Radazz Hearns was shot seven times in the the back of his legs and his buttocks, by police officers who are part of an “anti-crime” taskforce that Acting Attorney General John Hoffman said was supposed to “curb crime.”
It all happened at approximately 10:15 p.m. on August 7th. Officers showed up on the scene and began violently firing 18 times at an unarmed 14-year-old boy. Now, the police are claiming he “pointed a handgun” who they say pointed a handgun at them during a brief foot chase.
But according to The Guardian, a lawyer representing the family says that Radazz was completely unarmed throughout the violent encounter with police.
The police needed a justification for the shooting, so they went to the default claim that he “had a gun.”
The problem is, they couldn’t find any gun.
State, city and county police swarmed the Prospect Village apartments near the scene. The Attorney General’s Shooting Response Team showed up too.
None of them could find any gun.
Was it a magical gun? Where did it go? Radazz couldn’t have taken it, because he was laying in a pool of his own blood.
Even police dogs, trained to find the mysterious handgun could not find it anywhere.
Police asked firefighters to bring them a really big ladder so they could get an elevated vantage point. Still no gun.
It’s almost like there never was any gun, and the police just made that up, just like the lawyer for the Hearns family maintains.
Finally, 12 hours later, a gun appeared right by where Hearns collapsed. All of that searching and they never found it, but then, suddenly, the magical, mystery gun appeared.
The most insulting part of the police narrative is that they think we are stupid enough to believe if.
The gun was 151 feet from where police officials say Hearns was running when shot. Attorney Samuel Anyan Jr., says this is because the gun was not Hearns. The implication is clearly that the police planted the gun 12 hours after the fact, or that they planted it at some earlier point, away from the scene of the shooting, which they were unable to get close enough to, without being noticed planting the weapon.
“It smells like it’s potentially an unjustified shooting,” Philip Stinson, a criminology professor at Bowling Green State University said.
Stinson’s research has been used in a widely-publicized Washington Post analysis on police shootings. “There are several red flags that are raised that suggest this could be a shooting that was not justified.”
The chair of the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College in New York, Maria “Maki” Haberfeld, acknowledged that it was “really unusual for police to open fire at a running juvenile.”
“You don’t shoot someone who is trying to escape from you,” she explained.
One police officer commenting on the shooting told The Trentonian , “if the officer who did the shooting thought his life was in danger and supposedly told the shooting team, ‘This kid Radazz Hearns pointed a gun at me and I felt threatened enough that I decided to fire my weapon,’ then why do you tell the fire department, ‘Can you provide a ladder truck and lighting because he threw the gun on top of this roof?”
That officer is not connected to Hearns’ defense team, nor is he a member of New Jersey law enforcement.
Do you believe the official police narrative? Or do you think the police planted the gun after the fact, because they shot a fleeing 14-year-old who was clearly no threat to them?