Sitting while Black

[abysmul]

It's not aggressive to refuse to give your name.

Correct.

 

[whatbogsends]

It's not aggressive to refuse to give your name.

Yeah, i'm not sure where people are getting "he acted aggressively" towards to police. I know that's what the officer's said, but after nothing in the video remotely corroborated acting aggressively, and the video didn't seem to have any gaps (from a time perspective) from when it started - as he was already walking with the first police officer, questioning why he's being asked to leave and identify himself.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's not aggressive to refuse to give your name.

Yeah, i'm not sure where people are getting "he acted aggressively" towards to police. I know that's what the officer's said, but after nothing in the video remotely corroborated acting aggressively, and the video didn't seem to have any gaps (from a time perspective) from when it started - as he was already walking with the first police officer, questioning why he's being asked to leave and identify himself.

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-refor...acial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

If he wasn't going to answer them, he should've at least said he was exercising his right to remain silent.

This is how the ACLU says you should respond when being stopped for questioning, which is how I view this situation:

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.
​

Mr. Lollie DID respond aggressively. Clenching a fist is aggressive by nature. The police officer did grab his arm, but that doesn't give Lollie the right to fight back.

YES, people have rights when it comes to being stopped by police, but there is a proper way to handle the situation. Mr. Lollie did not do that.

Maybe I'm weird, but if I'm having a conversation with someone and they clench their fist, I'm gonna go into defense mode.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Here is also what the ACLU says about if you feel your rights have been violated:

IF YOU FEEL YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED
Remember: police misconduct cannot be challenged on the street. Don't physically resist officers or threaten to file a complaint.
Write down everything you remember, including officers' badge and patrol car numbers, which agency the officers were from, and any other details. Get contact information for witnesses. If you are injured, take photographs of your injuries (but seek medical attention first).
File a written complaint with the agency's internal affairs division or civilian complaint board. In most cases, you can file a complaint anonymously if you wish.
Call your local ACLU or visit www.aclu.org/profiling.

 

[SummerMadness]

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-refor...acial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

If he wasn't going to answer them, he should've at least said he was exercising his right to remain silent.

This is how the ACLU says you should respond when being stopped for questioning, which is how I view this situation.

Being stopped for questioning means you are being detained, he was not detained. Never did the officer tell him to stop, that's the point. If he is not being detained he is under no obligation to answer any questions. If a police officer says, "Hello, how's your day going?", I do not have to tell him/her that I exercise the right to remain silent as I am not being detained. While that response may be a bit rude, the advice you list is about being detained and questioned.

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.
​

Mr. Lollie DID respond aggressively. Clenching a fist is aggressive by nature. The police officer did grab his arm, but that doesn't give Lollie the right to fight back.

The police report said he clenched his fist, the police report also states many things that did not occur, you cannot selectively choose information. If there is a video and the report does not match the video, either the video is fake or there are fabrications in the police report.

And to put it succinctly, HE WAS NOT DETAINED BY THE POLICE, THAT'S WHY HE WAS ABLE TO WALK FREELY.

YES, people have rights when it comes to being stopped by police, but there is a proper way to handle the situation. Mr. Lollie did not do that.

He was not detained, the police officer would have told him to stop if she was detaining him, she was walking with him and talking with him, obviously because she had no right to stop him. We have fourth and fifth amendment rights for a reason.

Maybe I'm weird, but if I'm having a conversation with someone and they clench their fist, I'm gonna go into defense mode.

What's weird is you're ignoring the law, Constitution, and police misconduct in order to justify the arrest of a man who's only crime was contempt of cop.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

SummerMadness, you are arguing from a semantics view here.

EVERY site I find on being stopped for questioning versus being detained have the same information the ACLU has. The first police officer was trying to question him regarding what they were called for. He was not answering her questions. He did not state he was exercising his right to be silent. When other police officers joined he reacted to that as well. The video shows this.

I don't see the inconsistencies between the video and the reports that you do. The video is what, approximately 5 minutes long, and does not represent everything that transpired.

Ultimately the security guard shouldn't have called the police, but we also have no idea what was transpiring between Mr. Lollie and the security guard.

 

[JohnLocke]

St. Paul police report

He had been rousted from his seat and was leaving. Got tased and arrested anyway.

Link has a video with some not-appropriate-for-White-kids language and the police reports.

ETA: Link changed after consultation with Staff to go directly to the police reports. If you want to see the video, go find it yourself.

I'm not sure what you're on about. The police were investigating pursuant to a report. According to the report, the crime was completed and the suspect attempted to flee arrest.

You know, it may very well be true that if instead of a black man with dreadlocks, the occupant of the seat was instead Gisele Bundchen that Gisele would not have been asked to leave. But the reason for the difference in treatment may be because Gisele Bundchen is an international top model and the suspect in this case is not.

Is it right that people treat the fantastically attractive differently than others less attractive? Maybe not, but if we criminalize that kind of discrimination, where does one draw the line? Is it fair that I treat my family better than my friends or random strangers?

For those who harp on equality of treatment, I ask "Do you ever drive a car? Wear a cotton shirt? etc." You'll find that most of the things we consume everyday provide material support for oppressive regimes around the world, where those oppressed would gladly trade their place for the place of the downtrodden in this country.

if you are so interested in the law, perhaps you should go to law school or a library and learn some.

 

[stamperben]

I'm not sure what you're on about. The police were investigating pursuant to a report. According to the report, the crime was completed and the suspect attempted to flee arrest.

You know, it may very well be true that if instead of a black man with dreadlocks, the occupant of the seat was instead Gisele Bundchen that Gisele would not have been asked to leave. But the reason for the difference in treatment may be because Gisele Bundchen is an international top model and the suspect in this case is not.

Is it right that people treat the fantastically attractive differently than others less attractive? Maybe not, but if we criminalize that kind of discrimination, where does one draw the line? Is it fair that I treat my family better than my friends or random strangers?

For those who harp on equality of treatment, I ask "Do you ever drive a car? Wear a cotton shirt? etc." You'll find that most of the things we consume everyday provide material support for oppressive regimes around the world, where those oppressed would gladly trade their place for the place of the downtrodden in this country.

if you are so interested in the law, perhaps you should go to law school or a library and learn some.

Don't have to be a super model to use those seats, just another "right" look.

 

[whatbogsends]

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-refor...acial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

If he wasn't going to answer them, he should've at least said he was exercising his right to remain silent.

This is how the ACLU says you should respond when being stopped for questioning, which is how I view this situation:

IF YOU ARE STOPPED FOR QUESTIONING
Stay calm. Don't run. Don't argue, resist or obstruct the police, even if you are innocent or police are violating your rights. Keep your hands where police can see them.
Ask if you are free to leave. If the officer says yes, calmly and silently walk away. If you are under arrest, you have a right to know why.
You have the right to remain silent and cannot be punished for refusing to answer questions. If you wish to remain silent, tell the officer out loud. In some states, you must give your name if asked to identify yourself.
You do not have to consent to a search of yourself or your belongings, but police may "pat down" your clothing if they suspect a weapon. You should not physically resist, but you have the right to refuse consent for any further search. If you do consent, it can affect you later in court.
​

Mr. Lollie DID respond aggressively. Clenching a fist is aggressive by nature. The police officer did grab his arm, but that doesn't give Lollie the right to fight back.

YES, people have rights when it comes to being stopped by police, but there is a proper way to handle the situation. Mr. Lollie did not do that.

Maybe I'm weird, but if I'm having a conversation with someone and they clench their fist, I'm gonna go into defense mode.

The police report indicating the officer claiming Lollie clenched his fist isn't evidence of him clenching his fist or activing aggressively. He gets tased during the video, and you can hear the fear in his voice saying "don't tase me".

In the police report related to this video, the officer claims that "he lunged at him", which, as you can see from the video, is not at all what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4HUvXOvgkQ

Even with the clear video evidence of assaulting a handcuffed prisoner, the judge ruled not guilty (in fact, the judge refused to look at the video evidence). Police claiming things in their reports isn't evidence of anything. They falsify their reports routinely.

 

[CaDan]

I'm not sure what you're on about. The police were investigating pursuant to a report. According to the report, the crime was completed and the suspect attempted to flee arrest.

It would be great if Libertarians actually believed in . . . I dunno . . . liberty and the rule of law.

Listen closely so you don't make any more stupid posts.

The alleged offense was a trespass. A trespass is a misdemeanor. Under Minnesota law, an arrest can be made by a peace officer for a trespass only if the offense occurs in the presence of the peace officer.

Officer Hayne knew that and obeyed the law.

Officer Johnson did not.

I've provided citations to ordinances and statutes throughout this thread. Go back and read them.

 

[CaDan]

if you are so interested in the law, perhaps you should go to law school or a library and learn some.

I've been licensed to practice in Minnesota for twenty years. In case you haven't noticed, every claim I have made about the law has been backed up by a citation to statute, ordinance, or policy statement.

Try again. Try harder.

 

[CaDan]

SummerMadness, you are arguing from a semantics view here.

EVERY site I find on being stopped for questioning versus being detained have the same information the ACLU has. The first police officer was trying to question him regarding what they were called for. He was not answering her questions. He did not state he was exercising his right to be silent. When other police officers joined he reacted to that as well. The video shows this.

I don't see the inconsistencies between the video and the reports that you do. The video is what, approximately 5 minutes long, and does not represent everything that transpired.

Ultimately the security guard shouldn't have called the police, but we also have no idea what was transpiring between Mr. Lollie and the security guard.

White Supremacy views the Black body as an existential threat.

 

[nightflight]

It would be great if Libertarians actually believed in . . . I dunno . . . liberty and the rule of law.

Listen closely so you don't make any more stupid posts.

The alleged offense was a trespass. A trespass is a misdemeanor. Under Minnesota law, an arrest can be made by a peace officer for a trespass only if the offense occurs in the presence of the peace officer.

Officer Hayne knew that and obeyed the law.

Officer Johnson did not.

I've provided citations to ordinances and statutes throughout this thread. Go back and read them.

So I guess you're not offering ice cream anymore?

 

[CaDan]

So I guess you're not offering ice cream anymore?

Ice cream social is after book group.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

if you are so interested in the law, perhaps you should go to law school or a library and learn some.

Err...um...AWKWARD!

CaDan IS a lawyer. Not only that, he's a lawyer in the state where this happened.

 

[QR1]

And herein lies the problem, police officers making illegal demands and then arresting the citizen for nothing. And for all the Tea Party talk about government intrusion and abuse, they are quite mum on the subject when it involves black people. Suddenly they demand complete submission to authority regardless of the justification (or lack thereof).

Well, no. MPD has a reputation for ethnic-brutality and corruption. You don't have to go too far back to when they shot an unarmed kid in the back while he was riding a bicycle and then planted a gun on him (how else did the kid have a gun "on him" which had been logged into police evidence 2 years prior IIRC) Then too, there was the nice Asian family whose house got shot up by spray and pray SWAT members looking for an African American gang's drug and guns cache, on an uncorroborated tip by a druggie who picked addy's at random to get off a charge. Across the river, they were confiscating cars and selling them for fun and profit, with no convictions. . . Federal investigators are still . . . . investigating.. . . . because when Eric Holder is your boss, coming to a conclusion that involves justice also involves job insecurity.

I am not a Tea Party member, but I lived in the Twin cities from 2005 to 2010 and saw how things were. It isn't just the Tea Partiers, but many concerned civic groups that acknowledge and oppose the MPD's rampant corruption. Unfortunately, the MPD runs like a giant street-gang and they own some judges, so punitive SWAT raids aren't out of the question for people who make too much noise about their wrongs.

 

[Creech]

And . . . he had left the "private" bench. This all takes place after that. He had already been rousted.

I will enter into a friendly wager. This area is right by the skyway to the Saint Paul federal courthouse. Next time I have an appearance there, I will sit there for fifteen minutes. Ten thousand CF Blessings says I can sit there for twenty minutes as a white guy in a suit and nothing happens.

Probably nothing will happen because you would not be part of a demographic with a high rate of street/violent crime.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Probably nothing will happen because you would not be part of a demographic with a high rate of street/violent crime.

There was no crime taking place, violent or otherwise.

 

[SummerMadness]

SummerMadness, you are arguing from a semantics view here.

Semantics matter, words matter, that's why the language of the law matter. That is the main reason George Zimmerman is sitting at home eating cereal, a poorly worded law led to his acquittal.

EVERY site I find on being stopped for questioning versus being detained have the same information the ACLU has. The first police officer was trying to question him regarding what they were called for. He was not answering her questions. He did not state he was exercising his right to be silent. When other police officers joined he reacted to that as well. The video shows this.

As I already said, he was not detained, you do not have to answer a question just because a police officer asked you a question. Now if he were detained...

I don't see the inconsistencies between the video and the reports that you do. The video is what, approximately 5 minutes long, and does not represent everything that transpired.

Like Mr. Lollie lunging in the video?

Ultimately the security guard shouldn't have called the police, but we also have no idea what was transpiring between Mr. Lollie and the security guard.[/QUOTE]They said he lunged them, he did not. They claim they told him to stop, they did not. They claimed they ordered him to do things and he did not. They were having a conversation and the officers grabbed him, the report does not match the video. The report is written in a way to justify the arrest. The video shows the arrest was not justified. This reminds me of the video of the black man that was arrested by police with his hands up and the officer kept shouting, "Stop going for my gun!"

 

[TLK Valentine]

Probably nothing will happen because you would not be part of a demographic with a high rate of street/violent crime.

Which demographic would that be, Creech?