Man Arrested While Picking Up His Kids: 'The Problem Is I'm Black'

Trespassing is only a criminal offense if you refuse to leave. He did not refuse to leave. The cops told him to leave and he did. He was following the lady cop out at the start of the video. He questioned the security guard's authority to make him leave what he considered to be a public area. He did not question the cop's authority.

- - - Updated - - -

Because it's his word against no one. No one denied his story about what happened before the video started.

 

Once again:
"Lollie says he was sitting in a chair in the skyway's hallway when a security guard approached him, told him he was in a private area, and threatened to call police if he didn't leave. But Lollie didn't see any signs specifying that the area was employees-only or private in any other way, so he decided to hold tight, confident police would have his back if they showed up."

 

That's not the same as refusing the leave. He left when told to by officers. Trespassing is only trespassing when the person has full confirmation that it's private property. And he only received that when the officers told him to leave. Not when some security guard tells him to leave. The security guard is not the owner of the property. He thought he was on public space. he left as soon as he was corrected by officers.

 

He held tight after the security guard(s) asked him to leave. That certainly is a refusal.

 

Well said brother. I've been stopped by the police many times, and a few of those incidents were with guns drawn. It certainly was harassment. However, I find if you stay calm, keep your mouth shut, and most importantly obey orders, things go fairly smoothly. Maybe that makes me a coward, I don't know. I do know I'm allergic to tazers, pepper spray, and deathly allergic to bullets.

 

Glad to see him tazed. Stupid idiot. All he have to do is identify himself. Hey officer Im so and so and Im here to pick up so an so. But no, he rather get tazed so he got what he wanted. Good for him.

 

We are under no obligation to identify ourselves to police if we are not breaking the law. We don't live in Nazi Germany. This is not a "Show me your papers" society.

 

not exactly the case. suspicion of a crime as well. So if the cop thought he committed some crime, that would qualify for id.

 

So he got tazed for "not showing his papers" not because he is black?

 

He could just be one of those many stricken with the inability to get a state ID that we keep hearing about to counter voter ID laws. Perhaps he was too proud to admit this affliction and took a taze of pride instead...

 

Why exercise your rights? Rights are like muscles, use them or lose them.





​

 

It's the GOP's fault that he looked and was dressed like a robbery suspect. Maybe they thought Brown was still alive?

 

If we don't stand up and fight for our rights, they WILL be taken from us.

Non-sequitur: Lousy analogy. You do not have a right to not be told to have a blessed day by a store clerk. You DO have a right to be secure in your papers and possessions from government infringement.

Every cop is supposed to know the law. The female cop in the video should have ended the confrontation when the citizen declined to provide his ID. The onus is on law enforcement and government to obey the law as much as it is on citizens. Sure the man could have volunteered his ID but he had no proper reason to and I applaud him for standing his ground. Once he declined, the female cop should have said "OK, sir, thank you." If she had some suspicions that he was up to no good (which by all appearances he certainly was not), then she could have continued to question him but he would be well within his rights to decline to answer her questions. He did in fact tell her that he was waiting to pick his children up from school. She should have ended it there. But she was either ignorant to the law or blatantly ignored it, maybe both. Cops are used to most of us rolling over and giving up our rights so when they encounter someone who actually knows their rights it kind of throws them...

There should never be consequences for standing up for your rights. In this video, it was the police who acted badly, not the citizen. Read my other posts -- I'm usually the first one to defend the cops because 9 times out of 10 they get it right. But this time they got it wrong.

 

Yes, that is correct. Which is why I used the phrase REASONABLE SUSPICION. Based on what we saw in the video and read in the accompanying article, the female cop had none. In Minnesota, citizens are not required to identify themselves to police unless the officer can clearly articulate the specific evidence that forms the basis of their reasonable suspicion that then allows them to perform a Terry stop.

 

None. Based on the video and the news article, the female cop had no justification in continuing to harass this citizen after he declined to identify himself.

 

Hearsay. And you're right, we don't know what was said to the police due to the typical (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor reporting that passes for "journalism" these days.

 

See?

Just another thug with a badge who want's people to obey their authoritay.

I'd sue for everything I can think of.

 

Yeah, he was as calm and patient as could be -- more than I imagine I would be in a similar situation. He got little riled up, understandably, after being tazed and handcuffed...

 

Unless what they tell you to do is unlawful.

 

Good little lapdog you are.... He voluntarily answered the officer's question in telling her her was picking up his kids. That should have been sufficient. She had no cause to ask for his ID and he rightfully declined to provide it. That you think he deserved to be assaulted and arrested for knowing and exercising his rights is pathetic. They probably let you vote too...

- - - Updated - - -

Yet...

We get the government we deserve. And with people like Larryjohn only too happy to grovel and genuflect in front of authority, we'll get it alot sooner than we think.

- - - Updated - - -

In this case, yes... Two thugs in fact.

 

The cop needs to articulate clearly and specifically what crime she thinks was or is about to be committed. We heard none of that on this tape. She just kept badgering him for his ID. That's just bad policing. Neither she nor her cohort were very professional... surprising actually because St. Paul is known to be a pretty well-run city.

 

We don't know what was said in the call for police, or what the female cop was told by the security guards. Any basis for reasonable suspicion, if there was any, would have happened before the video. The police's story is the security guard(s) called and had asked the man to leave private property, and he did not leave. Lollie's own statements say the same thing, but he thought he was on public property. If he was on private property and told to leave, that is not only reasonable suspicion for trespassing, but probable cause if the security guards said they were willing to press charges. I would point the racism finger at the bank before the police.

I don't think in Minnesota, even under a Terry stop, you are required under law to give your identification. I don't live there so can't say for sure. I know in Colorado you are, but every state is different.

In any case, refusing to comply with the cops orders is only asking for trouble. The great civil rights leaders like Rosa Parks and MLK resorted to non-violent protests and complied with their arrests, and then went on to change the country.

 

The cop has no duty to articulate any crime to the "suspect". If the cop is in court he definitely has to. http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/10/do-police-have-to-inform-you-of-your-charges.html

This incident, along with more contemporary ones, remind me of Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion in Terry v. Ohio:

"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again. To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

While the cops in this case were probably within the letter of the law, despite making asses of themselves, Justice Douglas's words ring true 46 years later.