Sitting while Black

[TLK Valentine]

I am very concerned about how some policemen are acting lately. You see them beating or kicking people, and other things. There is absolutely no excuse for that--none! They are using excessive force, and some have died as a result. Also, too many are going above the law and detaining/arresting people who haven't broken any laws. If a person is being detained/arrested, they have a right to know why.

When they dress up like paramilitary goons, can we really be surprised when they act like paramilitary goons?

 

[Armoured]

Oh I could respond to you. I'm just choosing not to. It's only my default answer when I get tired of people putting words in my mouth and generally being unable to answer me respectfully.

I didn't question your Catholicism. I questioned how your personal beliefs square up with Catholicism. There's a rather large difference there, but nice try at turning this around on me.

Sure. Totally different.

 

[CaDan]

^^This should answer your question...or statement, or whatever it was, CaDan.

Having been trained as LEO, having many cops as friends and family members, as well as having black relatives, I can tell you honestly and true that the majority of black folks in both of those categories believe that police get it right nearly all of the time.

Now I understand. You're a wannabe cop.

 

[CaDan]

He refused to do what they were telling him. Basically, they were telling him he was under arrest and he needed to put his hands behind his back. He refused. At some point in time, that becomes resisting arrest. Based on the training I received (granted, it's been a number of years) the cops were pretty patient in waiting to rein this guy in to get him to comply.

They had no right to demand his compliance or to arrest him. Minnesota law is perfectly clear that an arrest cannot be made for a misdemeanor that does not occur in the presence of a peace officer.

So, your out-of-state and out-of-date training is incorrect in this jurisdiction.

 

[CaDan]

I believe it rests with both. Would I be willing to say more of it rests on the cops (especially the secondary officers)? Perhaps. But again, even with the video and the snippets, I don't have enough to make a judgment. I have no clue what the security guard told the police.

Do you ever have enough information to make a judgment that the police have misbehaved? I cannot recall ever seeing that.

In this case, you do have enough information if you would stop defending the blue line for a second.

You have the police reports where they--especially Officer Hayne--say what they heard from the security guard. And what they heard was a report of a misdemeanor trespass that did not occur in the presence of a peace officer. Pursuant to Minnesota law, that is not grounds for an arrest. When Officer Johnson arrested Mr. Lollie, he violated the law.

If you are unwilling to admit that this is what all the evidence points to, I have to conclude you are unwilling to look at the situation in anything approaching an objective manner and instead imagine Officer Johnson to be one of your relatives or even your fantasy self.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Now I understand. You're a wannabe cop.

I was a cop, for a very brief time until I found out I was pregnant.

I was training to be a first responder for sexual assault victims.

I quit because I didn't want to face going to work and thinking I wasn't going to come home that day.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Do you ever have enough information to make a judgment that the police have misbehaved? I cannot recall ever seeing that.

In this case, you do have enough information if you would stop defending the blue line for a second.

You have the police reports where they--especially Officer Hayne--say what they heard from the security guard. And what they heard was a report of a misdemeanor trespass that did not occur in the presence of a peace officer. Pursuant to Minnesota law, that is not grounds for an arrest. When Officer Johnson arrested Mr. Lollie, he violated the law.

If you are unwilling to admit that this is what all the evidence points to, I have to conclude you are unwilling to look at the situation in anything approaching an objective manner and instead imagine Officer Johnson to be one of your relatives or even your fantasy self.

Conclude what you wish since it wouldn't matter what I said anyway.

 

[SummerMadness]

Conclude what you wish since it wouldn't matter what I said anyway.

The problem appears to be that no matter how much evidence there is, you fail to see the police have done wrong, you place the blame squarely on the victim. Even if you think the victim could have handled it differently (like telling a woman to wear a different dress to avoid rape or not talking back to the man that knocked her unconscious), saying the officer's actions were right enables and perpetuates police brutality toward citizens (mainly black and brown citizens). With all the evidence, specific statutes of the law, you still claim the police did nothing wrong and that you're taking a balanced view. It's pretty clear that your views are not balanced and you will always treat the words of the police as gospel even if that gospel does not match the video evidence (e.g., Mr. Lollie "lunged").

 

[bhsmte]

The problem appears to be that no matter how much evidence there is, you fail to see the police have done wrong, you place the blame squarely on the victim. Even if you think the victim could have handled it differently (like telling a woman to wear a different dress to avoid rape or not talking back to the man that knocked her unconscious), saying the officer's actions were right enables and perpetuates police brutality toward citizens (mainly black and brown citizens). With all the evidence, specific statutes of the law, you still claim the police did nothing wrong and that you're taking a balanced view. It's pretty clear that your views are not balanced and you will always treat the words of the police as gospel even if that gospel does not match the video evidence (e.g., Mr. Lollie "lunged").

IMO, the second officer (the male) was far to aggressive in this situation and his actions, should be reviewed and he should be disciplined. If his actions merit a law suit on the part of Lollie, than so be it.

With that said, the bigger issue here, is why the Bank and the security guy, shooed this guy off to begin with and that is what caused the whole situation to escalate, because that call to the police was not necessary, nor legal.

 

[stamperben]

IMO, the second officer (the male) was far to aggressive in this situation and his actions, should be reviewed and he should be disciplined. If his actions merit a law suit on the part of Lollie, than so be it.

With that said, the bigger issue here, is why the Bank and the security guy, shooed this guy off to begin with and that is what caused the whole situation to escalate, because that call to the police was not necessary, nor legal.

I thought that was made clear from the beginning of this thread and shown throughout - White supremacy.

 

[bhsmte]

When they dress up like paramilitary goons, can we really be surprised when they act like paramilitary goons?

One Adam 12, One Adam 12, see the man, 211 in progress.

 

[bhsmte]

I thought that was made clear from the beginning of this thread and shown throughout - White supremacy.

The only thing that has been very clear to me is the following:

-The security guard should not have shooed this guy off and should not have called the cops, because it was a public area
-Lollie escaled the situation a bit with his behavior
-The male cop was out of line and too aggressive

Did the security guard call because Lollie was black? Maybe, that is quite possible and maybe even likely, but not entirely clear. If Lollie sues and I am a bit surprised he has yet to, if he has a strong case, that evidence would be presented if they are claiming racism played a role.

 

[SummerMadness]

The only thing that has been very clear to me is the following:

-The security guard should not have shooed this guy off and should not have called the cops, because it was a public area
-Lollie escaled the situation a bit with his behavior
-The male cop was out of line and too aggressive

Did the security guard call because Lollie was black? Maybe, that is quite possible and maybe even likely, but not entirely clear. If Lollie sues and I am a bit surprised he has yet to, if he has a strong case, that evidence would be presented if they are claiming racism played a role.

Racism played a role, but that does not mean that needs to be something that is argued in court. And if they do not bring that argument into court, that does not mean that racism did not occur. A case like this would be difficult to prove racism played a role unless someone used a racial epithet or they had footage of everyone that is told to leave the seating area with patterns showing all black people are told to leave. However, we are at the point in our society where racism is not a clearly overt action. For instance there's the ABC special that shows the different treatment for a black and white person stealing a bike. When people call the police on the black kids, it's not because they have any hatred toward black people, but their subconscious prejudices makes them act when they see black people, but not for white people.

These aren't the actions of racists, but they are examples of racism.

What Would You Do? Bike Theft (White Guy, Black Guy, Pretty Girl) - YouTube

 

[PreachersWife2004]

IMO, the second officer (the male) was far to aggressive in this situation and his actions, should be reviewed and he should be disciplined. If his actions merit a law suit on the part of Lollie, than so be it.

Agree wholeheartedly.

With that said, the bigger issue here, is why the Bank and the security guy, shooed this guy off to begin with and that is what caused the whole situation to escalate, because that call to the police was not necessary, nor legal.

I thought that was made clear from the beginning of this thread and shown throughout - White supremacy.

You know, the only thing that would make me even remotely consider "white supremacy" here is if the white guy that didn't move wasn't an employee. So far, no one has answered that question. He didn't interact with the security guard (who would've known him as an employee I imagine) and did not walk away at any point in time. Only the woman and Lollie were addressed) ((Does that mean the guard was sexist too??))

 

[bhsmte]

Racism played a role, but that does not mean that needs to be something that is argued in court. And if they do not bring that argument into court, that does not mean that racism did not occur. A case like this would be difficult to prove racism played a role unless someone used a racial epithet or they had footage of everyone that is told to leave the seating area with patterns showing all black people are told to leave. However, we are at the point in our society where racism is not a clearly overt action. For instance there's the ABC special that shows the different treatment for a black and white person stealing a bike. When people call the police on the black kids, it's not because they have any hatred toward black people, but their subconscious prejudices makes them act when they see black people, but not for white people.

These aren't the actions of racists, but they are examples of racism.

What Would You Do? Bike Theft (White Guy, Black Guy, Pretty Girl) - YouTube

If they could get a hold of previous tapes of that area and determine who security is shooing away, that would go a long way to tie racism to this incident.

 

[SummerMadness]

If they could get a hold of previous tapes of that area and determine who security is shooing away, that would go a long way to tie racism to this incident.

Most definitely, but I don't think they'll go that route. I think the unjustified arrest and police assault will be enough for the case to be settled.

 

[bhsmte]

Most definitely, but I don't think they'll go that route. I think the unjustified arrest and police assault will be enough for the case to be settled.

To me, that is only looking at the surface. The police were called and it is not their fault they have to respond to calls. Granted the one cop was overly aggressive, but to me the core issue is; what prompted the call in the first place, being the main problem.

 

[Armoured]

Conclude what you wish since it wouldn't matter what I said anyway.

At least 3 people here noticing you seem unfairly biased toward police in these discussions. Feel free to keep writing this off as personal attack or disrespect.

Some people would start to wonder if everyone else disagreeing with them might be a sign. Others are adamant that they are a poor persecuted minority but corrcet no matter what. I guess it's your choice.

 

[QR1]

Most definitely, but I don't think they'll go that route. I think the unjustified arrest and police assault will be enough for the case to be settled.

If by settled, you mean any personal property the police took in the course of their arrest will be returned once the victim has hired a lawyer, missed some days of work, filed papers, and then the property may be returned in a fairly damaged fashion. . . well, yeah, that is how MPD rolls. The victim will be offered a form on which they can write a complaint, which will be reviewed by the citizen review board, who will examine it & how many complaints like it, it takes to put under a pizza box so no grease soaks through to the table . . . thereafter it will be thrown out with the pizza box. Being on the citizen review board is kinda like having paid gang protection money, fail to say the "right things" and they might accidentally "no knock" your home. . . sorry about muffy "your pet was aggressive". If the victim makes too much noise, he might be involved in an unfortunate incident where he gets shot in the back for attacking police with a firearm that has been in police custody a while (a Fong Lee reference) . . . or maybe an officer involved shooting where an officer will go out of jurisdiction and approach the victim in a car while they are boxed in at a red light cussing and aggressively approaching with a drawn firearm, thereafter the victim will become a felon for any defensive action or. . . dead (a Martin Treptow reference) MPD has been rolling like this for a while. . . The federal investigations just went all cricketsville when Eric Holder came to power, funny that coincidence.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

At least 3 people here noticing you seem unfairly biased toward police in these discussions. Feel free to keep writing this off as personal attack or disrespect.

Some people would start to wonder if everyone else disagreeing with them might be a sign. Others are adamant that they are a poor persecuted minority but corrcet no matter what. I guess it's your choice.

3 people = everyone else?