Sitting while Black

[SummerMadness]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.605

Good grief.

If the signs were so conspicuous, why did security or the police officer point to them? This is probably another reason these ridiculous charges while dropped.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

If the signs were so conspicuous, why did security or the police officer point to them? This is probably another reason these ridiculous charges while dropped.

I don't know. I haven't seen what this area looks like. Several media outlets had this happening in front of a retail store.

 

[MachZer0]

If the signs were so conspicuous, why did security or the police officer point to them? This is probably another reason these ridiculous charges while dropped.

The bigger question is why didn't Lollie just leave when he was told he was in a restricted area

 

[CaDan]

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.605

Good grief.

See, it's possible Mach!

Now, turning specifically to (b)(3), which seems to be the one at hand, one must first trespass, and then, without claim of right, refuse to leave. In that case, one has committed a misdemeanor

This gives rise to a couple of affirmative defenses. First is claim of right. Mr. Lollie was was claiming right because he was an apparent invitee in that the owners of the Securian Building had put out seating in a quasi-public place for people to sit in. He was also claiming that he was being asked to move because of his race.

Second is that he did leave. The police arrived after he had left the premises and was at least half a block away.

Warrantless arrests are controlled by Minn. Stat. § 629.34. As a general rule (subject to exceptions not relevant here), a peace officer may not arrest a person without a warrant for a misdemeanor unless the offense was committed in the presence of the peace officer. There is no dispute that even if a trespass occurred, it did not occur in the presence of the peace officer, thus, the peace officers had no power under Minnesota law to arrest Mr. Lollie.

Rule of law, indeed.

 

[SummerMadness]

I said he supposedly has kids. Until the picture you posted, I saw no proof of that, and at the police station when they asked him if they needed to call someone to pick up the kids he was such in a hurry to pick up he said no, that they weren't there yet.

If you're going to sit there and pretend the story isn't a mite bit strange then I don't know what to tell you. He was in a hurry to pick up his kids and then suddenly they weren't at the daycare yet.

Identifying a day care by name means absolutely nothing.

I find it interesting that you'll overlook all the police misconduct and still try to pin this guy as being in the wrong. He did nothing unlawful, yet you're trying to call him a liar. Saying he's there to pick up his child is suspect for what? Somehow everything that comes from the citizen is false and everything that comes from the police is gospel.

No one stated why the man was under arrest, no one read him his rights, he was assaulted and was not even resisting arrest... problem is, he was never under arrest. He was told he's going to jail, "Why?" Let me cuff you and take you to jail... That's not how it works. This is pure police brutality.

It's mind boggling that you can't see that. And this is what people talk about when discussing unequal treatment. More than anything, this is why the charges were dropped and I hope he wins a big settlement against the city. Police misconduct should not be condoned at all.

 

[CaDan]

OT: Tons of tons of thanks to Staff for letting me edit the OP to get rid of the link to the video and link directly to the police reports and resurrect this thread!

 

[CaDan]

Follow-up news story here: St. Paul police defend Chris Lollie arrest; lawyers question aggressive use of force | City Pages

Lollie references statements made by other witnesses, but I haven't seen those. It would be interesting if local news is able to track those people down and see if they gave statements that weren't included in the documents dumped by SPD.

 

[SummerMadness]

The most amazing part of that police report, it doesn't even match what occurred in the video. They made up everything to justify their actions.


From the article:

Asked why the charges were dropped, Lollie says one of his daughter's teachers saw the entire incident and corroborated his version of events. Lollie says another woman who works near the First National Bank Building told investigators she would often sit and have lunch in the stretch of skyway where Lollie was arrested and had never been badgered by security guards or police.

That would be his alleged daughter. I guess you don't have to sit their CaDan, but do it anyway.

 

[MachZer0]

See, it's possible Mach!

Now, turning specifically to (b)(3), which seems to be the one at hand, one must first trespass, and then, without claim of right, refuse to leave. In that case, one has committed a misdemeanor

This gives rise to a couple of affirmative defenses. First is claim of right. Mr. Lollie was was claiming right because he was an apparent invitee in that the owners of the Securian Building had put out seating in a quasi-public place for people to sit in. He was also claiming that he was being asked to move because of his race.

Second is that he did leave. The police arrived after he had left the premises and was at least half a block away.

Warrantless arrests are controlled by Minn. Stat. § 629.34. As a general rule (subject to exceptions not relevant here), a peace officer may not arrest a person without a warrant for a misdemeanor unless the offense was committed in the presence of the peace officer. There is no dispute that even if a trespass occurred, it did not occur in the presence of the peace officer, thus, the peace officers had no power under Minnesota law to arrest Mr. Lollie.

Rule of law, indeed.

That's in dispute. The police say he attempted to leave after the police began to question him, and the other offenses were definitely in the presence of the officers

 

[MachZer0]

I find it interesting that you'll overlook all the police misconduct and still try to pin this guy as being in the wrong. He did nothing unlawful, yet you're trying to call him a liar. Saying he's there to pick up his child is suspect for what? Somehow everything that comes from the citizen is false and everything that comes from the police is gospel.

No one stated why the man was under arrest, no one read him his rights, he was assaulted and was not even resisting arrest... problem is, he was never under arrest. He was told he's going to jail, "Why?" Let me cuff you and take you to jail... That's not how it works. This is pure police brutality.

It's mind boggling that you can't see that. And this is what people talk about when discussing unequal treatment. More than anything, this is why the charges were dropped and I hope he wins a big settlement against the city. Police misconduct should not be condoned at all.

trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstruction of the legal process are all unlawful

 

[CaDan]

That's in dispute. The police say he attempted to leave after the police began to question him, and the other offenses were definitely in the presence of the officers

No, it's not. Officer Hayne's report is clear:

As I walked into the 1st National Bank Building from the Fifth Street Skyway, a black male matching the description from the voice page, was walking toward me.

* * *

I kept following him northbound into the US Bank Building, 101 5th Street East.

* * *
As we walked through the next skyway toward the Securian Building, 401 N. Robert Street, he told me that he was "just sitting there for one minute" and then they harassed him because he is black.​

Just so we're clear, everything recorded happened two blocks away when Officer Johnson decided to intervene and be the White Crusader protecting the skyways from the threat of Black men in dreads.

 

[CaDan]

trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstruction of the legal process are all unlawful

The arrest was unlawful under Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 629.34.

 

[CaDan]

Officer Haynes seems to have tried to do a good job. Officer Johnson is a menace, even though Mr. Lollie kindly thinks he shouldn't necessarily be fired, just re-trained.

 

[SummerMadness]

Check out the interview with Chris Lollie on Filter Free Amerika.

 

[MachZer0]

No, it's not. Officer Hayne's report is clear:

As I walked into the 1st National Bank Building from the Fifth Street Skyway, a black male matching the description from the voice page, was walking toward me.

* * *

I kept following him northbound into the US Bank Building, 101 5th Street East.

* * *
As we walked through the next skyway toward the Securian Building, 401 N. Robert Street, he told me that he was "just sitting there for one minute" and then they harassed him because he is black.​

Just so we're clear, everything recorded happened two blocks away when Officer Johnson decided to intervene and be the White Crusader protecting the skyways from the threat of Black men in dreads.

Interesting, he confessed to the trespass then committed the acts of disorderly conduct a and obstruction of the legal process

 

[MachZer0]

The arrest was unlawful under Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. § 629.34.

Actually, it wasn't noting there were three offenses, two which undoubtedly were in the presence of the officers

 

[JustOneWay]

I know what "account" is. You wrote "WHO ACCOUNT". I thought maybe that was a technical term I wasn't familiar with. Like maybe there's some page with that title or something.

I can't find anything. You found it. Please link. Don't pull the "it's out there if anyone wants to find it" routine.

SummerMadness provided the name of the show. I won't link it because he uses some language inappropriate for the forum, so please look for it. It was a good interview.

 

[CaDan]

Interesting, he confessed to the trespass then committed the acts of disorderly conduct a and obstruction of the legal process

No, he didn't "confess" to anything. He said they made him leave and . . . guess what! . . . he left! He wasn't happy about it, but he left.

And, to quote a judge in chambers [who shall remain unnamed], "Oh, c'mon. You know DC [disorderly conduct] is a [expletive involving the excrement of male bovines] charge!"

And, because the arrest was unlawful under Minnesota law, resisting it was not illegal.

Why do you insist on defending White Supremacy through street harassment?

 

[MachZer0]

No, he didn't "confess" to anything. He said they made him leave and . . . guess what! . . . he left! He wasn't happy about it, but he left.

And, to quote a judge in chambers [who shall remain unnamed], "Oh, c'mon. You know DC [disorderly conduct] is a [expletive involving the excrement of male bovines] charge!"

And, because the arrest was unlawful under Minnesota law, resisting it was not illegal.

Why do you insist on defending White Supremacy through street harassment?

He was asked to leave, he didn't leave, security called the police and observed the perp on the victim's property. So he obviously didn't leave when asked, but rather later

 

[SummerMadness]

Why do you insist on defending White Supremacy through street harassment?

What's amazing is the fact that the police report do not match the actual incident and the lies of the police are still being defended.