Just give up your ID bro!

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member


A cell phone video posted to YouTube this week shows a St. Paul police officer roughing up a black man who was apparently doing nothing more than sitting in the skyway, waiting to pick up his kids.

The man explains he was sitting in the skyway waiting to pick up his kids at 10 o'clock from the New Horizon Academy school. He says he had gotten off work at Cossetta at 9 a.m.

He tells the officer, "First off, that's a public area. And if there's no sign that [says], 'This is a private area, you can't sit here,' no one can tell me I can't sit here."

"The problem is..." the officer says, before she's cut off.

"The problem is I'm black. That's the problem," the man interjects. "It really is because I didn't do anything wrong."

Though that exchange was more conversational than confrontational, things escalate when another officer, Bruce Schmidt, arrives on the scene.

"What's up brother?" the man says to him.

"You're going to jail. You're not my brother," Schmidt replies.

The officer's version of events:
Squad 524, M. Johnson/ 526, B. Schmidt were called to the First National Bank Building (332 Minnesota) on a report of uncooperative male refusing to leave. Officers later made contact with this male... who refused to cooperate and would not give his name. He was later arrested for Trespassing, Disorderly Conduct, and Obstructing Legal Process (Citation #620900211109).

The man was charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and obstructing the legal process, but those charges were later dropped.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/..._arrest_black_man_sitting_in_skyway_video.php

St.Paul PD's Facebook post:
Thank you for the discussion regarding the video that was has been circulated from a January 31, 2014 arrest.

As is often the case, the video does not show the totality of the circumstances.

Our officers were called by private security guards on a man who was trespassing in a private area. The guards reported that the man had on repeated occasions refused to leave a private "employees only" area in the First National Bank Building.

With no information on who the man was, what he might be doing or why he refused to leave the area, responding Saint Paul police officers tried to talk to him, asking him who he was. He refused to tell them or cooperate.

Our officers are called upon and required to respond to calls for assistance and to investigate the calls. At one point, the officers believed he might either run or fight with them. It was then that officers took steps to take him into custody. He pulled away and resisted officers' lawful orders. They then used the force necessary to safely take him into custody.

The man was charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstruction of the legal process. Those charges were dismissed in July.

We have had a discussion with the man in the video and he was given information on how to file a formal complaint if that was his desire. At this time, no formal complaint has been filed.

We hope this helps to clear up some of the information our communities have been seeking.

As we told you about yesterday, Lollie was eventually charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and obstructing the legal process. Law enforcement kept his phone until the charges were dropped in July, meaning Lollie wasn't able to upload his footage to YouTube until quite recently.

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.

With those two witness statements working in Lollie's favor, prosecutors decided to drop the charges, and Lollie was finally reunited with his phone.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/..._lawyers_question_aggressive_use_of_force.php

If he had just complied, and given his ID....
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So if someone came into your business and went to a place where it was employees only, what would you do? I presume you would not leave well enought alone.

That is, assuming it was in fact an employees only area, or a non-public area. He was in a skywalk, not in a business.

Considering the charges were dropped based on:

"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."

But I guess it's too much to ask that they figure it out on scene, rather than arresting him first then figuring it all out.
 

FollowTheMoney

New Member
And there the problem.

If he had just complied, and given his ID....
And there the problem. The cops are so used to "citizens" living in fear of their god like
complexes, and complying with every one of their demands, that when a person actually
stands up to these thugs they don't like it.
If a person is not being detained or a suspect in the commission of a crime, there is
no requirement for any person to show ID or answer any questions.

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979)
“Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person
subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be “reasonable.”
Cf. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1; United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873 (1975).
The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts
indicating that society’s legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be
carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of
individual officers.
Brinegar v. United States – 338 U.S. 160 (1949) “The citizen who has given no good
cause for believing he is engaged in [criminal] activity is entitled to proceed on his way
without interference” (Page 338 U. S. 177)

So.... have any of you been "brave" enough to exercise your rights, lately, like this fellow?

Many here give way too much leeway to those in "law enforcement" and forgotten,
or have never known, what it is to be a free person and stand up for themselves.
Stop living in fear.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Well, to be honest, haven't had an officer ask me for ID outside a traffic stop since I think 1980 or 81 when me and a few friends went swimming in a private quarry without permission.
 

itsrequired

New Member
That is, assuming it was in fact an employees only area, or a non-public area. He was in a skywalk, not in a business.

Considering the charges were dropped based on:

"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."

But I guess it's too much to ask that they figure it out on scene, rather than arresting him first then figuring it all out.

It doesn't matter if he was in an employees area or not. The security guards who work for the people who OWN the private business wanted him to leave. The story said he was told to leave and he didn't. The cops at that point had the ability to arrest him. They did. If the cops showed up and asked the guy for i.d or to leave, and he didn't you'd be saying they were derelict for not arresting him. Now profess how you aren't a cop hater. That will give me a good laugh before the weekend.
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
Yea, that security guard should have left well enough alone!
Sure he should have. You still don't read your own crap I see. Here let me help you.

Our officers were called by private security guards on a man who was trespassing in a private area.

Sorry to ruin another cop hater thread Chris, but you morons are like shooting fish in a barrel. All the guy had to do was answer the cops questions but noooooo..... he was one of those self-righteous LB types who refuses to cooperate. Now scooch along and try again.

P.S. People like this who keep acting like morons will continue having their lives disrupted and will always be a victim.
 
Last edited:

terbear1225

Well-Known Member
That is, assuming it was in fact an employees only area, or a non-public area. He was in a skywalk, not in a business.

Considering the charges were dropped based on:

"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."

But I guess it's too much to ask that they figure it out on scene, rather than arresting him first then figuring it all out.

How exactly were they supposed to figure it out on scene if the guy wouldnt tell them who he was or why he was there?
 

kom526

They call me ... Sarcasmo
How exactly were they supposed to figure it out on scene if the guy wouldnt tell them who he was or why he was there?

He does not have to tell the police who he is, and he did tell them why he was there, "To pick up his kids from New Horizon Academy", hence the corroborating witness statement.

Pesky old constitution and its 4th Amendment.
 

itsrequired

New Member
He does not have to tell the police who he is, and he did tell them why he was there, "To pick up his kids from New Horizon Academy", hence the corroborating witness statement.

Pesky old constitution and its 4th Amendment.

He was a suspect in a trespassing complaint. The cops didn't wander upon this prick. They were answering a complaint from representatives of the people who OWNED the private property.
 

daileyck1

New Member
It doesn't matter if he was in an employees area or not. The security guards who work for the people who OWN the private business wanted him to leave. The story said he was told to leave and he didn't. The cops at that point had the ability to arrest him. They did. If the cops showed up and asked the guy for i.d or to leave, and he didn't you'd be saying they were derelict for not arresting him. Now profess how you aren't a cop hater. That will give me a good laugh before the weekend.

Fail
 

itsrequired

New Member
and the women mentioned having lunch in the same spot :shrug:

What does that matter? Maybe the people in charge of the building liked the women eating there? Maybe they didn't like the guy because he dirty? Maybe they didn't like the guy because he was a guy? For the purpose of this, what does it matter? They are in charge of the property and called police. Police are called there because the people who are representing the owners of the building said the guy was trespassing! The guy refused to provide identification. He was, based on the report from security, the suspect of a crime. If you are going to try and walk a tightrope between right and wrong, and you are in the wrong, you will lose.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Maybe the people in charge of the building liked the women eating there? Maybe they didn't like the guy because he dirty? Maybe they didn't like the guy because he was a guy? For the purpose of this, what does it matter?


maybe they didn't like the guy because he was black

using Google Street View, and going around the building, multiple street entrances, and an escalator up to the 2nd floor with the sky bridge every street has sky bridge crossing from one side to the other - multiple sky bridges for a 3 block radius - it looks to be some public accommodation so people do not have to go outside to cross over to the next building


1st National Bank Building has 3 - Northeast, Northwest, Southwest .... [streets are at a 45 from true north]
 
Top