• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Randomly Attacked by Plainclothes Police While Black

Thermal

August Member
Thermal
Joined
Aug 29, 2016
Messages
36,535
Location
Deep Inside
Didn't see this story anywhere on the forum, but if it is already being discussed in other threads, please merge or delete, Mr Mods.

A 29 yr old black guy, Jajuan Henderson, went into his girlfriend's car that was parallel parked on the street in front of his Trenton NJ USA home around midnight, while grabbing a thing of iced tea from the console and talking on his phone.

A sedan pulls up and four dark clad masked dudes jump out, smashing the drivers side window and shooting Henderson in the neck, paralyzing him.

Sounds like a mob hit from a movie scene, yeah? Playing some thug life Whack-a-Bro?

Nope. It was four undercover Trenton police in an unmarked car. No explanation yet why they attacked and nearly killed this man out of the blue. Not only did they paralyze my man when opening fire against the unarmed and sitting Henderson, but they initially charged him with...you guessed it...resisting arrest and four counts of aggravated assault on police, among other ridiculous charges. Bodycam footage exists, and is expected to be released soon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/unarmed-black-man-grabbing-tea-car-shot-new-jersey-police-paralyzed-la-rcna20640

Eta: in fairness to the Trenton cops, they claim that they had a long talk with Henderson first, requesting licence and registration for the car, which Henderson did not provide, and that they ordered him out of the car for whatever reason, and he didn't comply, and that Henderson kept reaching under the back seat...which seems kind of acrobatically impossible. Also impossible is the claim that Henderson attempted to flee the scene in the car, which was literally blocked in by vehicles on three sides and by a telephone pole on the other.
 
Last edited:
Let's see the bodycam footage, which apparently exists. Something seems to be missing here.
 
Little odd right off the bat that this happened a month ago with no immediate brouhaha. Also, do plainclothes cops typically have bodycams? Seems kind of not plainclothes-ish.
 
When the body cam footage is released we should see who's telling the truth about this part:

Henderson then according to the [police] affidavit, turned on the ignition and attempted to flee, striking two parked cards while officers were in close proximity.

Henderson's lawsuit says it's unclear if he turned on the ignition, but fleeing was impossible, given the car was boxed in....
Click to expand...
 
My understanding of "undercover" seems more comprehensive than "acting like a stereotypical police officer but while not wearing a uniform."
 
Warp12 said:
Let's see the bodycam footage, which apparently exists. Something seems to be missing here.
Click to expand...

The rule of thumb is the longer it takes for the pigs to give up the video footage, the less justifiable the shooting was.

If this guy was reaching for a gun the video would have been playing on the local news before the blood dried.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The rule of thumb is the longer it takes for the pigs to give up the video footage, the less justifiable the shooting was.

If this guy was reaching for a gun the video would have been playing on the local news before the blood dried ambulance arrived.
Click to expand...

FTFY.

I'm assuming that the ambulance would arrive before the blood dried, but I may be giving too much credit there...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Somehow it always is for some people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what is it with these skeptics not automatically taking the word of someone suing the cops for a bazillion dollars? He must be telling the truth because he's Black and they're cops. QED, give him the bazillion.
 
Brainster said:
Yeah, what is it with these skeptics not automatically taking the word of someone suing the cops for a bazillion dollars? He must be telling the truth because he's Black and they're cops. QED, give him the bazillion.
Click to expand...

Yes, I too am a 1 minute old baby brand new to the world who has no idea what it means when cops withhold evidence in cases where they are accused of excessive force. Very insightful, thanks!
 
Ah, I see the dance called "Listen people, the victim was black and we all know that black people are way more likely to be violent, randomly murdering criminals, so please please let's assume that it was the black guys own fault while shaming others for jumping to early conclusions as a detraction" has already begun.
 
Obviously, he was attempting to flee because he was [fill in blank] and not because, perhaps, he was afraid that the unidentified violent thugs who approached him might harm him [after all, there's no reason to expect they would other than the fact that they did]. And he hit two parked cars in the attempt, so though it seems pretty clear he was not going anywhere, the brave public servants had to shoot him in order to protect private property.

Medals all around!
 
EaglePuncher said:
Ah, I see the dance called "Listen people, the victim was black and we all know that black people are way more likely to be violent, randomly murdering criminals, so please please let's assume that it was the black guys own fault while shaming others for jumping to early conclusions as a detraction" has already begun.
Click to expand...

That's funny because I see the dance called "All cops are bastards and therefore these cops must be guilty and there's no reason not to jump to conclusions" has already begun.
 
Brainster said:
That's funny because I see the dance called "All cops are bastards and therefore these cops must be guilty and there's no reason not to jump to conclusions" has already begun.
Click to expand...

I swear, they could dump a body off at the morgue with 150 broken bones and say the perp was jaywalking and you'd still be "waiting for all the facts to come in."

Don't you get tired of whistling the same tired tune?
 
Brainster said:
That's funny because I see the dance called "All cops are bastards and therefore these cops must be guilty and there's no reason not to jump to conclusions" has already begun.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why, in a forum that promotes critical thinking, would you not want to review the evidence before jumping to conclusions? I mean, it is the sort of thing that you expect to see over at the Confirmation Bias Forum, not here.
 
Warp12 said:
Exactly. Why, in a forum that promotes critical thinking, would you not want to review the evidence before jumping to conclusions? I mean, it is the sort of thing that you expect to see over at the Confirmation Bias Forum, not here.
Click to expand...

This isn't an academic exercise. The fact that one side is withholding evidence is called "acting in a manner cognizant of guilt". Get back to us when that changes.
 
Warp12 said:
Exactly. Why, in a forum that promotes critical thinking, would you not want to review the evidence before jumping to conclusions? I mean, it is the sort of thing that you expect to see over at the Confirmation Bias Forum, not here.
Click to expand...

Only one type of dance the whole evening is boring, that's why we switch to the "The black guy claims he was sitting in his car, not breaking any law but let's wait for the body cam footage because who believes a black guy. Something seems to be missing here. He was probably setting up a crack deal"-dance.
 
Last edited:
I know, I know, why introduce more information on this incident since everybody already knows perfectly well what happened, but here's an article at NJ.com with some more details:

The lawyers, Henderson’s criminal attorney David Bahuriak and civil attorney Greg Zeff, also revealed that four aggravated assault charges filed against Henderson after the Feb. 12 shooting have since been dismissed.

The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office confirmed they’d dismissed the charges, which represented allegations that Henderson tried to run down the four officers present. An office spokesperson declined to elaborate.

Two law enforcement sources said upon further review of the police officers’ body cameras, prosecutors would have to prove Henderson was trying to strike the officers when he allegedly started the car and tried to drive away, and he may have just been trying to flee for safety.

The body cameras are central in the incident, as Henderson’s attorneys and the NAACP presented a version of events starkly different than the Mercer prosecutor’s office has alleged in court documents.
Click to expand...

The highlighted sounds a bit like the cops may not have identified themselves as such, because I can't imagine that fleeing from the police is legal.
 
!!

Brainster said:
I know, I know, why introduce more information on this incident since everybody already knows perfectly well what happened, but here's an article at NJ.com with some more details:



The highlighted sounds a bit like the cops may not have identified themselves as such, because I can't imagine that fleeing from the police is legal.
Click to expand...

I know I know, let's wait for the cam footage which will be somewhat dark and blurry but there is still a good chance that there will be one frame of video where we can claim"Well, here it clearly looks like he is reaching for a gun! HE IS GUILTY!!!!!!!!"
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Somehow it always is for some people.
Click to expand...

Well...shouldn't that be the case for all of us?

This is an almost entirely one-sided version of the story as presented by a plaintiff's attorney. A bit of bias can be assumed. Fair?

The popo have given a partial version. It is at least plausible that the Death Squad was undercover, and a heavier than usual redaction of video may be needed (the cops are not even identified by name in the complaint).

One way or the other, is it too much to ask of a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics to review evidence first, rather than dropping the gavel having really only heard one set of claims?
 
Thermal said:
Well...shouldn't that be the case for all of us?

This is an almost entirely one-sided version of the story as presented by a plaintiff's attorney. A bit of bias can be assumed. Fair?

The popo have given a partial version. It is at least plausible that the Death Squad was undercover, and a heavier than usual redaction of video may be needed (the cops are not even identified by name in the complaint).

One way or the other, is it too much to ask of a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics to review evidence first, rather than dropping the gavel having really only heard one set of claims?
Click to expand...

You posted the link. If you didn't want conversation about it, and you wanted to wait for all of the evidence to come out, then why did you post it before all the evidence came out?

But yeah, yeah, let us all pretend, now, that there is some justifiable reason for shooting an unarmed man in the neck, paralyzing him for life, then not releasing the details about it for over a month. Nothing at all suspicious. Let us all put on our "skeptics hat", which in situations like these seems to really mean "give the cops the benefit of the doubt" and we definitely shouldn't naysay the police. hashtagskepticism
 
Sorry, sorry, I said something incorrect. He wasn't just shot in the neck, they shot him four ******* times.

One of the men smashed the driver’s side window and Henderson was shot four times, the lawsuit said.
Click to expand...

They were probably just skeptics that thought he was living his life without skepticism. Those were "skepticism" bullets. Those cops were trying to help him by shooting him four times. There has to be a legitimate reason, backed by skepticism as to why you'd shoot a man 4 times that's armed with an iced ******* tea.
 
plague311 said:
You posted the link. If you didn't want conversation about it, and you wanted to wait for all of the evidence to come out, then why did you post it before all the evidence came out?

But yeah, yeah, let us all pretend, now, that there is some justifiable reason for shooting an unarmed man in the neck, paralyzing him for life, then not releasing the details about it for over a month. Nothing at all suspicious. Let us all put on our "skeptics hat", which in situations like these seems to really mean "give the cops the benefit of the doubt" and we definitely shouldn't naysay the police. hashtagskepticism
Click to expand...

What the **** are you on about? Yes, I posted it, and yes, I opined that it looks powerfully bad for Trenton PD. In what way does that justify character-assassinating another poster showing legitimate skepticism?
 
Thermal said:
What the **** are you on about? Yes, I posted it, and yes, I opined that it looks powerfully bad for Trenton PD. In what way does that justify character-assassinating another poster showing legitimate skepticism?
Click to expand...

LoL wut? Who did I character-assassinate? Is that like your word of the month or something? I was pointing out the irony of posting a link and then telling people to not make any judgements until all of the facts are out. Those two things don't belong together.

The only reason all of the evidence isn't out is because the police aren't releasing it as of yet. It generally takes around 20 days, and we're double that. So they should receive negative attention on top of shooting an unarmed man 4 times and paralyzing him. As skeptics you make statements based on the information available. Saying that you can't make any statements because literally every single piece of data isn't out would make every ******* thread pointless.
 
Last edited:
"Skepticism" in this case seems to require burying our heads in the sand and pretending that there isn't a well established pattern of police playing hide the evidence whenever they commit crimes or otherwise massively screw up.

It's fine to point out we don't have all the details in this case. It should also be pointed out that we don't have the details because the people who shot a guy have clammed up and refuse to explain themselves.
 
plague311 said:
LoL wut? Who did I character-assassinate?
Click to expand...

With painful clarity:

You criticized my response to Capn Swoop, who was needlessly character-assassinating another poster. For Christ's sake dude, not everything is about you.

I was pointing out the irony of posting a link and then telling people to not make any judgements until all of the facts are out. Those two things don't belong together.
Click to expand...

That didn't happen. I pointed out that the personal attack was unwarranted, when the attacked poster was making a fair criticism.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's fine to point out we don't have all the details in this case. It should also be pointed out that we don't have the details because the people who shot a guy have clammed up and refuse to explain themselves.
Click to expand...

And apparently no one had really even known it happened until recently. I feel like this should have gotten some significant press coverage, but with the team being undercover I'm sure the cops are working overtime to keep their identities private. Which, while understandable, is frustrating.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
"Skepticism" in this case seems to require burying our heads in the sand and pretending that there isn't a well established pattern of police playing hide the evidence whenever they commit crimes or otherwise massively screw up.

It's fine to point out we don't have all the details in this case. It should also be pointed out that we don't have the details because the people who shot a guy have clammed up and refuse to explain themselves.
Click to expand...

Sooper Skeptics: We need to wait until all the evidence is available before we can reasonably suspect the police of wrongdoing!

Actual Skeptics: Great, where's the evidence?

Police suspected of wrongdoing: We're hiding it.
 
johnny karate said:
Sooper Skeptics: We need to wait until all the evidence is available before we can reasonably suspect the police of wrongdoing!

Actual Skeptics: Great, where's the evidence?

Police suspected of wrongdoing: We're hiding it.
Click to expand...

Or redacting/reviewing for release.

NJ law requires release of bodycam video in shootings to family/attorneys, I think within 20 days of formal request, and to the public if there is a pressing need for public dissemination that outweighs confidentiality. We don't know exactly when this was requested.

There seem to be two major extreme possibilities in the footage: police roll up unidentified and masked, and run their hit. Or, they identified themselves and Henderson was actually uncooperative and tried to escape by smashing into other cars and possibly cops.

I'm betting on the truth being somewhere in between. Something like no legit probable cause and confusing identification of police, but a violent flee attempt. Should be clear in video.
 
Thermal said:
Or redacting/reviewing for release.

NJ law requires release of bodycam video in shootings to family/attorneys, I think within 20 days of formal request, and to the public if there is a pressing need for public dissemination that outweighs confidentiality. We don't know exactly when this was requested.

There seem to be two major extreme possibilities in the footage: police roll up unidentified and masked, and run their hit. Or, they identified themselves and Henderson was actually uncooperative and tried to escape by smashing into other cars and possibly cops.

I'm betting on the truth being somewhere in between. Something like no legit probable cause and confusing identification of police, but a violent flee attempt. Should be clear in video.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly reasonable to not draw any conclusions until all the evidence is available.

It's also perfectly reasonable to suspect the police of malfeasance without claiming to know it for a fact.
 
Brainster said:
That's funny because I see the dance called "All cops are bastards and therefore these cops must be guilty and there's no reason not to jump to conclusions" has already begun.
Click to expand...

It is a more reasonable starting point.

Regardless of whether it is more likely to be true it is one that can be easily rebutted by the police recording all of their interactions with the public and making that available. Placing that burden on them is reasonable if not essential.
 
Thermal said:
Or redacting/reviewing for release.

NJ law requires release of bodycam video in shootings to family/attorneys, I think within 20 days of formal request, and to the public if there is a pressing need for public dissemination that outweighs confidentiality. We don't know exactly when this was requested.

There seem to be two major extreme possibilities in the footage: police roll up unidentified and masked, and run their hit. Or, they identified themselves and Henderson was actually uncooperative and tried to escape by smashing into other cars and possibly cops.

I'm betting on the truth being somewhere in between. Something like no legit probable cause and confusing identification of police, but a violent flee attempt. Should be clear in video.
Click to expand...
I hope there is some clarification in the video, assuming that the video does not somehow disappear or have big gaps in it.

One of the problems in cases like this is the assumption that the victim's behavior is the reason he got killed. It may be true that they would not have shot him down if he hadn't tried to escape, but it is also, unfortunately, true that there are enough cases in which people are dragged out of their cars, accused of resistance when they do so much as express confusion about why they're being targeted, thrown to the ground, tased and murdered for struggling even when handcuffed, and so forth.

Police have cultivated what used at least to be called "preventive aggression," basically the idea that they should be feared, for a long time, but they seem surprised when that fear results in anything but sheepish submission.

The police seem to like the "excited delirium" defense when they kill people or beat them to a pulp for the panic they seek to induce. But the fear of such attacks does not seem to float as a defense against them.
 
Forgot to mention for those unaware: don't let the Trenton NJ thing fool you. These are not historically accurate constables in powdered wigs. Trenton 5-0 is ******* nasty. Google them for other fun tales of killing and abusing citizens pretty regularly.
 
The mayor of Trenton has called for the release of the video, but note this detail:

Gusciora said videos from police body-worn and dashboard cameras, as well as from surveillance cameras, "should be made public as soon as possible."

But he also noted a 2021 directive from the Attorney General’s Office restricts the release of such videos until an investigation is “substantially” complete.
Click to expand...

So you can stop considering the non-release of the video as evidence the cops are guilty. Just kidding, I know you won't stop jumping to conclusions; that's what true skeptics do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom