Sitting while Black

[PreachersWife2004]

There's "good advice to avoid being killed" and "what your rights are". Not necessarily the same thing.

So when does one trump the other?

 

[whatbogsends]

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).

QFT

 

[JustOneWay]

C'mon guys, tell me this isn't weird.

I find the police actions disgusting, not weird.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I find the police actions disgusting, not weird.

of course you do! (I didn't really suspect otherwise)

 

[CaDan]

Which building is the day care in? Mr. Lollie claimed he was picking up his children, was heard yelling for someone to pick up kids, but then when the police asked back at the station if they needed to call someone to pick up his kids, he answered that they weren't there yet.

C'mon guys, tell me this isn't weird.

401 Robert St. is where New Horizons Academy is downtown. So he was walking toward that building because he was leaving the First National Bank building as directed. Officer Haynes followed him and kept demanding he give his name. The later arriving officers to the scene decided to arrest him, even though they had no warrant and had no evidence he had committed a crime.

It's all in their reports.

 

[CaDan]

So when does one trump the other?

It's not a "trumping" issue at all.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

401 Robert St. is where New Horizons Academy is downtown. So he was walking toward that building because he was leaving the First National Bank building as directed. Officer Haynes followed him and kept demanding he give his name. The later arriving officers to the scene decided to arrest him, even though they had no warrant and had no evidence he had committed a crime.

It's all in their reports.

I read the reports. They give their reasons for asking the man his name.

Let me ask you this: the guy was reported for trespassing, right? How should police have handled this? Should they have just let him go on his way? Why is asking the guy his name such a problem? What if it turned out this guy had multiple warrants? How would people react if the police had him but just let him go without any information.

There's a huge conundrum with the public versus police. We expect them to protect us and do their job, but when they do their job they are castigated for it and called racist. But if they did what most people in this thread wanted them to do, and this guy was actually a criminal (he was illegally possessing, so...) and had done something after the fact the public would be outraged.

How the heck are the police supposed to work with that??

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It's not a "trumping" issue at all.

Sure it is. He felt his rights trumped his need to stay alive.

 

[cow451]

C'mon guys, tell me this isn't weird.

It isn't. I will not bet against CaDan.

I have zero doubt that the original call was-- of course not stated-- because he was a Black man. I'm not surprised the charges were dropped because the Cops escalated the situation. There was no reason to arrest him once he chose to "move on". It was a power thing.

And, he was defensive--not combative. The old saying his elders should've told him is, "Survive the arrest, seek justice later."

So, both sides were defensive. And could've managed it better. But the cops don't get a pass on this one. The DA must've concurred.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It isn't. I will not bet against CaDan.

I have zero doubt that the original call was-- of course not stated-- because he was a Black man. I'm not surprised the charges were dropped because the Cops escalated the situation. There was no reason to arrest him once he chose to "move on". It was a power thing.

I don't see anything that says he "chose to move on", though.

And, he was defensive--not combative. The old saying his elders should've told him is, "Survive the arrest, seek justice later."

That's a bit of a distinction without difference.

So, both sides were defensive. And could've managed it better. But the cops don't get a pass on this one. The DA must've concurred.

Not necessarily. Dropping charges doesn't mean anything these days.

I do agree that both sides were aggressive, but I think Mr. Lollie was unnecessarily aggressive, which caused the officers to go into overdrive themselves.

 

[JustOneWay]

He was aggressively refusing to give his name. LOL

 

[SummerMadness]

I read the reports. They give their reasons for asking the man his name.

Let me ask you this: the guy was reported for trespassing, right? How should police have handled this? Should they have just let him go on his way? Why is asking the guy his name such a problem? What if it turned out this guy had multiple warrants? How would people react if the police had him but just let him go without any information.

There's a huge conundrum with the public versus police. We expect them to protect us and do their job, but when they do their job they are castigated for it and called racist. But if they did what most people in this thread wanted them to do, and this guy was actually a criminal (he was illegally possessing, so...) and had done something after the fact the public would be outraged.

How the heck are the police supposed to work with that??

Let's say his is a criminal and he kills his victims and uses their eyes as click-clacks. That's irrelevant because he's done nothing wrong and should not have to give his name because an officer demands it. Criminals have rights too and should not be expected to give their names when not in the commission of a crime. He left the place where he was "trespassing", so the officer should have gone on her way. But she didn't, she decided to escalate the situation.

What police need to understand, being rude is not illegal. This guy was not rude, he was polite and stated his Constitutional rights, which the police decided to ignore, and that's probably why charges were dropped.

 

[CaDan]

I read the reports. They give their reasons for asking the man his name.

Let me ask you this: the guy was reported for trespassing, right? How should police have handled this? Should they have just let him go on his way? Why is asking the guy his name such a problem? What if it turned out this guy had multiple warrants? How would people react if the police had him but just let him go without any information.

There's a huge conundrum with the public versus police. We expect them to protect us and do their job, but when they do their job they are castigated for it and called racist. But if they did what most people in this thread wanted them to do, and this guy was actually a criminal (he was illegally possessing, so...) and had done something after the fact the public would be outraged.

How the heck are the police supposed to work with that??

We have a system for dealing with imminent crime. It's the Terry stop. The police here didn't do that.

Plus, "doing their job" is often just enforcing White Supremacy. So I'm obviously not a big fan of "doing their job".

Double-plus, who is the "us" that was being protected here?

Triple-plus, he was never charged, never prosecuted, and never convicted for possession. Just a tag citation for stupid harassment charges cops like to use. And even that wasn't prosecuted (I checked). So, no, Mr. Lollie was not "a criminal" in any true sense of the word. Only in the "black man not saying 'massa' enough" sense of the word.

 

[CaDan]

Not necessarily. Dropping charges doesn't mean anything these days.

Umm . . . You ever been to Ramsey County Misdemeanor calendar call?

This wasn't continued for dismissal or anything else. It was cold dropped by the City Attorney.

 

[cow451]

I don't see anything that says he "chose to move on", though.

In the video, he was walking and the female cop was tagging along. I consider "walking" as moving on.

That's a bit of a distinction without difference.

Being brutalized or killed is a bit distinct from being falsely arrested and surviving to call your lawyer.

Not necessarily. Dropping charges doesn't mean anything these days.

It means either the evidence bites the wrong dog or the DA doesn't want to look stupid trying to prosecute the case or there should never have been an arrest at all.

I do agree that both sides were aggressive, but I think Mr. Lollie was unnecessarily aggressive, which caused the officers to go into overdrive themselves.

Good officers would not have allowed this situation to escalate. I used to sit on a "citizens review"-type advisory committee. The onus is on the cop to descalate when possible. This business of arresting people for not wanting to talk to cops ("bad attitude") without a good explation of why needs to stop. There was no investigation of a possible felony. At most trespassing is a misdemeanor in a case like this one.

 

[SummerMadness]

Good officers would not have allowed this situation to escalate. I used to sit on a "citizens review"-type advisory committee. The onus is on the cop to descalate when possible. This business of arresting people for not wanting to talk to cops ("bad attitude") without a good explation of why needs to stop. There was no investigation of a possible felony. At most trespassing is a misdemeanor in a case like this one.

Exactly, the police should not allow their bruised ego or hurt feelings escalate the situation even if a citizen is being a jerk.

And let's just say the guy was "trespassing", this is merely an issue clarification as opposed to him sneaking in or barging into a building. This reminds me of the police that arrested a man on the NYC subway for falling asleep. They decided to rough him up and arrest him, then cited he was taking up two seats. If I were an officer and there was a man sleeping on the train, I'd wake him up to make sure he doesn't miss his stop and/or make sure he is alright. Questioning him and demanding ID should be of least concern.

 

[whatbogsends]

I read the reports. They give their reasons for asking the man his name.

Let me ask you this: the guy was reported for trespassing, right? How should police have handled this? Should they have just let him go on his way? Why is asking the guy his name such a problem? What if it turned out this guy had multiple warrants? How would people react if the police had him but just let him go without any information.

There's a huge conundrum with the public versus police. We expect them to protect us and do their job, but when they do their job they are castigated for it and called racist. But if they did what most people in this thread wanted them to do, and this guy was actually a criminal (he was illegally possessing, so...) and had done something after the fact the public would be outraged.

How the heck are the police supposed to work with that??

I don't expect police to protect us and do their job. At one point in time, i probably did, but after witnessing police actions (both on duty and off), i now expect them to abuse their power more often than they protect us. I expect them to engage in behavior that generates revenue for their precinct rather than uphold the law.

I've known too many incidents in which police officers (and even their children or those in the academy) acted poorly, and then used their influence to impede justice. Testimony and other evidence lost, very little in the way of consequences for their bad actions.

Are there good cops? Absolutely. It's quite possible that good cops outnumber bad cops. But the bad cops are more than just a few bad apples. In many places, the problems are systematic.

 

[CaDan]

It means either the evidence bites the wrong dog or the DA doesn't want to look stupid trying to prosecute the case or there should never have been an arrest at all.
Good officers would not have allowed this situation to escalate. I used to sit on a "citizens review"-type advisory committee. The onus is on the cop to descalate when possible. This business of arresting people for not wanting to talk to cops ("bad attitude") without a good explation of why needs to stop. There was no investigation of a possible felony. At most trespassing is a misdemeanor in a case like this one.

It was a tag cite--a ticket.

And it was never even referred for prosecution. I checked the docket.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It was a tag cite--a ticket.

And it was never even referred for prosecution. I checked the docket.

I'm not in law like you are and even I wouldn't have been dumb enough to try to prosecute that one.

As I said, the whole trespassing thing was stupid. But I also think the civilian involved acted stupid. Not the whole "I don't have to tell you my name" thing because that I get to a certain extent. But you don't get physical with the cops even if they're getting physical with you unnecessarily.

 

[CaDan]

I'm not in law like you are and even I wouldn't have been dumb enough to try to prosecute that one.

As I said, the whole trespassing thing was stupid. But I also think the civilian involved acted stupid. Not the whole "I don't have to tell you my name" thing because that I get to a certain extent. But you don't get physical with the cops even if they're getting physical with you unnecessarily.

I often have to tell my clients, "There ain't no law against stupid".