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

Agree. Not clear that’s the case here though.

 

Friend of mine beat a dui in that exact situation. Had wrecked his car and parked and passed out. Was able to claim he got intoxicated after he crashed since he had a bottle in the car.

 

Yes and the more common scenario with this is people who live in their car. That then becomes their "dwelling" and it gets way more complicated.

 

sure sure...
They only got going resisting arrest and obstructing of justice. Seems exceptionally implausible that you can resist an arrest when they got nothing to arrest you on. Same thing with obstructing of justice. He (and he was totally alone) wasn't doing anything unlawful, so he can't be obstructing anything.

Well there you go. Since you just like the police keep their oath of silence when explaining themselves would incriminate themselves... means the only truth there is, is the truth that Henderson tells. While it remains up to you and the cops to prove something else.

The state's Attorney General says the cops must give the bodycamera footage in 20 days.
They are refusing to comply with that and haven't given a reason why.
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2022/03/...-many-things-are-wrong-with-this-opinion.html
https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-directive-2018-1.pdf

 

Another blatant fabrication, keep digging yourself further down your well.

 

@Condor060 , had to see to whom you were responding.. yup.. worse than a waste of time reading his?its post.

 

Yup, there are no limits to the amount of facts that dude will ignore while adding some fiction to the post, usually about racism where it doesn't exist.

Anyway, I'll be following this case to see this guy get his in prison. You don't get to unarrest yourself.

 

It is clear. He was sitting in his car with the engine running as he was pulled over.

 

From page 1
Police received a call about a suspicious car sitting on the side of the road in a neighborhood.

also
After dozens of warnings, the officer broke the glass and Henderson started the car

you can’t start a car that's already running and based on how little he cooperated I doubt he would have turned it off it was already running when they approached him.

 

From The video that has been out for two days now.
He admitted he was pulled over asking if he was speeding.
ANd the car was running. After a few minutes after being pulled over, he shut it off. Then he restarted the car and rammed the police cars
What else ya got

 

ME??? lol
I don't, but cops do need a probable cause that something illegal was going on to go forth with an arrest, and they/you can not come up with anything. That's how it works and not the other way around. When will this sink junior high school level of understanding the US constitution sink in? It's been explained to you plenty of times.

We're talking about plane clothes "cops", with ski masks on coming out of an unmarked car attempting to make a bogus arrest in the middle of the night against somebody minding his own business. You are refusing to explain how this is a known policy how cops may behave. Everything screams that when you're minding your own business -in a legal way- and suddenly thugs jump on you with ski masks on, that you need to save your own life and gtf out of there. And here you are casually forgetting this, and pretending to behave properly as if some cops showed up easily identified by the uniform in brought daylight.

I can spot a guy with a mask on at 4.38 and the unarmed car in the middle of the road.

So they failed to provide the video within the required time, without any explanation.

I asked last Wednesday and you couldn't reply. So nice hindsight on it.

The dude was searching in the car. You can see that on the video.

You're just dishonest. I can spot a guy with a mask on at 0.46 / 4.38 and the unarmed car in the middle of the road.

Is it? I spot a masked person in black. I spot an unmarked car. I spot a guy searching around in his car. I saw the car went back and forth, while there were no cops in front of it or behind the car. So the cops didn't shoot out of some kind of fear for their live (or somebody else). They saw that the guy was unarmed. So you got a guy fleeing, but posing no thread, and they executed him for that.... and still no probable cause to detain him.

nope.

4th amendment. Can you cite it?

0.46, I spot a ski mask. At 4.38 I spot a mask.

Vid shows that the cops were never in any danger. They had no probable cause. They had masks on. They saw the guy was unarmed. And so it shows they simply gunned down an unarmed person fleeing who posed no thread.

Indeed the vid was released. It shows a grim picture for the cops.

Already replied they dropped all charges that would justify an arrest. Do you understand the sheer stupidity of claiming there was a some kind of resisting an arrest when there is no arrest?

1) 0.46 / 4.38
2) pretty much yeah
3) 0.46 / 4.38
4) It seems they were there, yeah at 0.46 / 4.38
5) They indeed failed to provide the video within 20 days, without any explanation and were weeks late
6) I questioned if they asked for an ID and you're raping my question into a lie as if I claimed they never asked for an ID. tss tss
7) pretty much yeah
you're lying. He said "why are you stopping me for? I was not speeding or non of that" at 3.20.
Do note, the cops ignore the complaint of them not having a reason to bother with him.
9) nothing proves he wasn't
10) except you did not
11) the one that matters.

I can't believe you can honestly claim you watched the vid and say there are no masked people in it.
When I question if the cops asked for an ID, you rape that into me making some kind of claim that I said they never asked for an ID....
When you make up the guy admits in speeding when he said he wasn't.

I mean... you just do whatever that fits the narrative of a fanatic pro cop supporter no matter how much they raped the constitution.

 

thanks for posting the actual video, yeah, he doesn't have a case

 

here, I knew a guy that went to the bar, drank too much in winter and decided to sleep in his car as too drunk to drive home, but as it was cold, he had the engine running, he was charged with drunk driving even though it was obvious his intent was not to drive - just as he was still operating the vehicle drunk, he would have been better off trying to drive home

 

The vid shows the cops did not have any probable cause to hassle him. In fact, the guy asks why he's being hassled, and the cops ignore it. The vid also showed the guy was trying to flee, while the cops knew he was unarmed. The vid also shows the cops were not in any danger at all.

So the cops got a massive problem what they did to the guys rights as stated in the constitution, 4th amendment. They also got a massive problem explaining why they thought they were allowed to gun down a fleeing unarmed person who posed no thread, no clue who he was or if he did anything illegal ever in his life.

 

until he started to try to flee by going forward and backwards crashing into cop cars to get away, he could have handled it in court if he felt he was being treated unfairly

 

It wasn't a life threatening situation at all.

And in this case, he is going to court now. Nothing changed about how the cops initiated the contact and where they were violating his constitutional rights. While he can add, that cops had no reason to shoot him, since he was unarmed, posed no thread to them or anybody else, they did not know who he was, or if he did anything criminal or had any intent to do so.

 

if a car was doing that, and I was standing there, it would definitely cause me to fear for my life

they did not know he was unarmed, just that he badly wanted to get away, enough to crash cars or what ever was needed

the car could be considered a weapon the way he was using it

I do not think the lawyers had seen the video before filling

 

sounds like he has a criminal history per this

https://nj1015.com/lawyer-of-now-paralyzed-man-he-thought-it-was-a-mugging-it-was-trenton-nj-cops/

"According to court records, Henderson had done time in 2013 on drug and resisting arrest charges and again in 2016 after pleading guilty to child endangerment in a sex assault indictment involving a victim under 16."

 

Everybody knows that cars don't drive sideways. The cops stood next to the car and with ease were able to back up. They did, but it wasn't needed. While you could not possible claim there was some kind of hint that the car was being used as a deadly weapon. You're just fantasying around.

They had a clear view on his hands. When asked not to fondle around so much, the vid shows that he was showing his empty hands, and then you could see him using his cellphone. That concludes that they knew he was not armed.

pfff... so far you're just ignoring his constitutional rights like the cops were.
While that fear for their lives is such a load of bs...

The cops put themselves in danger actually.
One cop standing next to the car shot at the car, while his colleague was standing at the other side of the car. He could have hit him.