the cop was not white and the man shot was white it is ok.

If the cop was white and the man shot was not he should rot in prison forever...

Simple.

 

Anytime you send a group of people with guns after someone to take them into custody against their will, sometimes bad things can happen.

That is why I believe in having as few laws as possible.

When the driver of the car reached in to get his ice tea, the officers were afraid for their lives and thought he might be reaching for a gun. They probably told him to stop, but there was not time for him to hear them.

 

Let's have a little more detail on this, remember "Hands up don't shoot" and how it turned out to be nonsense?

 

And yet it's still cited today.

 

article is weak on details!
From reading the article I get this (Off duty cops for NO reason at all rush a poor guy , smash his car window open and start unloading rounds in his neck)
I'm sure there has to be more to this, if not, as in if it is truly like the article says, obviously they are wrong and should be punished

 

NPR's latest livecast was saying that the officers had probable cause to breach the vehicle according to their "sources". So yes it sounds like more information will come out. For now it's all just speculation. Also, they never mentioned "off duty" on the NPR livecast. So conflicting reports?

 

hope they had their cop cams on, if not, I default to believing the victim

in this day and age, there is zero excuse not to have ones cop cams on for any traffic stop

 

Sounds like a bunch of nonsense, hyperbolic misrepresentation and perhaps downright lies.

but we will see as more info is made available. I do hate the default anti cop tone these articles have when they put out such limited facts and so much is unknown…so much very important information at that.

 

I also take these early articles with a grain of salt, need more information

 

Your default is to take the side of the known criminal. Well at least your honest

 

from what I read, it sounded like the family said he went to his car to get some tea and when then the cops approached the car, not sure why they approached the car as not enough info in the article

"Just after midnight on Feb. 12, Henderson went to retrieve iced tea from a car parked outside a home he was visiting, according to the NAACP. He was sitting in the vehicle when a car pulled next to him, and a group of men in plainclothes allegedly jumped out of the vehicle and began yelling at him."

 

*if* there was no cop cam... yes ( you have to read the entire post for context )

as I said, in this day and age, there is zero excuse not to have ones cop cams on for any traffic stop

this is a civil case, and the act of not wearing or having the cop cam on, would cause me to vote in favor of the aledged victim

 

Your default status was not misinterpreted by me. All things being equal, you default to believing the criminals, aka the burden of proof is on the cop to provide proof of innocence and if there isn’t any then they are automatically guilty in your mind no matter how big the rap sheet is on the criminal and regardless of even asking basic questions like: if the criminals version of events is accurate, why is he alive?

As for cameras, either they were used or not used and if they were not used then it was either legal or not legal. I don’t know the particular policies of out of uniform cops but I’m guessing cameras would and could be identifiable and therefore antithetical to their job as undercover cops.

 

yes, you did misunderstand me, if the cops refuse to wear their cops cams, it lowers their credibility, thus I go with the alleged victim

this is a civil case, not criminal

 

Many cops don't have to wear cameras so your "refusal" argument only works if you're going to prove these cops "refused", thus broke their own standards. Can you cite their refusal or are you just painting a "what if" scenario? Detectives especially.

 

I don't get it. I mean, if you really need your tea or your phone what does it matter if there are several police officers yelling at you about something? You should be able to do whatever you want it's a free country even if you have warrants out and JUST finished some silly crime here or there while on your way to start an xtian rap group at doctor school.

 

Yet another fake unarmed black man got shot for nothing story.

THIS IS HOW THE MEDIA IS REPORTING THE STORY

“This incident and incidents like it are all too familiar. These officers — sworn to protect and serve all —rushed to execution. These officers devalued the life of another Black man,” said Richard Smith, president of the state chapter of the NAACP, reading a statement that is also the introduction of the suit, filed in Superior Court of Mercer County.

Jajuan Henderson went to his car after midnight on a Saturday last month to get an iced tea when a dark car boxed him in and men in dark clothes started yelling at him.
Henderson, 29, visiting the mother of his daughter on Centre Street in South Trenton, reached for his phone to get help, dialing the woman he was visiting.
Seconds later, the men, “appearing as any other group of dangerous criminals from a horror movie,” were smashing his window and then shot him several times,
https://www.nj.com/mercer/2022/03/b...-his-car-when-cops-shot-him-suit-charges.html

NOW THE REAL STORY

Police received a call about a suspicious car sitting on the side of the road in a neighborhood. Two cars responded with two officers from the street crime unit and two uniformed police. One car parked behind him and the other beside him. Henderson refused to roll down his window or provide the officers with his ID, insurance, or registration and continued to reach into his glove box and under his seat. After dozens of warnings, the officer broke the glass and Henderson started the car, put it in reverse, and tried to run down the two cops standing behind the vehicle smashing into the police car parked behind him. Officers responded by shooting Henderson.

Henderson was charged with four counts of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and obstruction.

A Mercer County detective investigating the shooting who watched the footage wrote an affidavit explaining the stop yet none of the media wants to publish it.

They have also decided to make the actual video public as well.
Just another hands up don't shoot fairy tale.

 

The suspicion should be on the surviving side that claims self defense.

But not the assumption of guilt, without good evidence.


Unlike what many people seem to think, there are situations where we will never know for sure exactly what happened or whose fault it actually was.
The question is, how do we as a society make decisions to deal with that ambiguity? Or do we just leave that up to the already established system to figure out? (Because we as a society are too stupid to try to think up how to make specific policies to deal with these situations)

 

Doesn’t sound like they had any legal reason to ask for his Id or detain him.

 

.........................................................

 

So they should have let him run over the police and drive home?