An Aurora police officer who pointed a gun at a man, refused to leave the man’s property and claimed he acted with a “warrior mentality” did not commit a constitutional violation, a federal judge determined on Thursday.

Although a jury was scheduled to decide the civil rights claims of physician P.J. Parmar against Officer Justin Henderson and the city of Aurora, the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney in favor of the defendants has now ended the lawsuit.

Based on the facts of the case, she ruled, there was no dispute Henderson’s actions against Parmar did not amount to excessive force or a racially-motivated violation of Parmar’s rights.

“This court is well aware of the issues the city of Aurora has in policing its citizens of color,” Sweeney said in the oral ruling from her courtroom. “Despite that, it does not eliminate the burden of proof for Dr. Parmar.”

Video footage of Parmar’s tense encounter with Henderson went viral as scrutiny increased over the city’s policing tactics in recent years.

Henderson was sitting in his patrol vehicle on the night of March 1, 2020. He was parked at the garage of Mango House, a shared space for refugees that Parmar owns. Parmar drove into the garage quickly from the exit side, honking and startling Henderson.

Henderson, allegedly fearing an “ambush,” pulled out his gun, walked toward Parmar’s vehicle and ordered, “Let me see your f—ing hands.”

Video from both Henderson’s body-worn camera and Parmar’s cell phone captured the ensuing back-and-forth. Henderson stood by Parmar’s open driver door, shining his light and pointing his firearm at Parmar in a “low ready” position.

“What are you doing?” Henderson demanded.

“You’re on my property. Leave,” Parmar shot back.

The two men began arguing about whether Henderson was trespassing. After less than a minute, Henderson holstered his gun. Parmar started unloading his car while insisting Henderson leave, and, at the same time, Henderson called in two other officers.

“Is there a reason you’re sitting on my property blocking me from doing work?” he asked the officers. He invited the police to cite him for careless driving, but Henderson refused and continued arguing with Parmar.

“I pay your salary. Get off my property,” Parmar said after several minutes and shortly before Henderson left.

Parmar filed a federal lawsuit, alleging Henderson had used excessive force by pointing a gun at him in the absence of any crime, violated his Fourth Amendment rights by “seizing” him and preventing him from leaving, and deprived him of equal protection under the law because of Parmar’s race. Parmar, who is of Asian-Pacific descent, also accused the city of failing to adequately train its officers not to engage in racially-biased policing.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, which would allow them to prevail without a trial if the uncontested facts of the case showed no violation of Parmar’s rights. Sweeney heard arguments from all parties on Thursday morning.

Bernard Woessner, an attorney for Henderson, said his client had not performed an unconstitutional seizure of Parmar because, in fact, Parmar was never under physical restraint nor did he submit to Henderson’s authority.

“What you need to find is that there is an objectively reasonable set of circumstances, totality of circumstances, that Officer Henderson would believe there was a danger to him or others under these circumstances. He describes it as ‘ambush,’ but the focus is on the threat to his safety,” Woessner told the judge.

The city’s legal representative added that if Henderson had not committed a constitutional violation, Aurora itself could not be liable to Parmar. Even if Henderson had violated Parmar’s rights, said attorney Isabelle Evans, Parmar had not shown there was a pattern of Aurora police treating people in Parmar’s situation similarly to how he was treated.

“I’m not fully understanding this ‘warrior mentality’ training. Can you describe what that is?” Sweeney asked.

In his deposition, Henderson claimed he was trained to have a “warrior mentality,” in which his first priority is to protect himself. Although he also acknowledged having a “guardian mentality” as an officer, Henderson said his initial tactics against Parmar demonstrated the warrior mentality.

Evans referenced the national conversation that has taken place about policing tactics particularly against communities of color, but added such a “policy argument” was not relevant to the constitutionality of Henderson’s actions.

“An officer has discretion, depending on the situation, to determine what is appropriate,” she said. “In this scenario, Officer Henderson determined an aggressive approach to the vehicle was most appropriate.”

Andy McNulty, an attorney for Parmar, argued the police interaction with Parmar illustrated the “disdain” Aurora officers have for people of color.

“Dr. Parmar is someone who, his entire life, has stood up to bullies,” McNulty said. “He’s standing up to what he sees as a bully.”

McNulty claimed a jury could disbelieve Henderson’s fears of being ambushed, given the officer’s behavior of walking directly up to Parmar without backup. He cited other court decisions suggesting the pointing of a gun constitutes physical force, and argued Parmar was not at liberty to leave while Henderson was pointing his gun.

It was clear, McNulty added, that Henderson knew Parmar was a person of color.

“If (Parmar) was a white person pulling up to this building and said, ‘Hey, I own this building,’ would Officer Henderson have continued to point a gun at him? It’s our position that he wouldn’t,” said McNulty.

Sweeney, a Biden administration appointee who took her seat as a federal judge earlier this month, recited her ruling at the close of the parties’ arguments. She said she repeatedly viewed the video and that the men’s actions “frankly put both of them in a bad light.”

However, “no seizure occurs when the subject does not yield to the show of authority,” Sweeney explained. “As admitted by Dr. Parmar, he stood up for himself. He felt was being bullied. He disregarded all of Officer Henderson’s instructions from the moment the confrontation began and freely moved about the garage and his building. There was no submitting to authority whatsoever.”

She found Henderson had acted reasonably when he initially pulled his gun, only to holster it after evaluating the risk and concluding Parmar posed no threat. While Sweeney alluded to various investigations into Aurora’s police force and the Colorado attorney general’s recent findings of racially-biased policing, the judge decided Parmar had failed to show his race was a motivating factor in Henderson’s conduct. She noted Henderson had likely not even known Parmar’s race at the time he exited his vehicle.

At the same time, Sweeney cautioned, “the court is also disturbed by testimony about the ‘warrior mentality’ that is apparently part of the training in the city of Aurora.”

The judge sided with the defendants on all claims. Attorneys for Parmar said they will consider whether to appeal.

Henderson is also the defendant in another excessive force lawsuit after he shot and killed a mentally ill man one year prior to his encounter with Parmar. A judge denied the defense’s motion to dismiss that case and it is scheduled for a trial in March 2023.

The case is Parmar v. City of Aurora et al.