Sitting while Black

[MachZer0]

First, do we evidence yet to whether the area was a legit restricted area?

Second, do you have a link explaining that another person was asked to leave and did?

It was in the OP link

 

[CaDan]

Lollie has already filed a law suit but what he failed to do is file an official complaint with the PD. Which means it's all about money, not race

So I checked the Ramsey County and District of Minnesota dockets.

No lawsuit.

Checked the news sites. They state his attorney plans to file a lawsuit.

The claim that Mr. Lollie has already filed a lawsuit is false. If you make it again without giving a docket number that will be a false statement made intentionally.

 

[CaDan]

From the City of Saint Paul Legislative Code:

Pedestrian skyway system means any system of providing for pedestrian traffic circulation, mechanical or otherwise elevated above ground, within and without the public rights-of-way, and through or above private property and buildings, and includes overpasses, bridges, passageways, walkways, concourses, hallways, corridors, arcades, courts, plazas, malls, elevators, escalators, heated canopies and access and all fixtures, furniture, signs, equipment, facilities, services and appurtenances.​

Sec. 140.01

All parts of the skyway system shall be open to the public every day between the hours of 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.​

Sec. 140.11(a)

Open to the public shall mean a building, business, establishment or area that individuals can gain entrance to without use of a key, access card, access code, escort or other security clearance.​

Sec. 140.01

And, from the General Policy Statement for the Construction of the Saint Paul Skyway System, Adopted by the City Council January 8, 1980, as amended:

H. In order to assure a public benefit from the public investment made in development of the skyway system in the downtown, all areas of the skyway system must be located either on public property or within a public easement granted by the developer or building owner. Such easements will be coterminous with the designated areas of concourse corridors, nodes and vertical access facilities and will extend on the ground floor from the foot of vertical access facilities to a public sidewalk or other public property, giving access to a public sidewalk. Such easements will be required for both those skyway system elements for which the City is responsible and those elements constituting a link in the basic system for which private parties may be responsible.​

(emphasis added)

Even if you don't buy that Mr. Lollie was targeted because he was Black, he was not trespassing, he had no duty to identify himself to Officer Hayne, and Officer Johnson violated the law by tasing and arresting him.

 

[CaDan]

"Need a quick five? Enjoy a seat on the skyway"

https://www.facebook.com/1619058301...496.161905830198/165363885198/?type=3&theater

*drops mic*

 

[bhsmte]

From the City of Saint Paul Legislative Code:

Pedestrian skyway system means any system of providing for pedestrian traffic circulation, mechanical or otherwise elevated above ground, within and without the public rights-of-way, and through or above private property and buildings, and includes overpasses, bridges, passageways, walkways, concourses, hallways, corridors, arcades, courts, plazas, malls, elevators, escalators, heated canopies and access and all fixtures, furniture, signs, equipment, facilities, services and appurtenances.
​

Sec. 140.01

All parts of the skyway system shall be open to the public every day between the hours of 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. and between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.
​

Sec. 140.11(a)

Open to the public shall mean a building, business, establishment or area that individuals can gain entrance to without use of a key, access card, access code, escort or other security clearance.
​

Sec. 140.01

And, from the General Policy Statement for the Construction of the Saint Paul Skyway System, Adopted by the City Council January 8, 1980, as amended:

H. In order to assure a public benefit from the public investment made in development of the skyway system in the downtown, all areas of the skyway system must be located either on public property or within a public easement granted by the developer or building owner. Such easements will be coterminous with the designated areas of concourse corridors, nodes and vertical access facilities and will extend on the ground floor from the foot of vertical access facilities to a public sidewalk or other public property, giving access to a public sidewalk. Such easements will be required for both those skyway system elements for which the City is responsible and those elements constituting a link in the basic system for which private parties may be responsible.
​

(emphasis added)

Even if you don't buy that Mr. Lollie was targeted because he was Black, he was not trespassing, he had no duty to identify himself to Officer Hayne, and Officer Johnson violated the law by tasing and arresting him.

I would buy Lollie was targeted because he was black if there is evidence to show he was. Maybe that evidence would be forthcoming in a possible law suit or maybe it won't, we don't know at this point.

On the other point (was he trespassing or not), is a different question and if this is a public area, where people are allowed to sit at their leisure, then he indeed was not trespassing.

The issue to me then becomes a couple of things; the security officer and his employer should be on the hook as well for telling this guy to leave, because they have an obligation to know the law before they tell people to leave and they should be part of the lawsuit. If the security officer never calls, none of this ever happens. Also, the police were responding to a call, were they aware of every detail in regards to whether this guy was technically trespassing or not? Tough question to answer, but they were doing their job by responding to the call. The first officer appeared quite cordial in how she tried to communicate with Lollie and if Lollie would have simply stopped and spoke with her, maybe non of this happens. The second cop, was overboard, but Lollie could have diffused the situation by cooperating a bit better himself.

File the suit and let the evidence decide. The Twin cities is a fairly liberal area, so Lollie should get a fair shake there.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Misdemeanors not occurring in the presence of the peace officer.

Plus, there was no misdemeanor. The Saint Paul skyway system is a public thruway, so it is no offense to sit on chairs or benches in it. It is the equivalent of a sidewalk.

The thruway may be a public easement, but that is not a defense to loitering on private property. It is entirely reasonable that the public easement is limited to using the walk way to get from point A to point B, and would not entitled anyone to the use of privately owned benches put in place for employees. Not unlike the many instances in California where public easements to access beaches entitle the public to use a walk way to get to the beach, but not to use the private property in any other way.
You do realize a public easement doesn't make it a public park, right?

 

[CaDan]

The thruway may be a public easement, but that is not a defense to loitering on private property. It is entirely reasonable that the public easement is limited to using the walk way to get from point A to point B, and would not entitled anyone to the use of privately owned benches put in place for employees. Not unlike the many instances in California where public easements to access beaches entitle the public to use a walk way to get to the beach, but not to use the private property in any other way.
You do realize a public easement doesn't make it a public park, right?

See above.

 

[AztecSDSU]

I would buy Lollie was targeted because he was black if there is evidence to show he was. Maybe that evidence would be forthcoming in a possible law suit or maybe it won't, we don't know at this point.

On the other point (was he trespassing or not), is a different question and if this is a public area, where people are allowed to sit at their leisure, then he indeed was not trespassing.

The issue to me then becomes a couple of things; the security officer and his employer should be on the hook as well for telling this guy to leave, because they have an obligation to know the law before they tell people to leave and they should be part of the lawsuit. If the security officer never calls, none of this ever happens. Also, the police were responding to a call, were they aware of every detail in regards to whether this guy was technically trespassing or not? Tough question to answer, but they were doing their job by responding to the call. The first officer appeared quite cordial in how she tried to communicate with Lollie and if Lollie would have simply stopped and spoke with her, maybe non of this happens. The second cop, was overboard, but Lollie could have diffused the situation by cooperating a bit better himself.

File the suit and let the evidence decide. The Twin cities is a fairly liberal area, so Lollie should get a fair shake there.

It seems to be there is a public easement for use as a walk way. But that doesn't create a public park and it doesn't entitle the public to use private property installed on private property. Even the arrested individual acknowledges there are signs up informing the public that the benches are not for public use. Thus it seems to me a clear case where the private property owner is insisting the the public use the easement to move across the property. Such a limited scoop of use is common to such public easements, and the existence of a public easement is not a defense to loitering on private property. The security guards were asking the individual to comply with the signage. Rather than look for the signage he decided to assume it was racial in nature (even though he now admits the signs are there) and he became belligerent with the security guards who then did the right thing and called the cops. He continued his belligerent behavior with the police, and when he was informed he was under arrest he began resisting. At which point the police did the correct thing in using a tazer to bring him to compliance. End of the day, this had nothing to do with him being black, and everything to do with him being a belligerent D-bag. He didn't get anything he didn't have coming.

 

[AztecSDSU]

See above.

Like I said the public easement creates a walk way to move through the property, it's not a public park. What you posted just confirms that.

 

[bhsmte]

It seems to be there is a public easement for use as a walk way. But that doesn't create a public park and it doesn't entitle the public to use private property installed on private property. Even the arrested individual acknowledges there are signs up informing the public that the benches are not for public use. Thus it seems to me a clear case where the private property owner is insisting the the public use the easement to move across the property. Such a limited scoop of use is common to such public easements, and the existence of a public easement is not a defense to loitering on private property. The security guards were asking the individual to comply with the signage. Rather than look for the signage he decided to assume it was racial in nature (even though he now admits the signs are there) and he became belligerent with the security guards who then did the right thing and called the cops. He continued his belligerent behavior with the police, and when he was informed he was under arrest he began resisting. At which point the police did the correct thing in using a tazer to bring him to compliance. End of the day, this had nothing to do with him being black, and everything to do with him being a belligerent D-bag. He didn't get anything he didn't have coming.

The whole trespassing issue, will be quite easy to determine in court if he files a lawsuit.

 

[CaDan]

Like I said the public easement creates a walk way to move through the property, it's not a public park. What you posted just confirms that.

Enjoy a seat on the skyway.

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said the public easement creates a walk way to move through the property, it's not a public park. What you posted just confirms that.

It also confirms (if I read it correctly) that all easement areas and even furniture, are fair game for people to use.

 

[CaDan]

The thruway may be a public easement, but that is not a defense to loitering on private property. It is entirely reasonable that the public easement is limited to using the walk way to get from point A to point B, and would not entitled anyone to the use of privately owned benches put in place for employees. Not unlike the many instances in California where public easements to access beaches entitle the public to use a walk way to get to the beach, but not to use the private property in any other way.
You do realize a public easement doesn't make it a public park, right?

Yeah, and putting seats in the thruway isn't an invitation to sit in them.

And, this isn't a case of a prescriptive easement like those necessary for shore access, which is limited because it is only for access. Instead, this is an easement freely granted for public use and includes more than access. Note that the skyway system subject to the easement includes "furniture". (St. Paul. Leg. Code § 140.01.

So, yeah, Mr. Lollie did have a right as a member of the public to sit there.

Try again. Try harder.

 

[CaDan]

Folks, to avoid making foolish posts on the "trespassing" issue, have a look at the Facebook picture linked above.

The owners of the building invite people to sit in those chairs.

 

[SummerMadness]

Why is there such an effort to prove something that is clearly wrong? By every measure, law with specific statutes, images, invitations from the company itself, etc., it shows that it is a public easement free for the public to use. You have multiple people online, including those who testified on Mr. Lollie's behalf, that public easement is open to citizens (not just employees). In addition, you have testimony (one from the daycare workers) that corroborates Mr. Lollie's version of events, which was not reflected in the police report. Moreover, you have video that directly contradicts the claims in the video. The charges were also dropped in the end because it was bogus... yet, for some reason, some of you persist in the notion that his arrest was justified.

How much more do you need?

 

[Vylo]

Cadan, you seem to be making a critical error that I have made several times on these forums, and that is trying to get people to read things. I've posted linked, then the relevant text, then the entirety of the text relating to many subjects only to have people use "boulder" logic and ignore reality. 95% of the time, people won't read an article (hey, even I jump to conclusions or don't read the whole thing sometimes), but more frustrating is that 90% of the time, they won't even read what you put in black in white in front of them.

 

[1000Flames]

Cadan, you seem to be making a critical error that I have made several times on these forums, and that is trying to get people to read things. I've posted linked, then the relevant text, then the entirety of the text relating to many subjects only to have people use "boulder" logic and ignore reality. 95% of the time, people won't read an article (hey, even I jump to conclusions or don't read the whole thing sometimes), but more frustrating is that 90% of the time, they won't even read what you put in black in white in front of them.

Kinda like when someone asks for a "source" when simple math is the solution. Then magically ignore their own question afterwords. It's even worse than what you just posted here. It's actually reading the text but actively ignoring it. I don't even know what to call that.

 

[USincognito]

Cadan, you seem to be making a critical error that I have made several times on these forums, and that is trying to get people to read things. I've posted linked, then the relevant text, then the entirety of the text relating to many subjects only to have people use "boulder" logic and ignore reality. 95% of the time, people won't read an article (hey, even I jump to conclusions or don't read the whole thing sometimes), but more frustrating is that 90% of the time, they won't even read what you put in black in white in front of them.

In case anyone doesn't want to take the link:

 

[SummerMadness]

In case anyone doesn't want to take the link:

That place looks beautiful. It's obvious Mr. Lollie realized that such beautiful seating means "No blacks or colored" or NBC as I like to call it.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Yeah, and putting seats in the thruway isn't an invitation to sit in them.

And, this isn't a case of a prescriptive easement like those necessary for shore access, which is limited because it is only for access. Instead, this is an easement freely granted for public use and includes more than access. Note that the skyway system subject to the easement includes "furniture". (St. Paul. Leg. Code § 140.01.

So, yeah, Mr. Lollie did have a right as a member of the public to sit there.

Try again. Try harder.

Read it several times, see no mention of furniture. The language clearly conveys the intent of the easement to be used as means for the public to move from public property, through the building, and back onto public property. It's not a public park system, nor a rest way. Certainly can't find anything that would suggest the owners don't have a right to establish off limits areas for employee use. In much the same way a public service business is open to the public in certain areas, but stock rooms or what have you, are off limits.