Sitting while Black

[AztecSDSU]

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?

I haven't seen any such clear evidence. Ca Dan keeps referring to a public easement grant and then magically leaping to the idea that this public easement includes everything everywhere and there's just no support for that position. The signs informing the public that the seating is off limits were posted and the security guards were doing their jobs in enforcing the owners' valid and legal rules.
Mr. Lollie's behavior is what lead to his arrest and the severity of it. Justifed or not, NO ONE has a right to resist arrest. If you are wrongly arrested you sue after the fact, you do not fight with the police.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

If this guy does sue, I would think the court will determine whether sitting in the chairs, was trespassing or not. If he sues, I would think he would name the security guard who told him to leave and his employer, along with the cops.

The cops were responding to a call, which is their job. The question will become, whether they were motivated by racial prejudice in doing their jobs in responding to a call and or whether the one cop went overboard and they will also look at the actions of the guy they were trying to talk to.

If he was not trespassing, the security guard and his employer, could be on the hook and have to pay some dough.

 

[SummerMadness]

I haven't seen any such clear evidence. Ca Dan keeps referring to a public easement grant and then magically leaping to the idea that this public easement includes everything everywhere and there's just no support for that position. The signs informing the public that the seating is off limits were posted and the security guards were doing their jobs in enforcing the owners' valid and legal rules.

You are now making things up. What you have just written is pure fabrication.

And as already stated:

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

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

*drops mic*

** picks mic up and drops it again **

Mr. Lollie's behavior is what lead to his arrest and the severity of it. Justifed or not, NO ONE has a right to resist arrest. If you are wrongly arrested you sue after the fact, you do not fight with the police.

Mr. Lollie did not resist arrest, he was never placed under arrest, police officers grabbed him when he was walking. He was walking, you cannot just grab someone and handcuff them, he asked what he was being arrested for, the police did not provide an answer. Telling someone to not touch after unsolicited contact is not resisting arrest.

 

[bhsmte]

You are now making things up. What you have just written is pure fabrication.

And as already stated:
** picks mic up and drops it again **

Mr. Lollie did not resist arrest, he was never placed under arrest, police officers grabbed him when he was walking. He was walking, you cannot just grab someone and handcuff them, he asked what he was being arrested for, the police did not provide an answer. Telling someone to not touch after unsolicited contact is not resisting arrest.

In all fairness, the cops got a call about the guy and they were responding to it, which is their job. Lollie could have stopped and talking with them and things may have gone much smoother. I would think, if a cop approaches most people and asks to talk with them, they would comply, without walking away.

The one cop was a jerk and IMO, Lollie was just a guilty in making the situation difficult.

 

[SummerMadness]

In all fairness, the cops got a call about the guy and they were responding to it, which is their job. Lollie could have stopped and talking with them and things may have gone much smoother. I would think, if a cop approaches most people and asks to talk with them, they would comply, without walking away.

He explained to her what happened, she did not require his identification. He was not trespassing, thus she has no reason to detain him.

The one cop was a jerk and IMO, Lollie was just a guilty in making the situation difficult.

Guilty of what? He was polite and cordial the entire time. He politely explained himself repeatedly, but it seems that wasn't good enough because he didn't submit to them. He had no reason to submit, he did nothing wrong. The officer knew the details as she got it from the security officer and Mr. Lollie, what does she require his ID for?

 

[bhsmte]

He explained to her what happened, she did not require his identification. He was not trespassing, thus she has no reason to detain him.

Guilty of what? He was polite and cordial the entire time. He politely explained himself repeatedly, but it seems that wasn't good enough because he didn't submit to them. He had no reason to submit, he did nothing wrong. The officer knew the details as she got it from the security officer and Mr. Lollie, what does she require his ID for?

Well, IMO he could have been more cooperative, without giving up his rights and he helped to escalate the tension.

Just how I see it, from what I have read, you are free to disagree.

 

[KarateCowboy]

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.

That doesn't really prove anything. That's like me saying "I'll sit at home and play video games. 10K CF blessings says a police officer doesn't shoot me six times". Do the following:

Don't wear a suit. Dress casually.
Sit for an extended period reserved for employees until the security guard comes and asks you what your business is
Be belligerent and don't answer the security guard. Be uncooperative.
See what happens.

20K CF blessings says an incident occurs.

A big question is: why the assumption that police came because he is part black, rather than the fact that he ignored warnings from the security guards? He says his civil rights were violated. Is there a civil right to ignore security guards on private property?

 

[KarateCowboy]

In all fairness, the cops got a call about the guy and they were responding to it, which is their job. Lollie could have stopped and talking with them and things may have gone much smoother. I would think, if a cop approaches most people and asks to talk with them, they would comply, without walking away.

The one cop was a jerk and IMO, Lollie was just a guilty in making the situation difficult.

What you wrote is sensible and reasonable. But you're forgetting that the eggsperts have put their heads together, and they are unanimous in their assessment of being reasonable and sensible:

 

[CaDan]

A big question is: why the assumption that police came because he is part black, rather than the fact that he ignored warnings from the security guards? He says his civil rights were violated. Is there a civil right to ignore security guards on private property?

Subject to a public easement which includes the furniture.

Also a place where the building owner invited people to sit.

All these people who talk about property rights without knowing a darn thing about property law would be amusing if it were not for the violence they support.

 

[MachZer0]

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

The post with that picture and comment is 5 years old. 3 years ago, they posted this:

"First National has new ownership! Stay tuned for many improvements to elevators, common areas, garage and access points the coming months!"

 

[cow451]

The post with that picture and comment is 5 years old. 3 years ago, they posted this:

"First National has new ownership! Stay tuned for many improvements to elevators, common areas, garage and access points the coming months!"

"And best of all, refurbished colored waiting area (not shown)".

 

[SummerMadness]

There are laws governing signage, which First National did not have at the time of the incident and still does not have signage. Meanwhile, other establishments have signage as per law.

"I Am Not Your Brother" – St. Paul Cops Allegedly Taser and Arrest Black Male for Sitting in Public Space (Video) | streets.mn

Alex Cecchini August 29, 2014 at 4:06 pm wrote:

There are many lobbies/loitering areas in the skyway that DO have signs denoting the space for building tenants only (or some language that allows patrons of businesses like restaurants/coffee chops/etc nearby). Securian and Golden Rule buildings both have these areas. First National has no such signage.

I'm quite confident this is about race. I spent some time this morning and walked over to the building. I sat right down in the seats, facing the security desk, and didn't move for over 10 minutes. The guards never once looked nervous or approached me asking me to move along. I’m white, and I have very little doubt that played into it.​

 

[MachZer0]

"And best of all, refurbished colored waiting area (not shown)".

. Said signs don't exist but apparently the employee only signs do

 

[cow451]

. Said signs don't exist but apparently the employee only signs do

Didn't see those "apparent" signs.

 

[MachZer0]

Didn't see those "apparent" signs.

Those are the ones that Lollie subsequently said he didn't see

 

[cow451]

Those are the ones that Lollie subsequently said he didn't see

Which must be why he was prosecuted for trespassing. Oh, wait, no he wasn't.

 

[MachZer0]

Which must be why he was prosecuted for trespassing. Oh, wait, no he wasn't.

Asked and answered

 

[cow451]

Asked and answered

Occasionally, as in this case, justice happens.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Asked and answered

You can't answer a question that wasn't asked, Mach

 

[cow451]

You can't answer a question that wasn't asked, Mach

Internal dialogue.