Black man taken to jail for sitting in public area

[pauldun170]

You do realize that this isn't a "bank".

Its an generic office building that is part of the skyway system

Tenants and guests = Tenants of the building and guests.
There are several companies operating out of that building. A building connected to the skyway system.

However, none of this matters since other sources point to a different area. The only person that says that he was the employee lounge is the guard. All other sources, including the prosecuter who reviewed the surveillance tape indicate the skyway.
The police did not find him in the "tenant lounge", they found him in the skyway.

IF Lollie was seated in the Tenant lounge and asked to leave, the fact is that he left prior to police involvement.

 

[stlc8tr]

IF Lollie was seated in the Tenant lounge and asked to leave, the fact is that he left prior to police involvement.

As you mentioned, the only person saying that Lollie was not in the public skyway is the guard.

Everybody else agrees that Lollie was in the public skyway, including the city attorney.

I'm thinking that until they make the surveillance video available, Londo_Jowo will be still be claiming otherwise. 😛

 

[Victorian Gray]

First National Bank Building employee lounge

Which is *not* where he was sitting according to the news. I posted the picture of the area. And, in the article link posted, if you had bothered to read it, you would have noticed this:

"Chris Lollie was in a public area of the St. Paul skyway when a security guard told police he was in a private area, the city attorney said Wednesday. "

City attorney's office for St. Paul

http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?nid=67

 

[cubby1223]

Which is *not* where he was sitting according to the news. I posted the picture of the area. And, in the article link posted, if you had bothered to read it, you would have noticed this:

"Chris Lollie was in a public area of the St. Paul skyway when a security guard told police he was in a private area, the city attorney said Wednesday. "

City attorney's office for St. Paul

http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?nid=67

So the consensus is that this security guard decided he wanted to get himself fired and possibly in trouble with the law, solely for the thrill of watching a random n-word be approached by an officer.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So the consensus is that this security guard decided he wanted to get himself fired and possibly in trouble with the law, solely for the thrill of watching a random n-word be approached by an officer.

Really? I didn't know that there was a "consensus". Certainly nothing relating to that fantasy you just posted.

Just who is supposedly holding to this consensus that you are referring to?

 

[cubby1223]

Really? I didn't know that there was a "consensus". Certainly nothing relating to that fantasy you just posted.

Just who is supposedly holding to this consensus that you are referring to?

If we are to believe the statement you bolded as truth, that the security guard deliberately lied to the police, wouldn't that have to be the conclusion for why he called the police? I'm just wrapping this up so we can move on to the next outrage.

 

[Victorian Gray]

If we are to believe the statement you bolded as truth, wouldn't that have to be the conclusion for why the security guard called the police? I'm just wrapping this up so we can move on to the next outrage.

Until the security guards in question explain their reasoning, we have no idea what their side of the story is.

So, we can wait until we find out what they have to say or, we can just make up shit like you did to cause some trouble.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So the security guard is dumber than a box of rocks and doesn't know the difference between the public area and the private employee lounge. A lounge he more than likely uses when he works.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[zanejohnson]

haha i just came back to this thread after a couple of days and look at where its went LOL



you conservative freakin....HINDRANCES on reality...... please shut the F up now....

you've been proven wrong, by ALL shadow of a doubt....

omg.

 

[zanejohnson]

here's your concensus!

man was arrested.... because security guard says he was ina "private area"........ first off...what the fuck isn't public in the skyway besides the ACTUAL offices, and i guess...lobbys of the offices of these PRIVATE companys.......this man was in NEITHER.

this is your typical racist conservative idealism......



"OH MY GOD A BLACK MAN, LETS KICK HIM OUT"

this isn't freaking 1940......every man......yes EVERY MAN is allowed to be in the skyway...


this is the equivelent of a black man being arrested for being in one of the "lobbies," of, say.......DEEP ELLUM in Dallas...... (an underground complex of retail outlets and offices, in downtown Dallas, TX)

 

[zanejohnson]

So the security guard is dumber than a box of rocks and doesn't know the difference between the public area and the private employee lounge. A lounge he more than likely uses when he works.

Makes perfect sense.

yes, this is what everyone has been saying.



the only problem is.....there's like 90 percent of cops/security/leo that think this exact same way.

and i bet they ALL vote R.........especillaly in Texas. where i live.

thats why CBD is a real thing, and a real problem.

 

[cubby1223]

Until the security guards in question explain their reasoning, we have no idea what their side of the story is.

So, we can wait until we find out what they have to say or, we can just make up shit like you did to cause some trouble.

Funny 🙂 Go back and read my earlier comments in this thread.

Please do point out what shit I'm making up to cause trouble. If Lollie was doing nothing wrong, and a security guard called the police on him, being deceitful while on the phone with the police...

(1) the security guard's job is at risk - that is a logical conclusion, employers cannot trust security personnel who lie.
(2) he potentially has legal issues coming his way - that is a logical conclusion.
(3) the call was made either because he is incompetent or he is racist, or both - these are logical conclusions given the premise that you bolded.


The option we have is to either accept this as the truth or seek out a different explanation. But, we're not likely to get any new information, what we have is what we have.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So the security guard is dumber than a box of rocks and doesn't know the difference between the public area and the private employee lounge. A lounge he more than likely uses when he works.

Makes perfect sense.

Somehow I suspect that the city attorney knows at least a bit more about this than you do.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Funny 🙂 Go back and read my earlier comments in this thread.

Please do point out what shit I'm making up to cause trouble. If Lollie was doing nothing wrong, and a security guard called the police on him, being deceitful while on the phone with the police...

(1) the security guard's job is at risk - that is a logical conclusion, employers cannot trust security personnel who lie.
(2) he potentially has legal issues coming his way - that is a logical conclusion.
(3) the call was made either because he is incompetent or he is racist, or both - these are logical conclusions given the premise that you bolded.


The option we have is to either accept this as the truth or seek out a different explanation. But, we're not likely to get any new information, what we have is what we have.

Did you not say this?

"If we are to believe the statement you bolded as truth, that the security guard deliberately lied to the police, wouldn't that have to be the conclusion for why he called the police? I'm just wrapping this up so we can move on to the next outrage."

Certainly reads like a steaming pile to me.

As of this moment I don't believe that there has been anything in the way of a public statement from the security people in question. All we know (from the police) is that they claimed the man was loitering in a private area and wouldn't leave. The city's attorney has said that the area in question is, indeed, a public area.

You can speculate on the motivations and actions of the security all you want but that's all it is, speculation. None of us know why they did what they did.

You have issues with what the St. Paul city attorney's office has to say perhaps you should take it up directly with the city.

 

[Moonbeam]

Funny 🙂 Go back and read my earlier comments in this thread.

Please do point out what shit I'm making up to cause trouble. If Lollie was doing nothing wrong, and a security guard called the police on him, being deceitful while on the phone with the police...

(1) the security guard's job is at risk - that is a logical conclusion, employers cannot trust security personnel who lie.
(2) he potentially has legal issues coming his way - that is a logical conclusion.
(3) the call was made either because he is incompetent or he is racist, or both - these are logical conclusions given the premise that you bolded.


The option we have is to either accept this as the truth or seek out a different explanation. But, we're not likely to get any new information, what we have is what we have.

My dear cubby, I noticed above that the bank didn't want a reporter to photograph in the area of dispute. Doesn't that suggest to you that somebody in the bank told security to move the black man and don't you see that the bank is trying to hide this fact to prevent a back lash of black customers and liberal white customers pulling their funds and going elsewhere? Isn't it far more likely that a security guard was following orders to move somebody along than trying to get himself fired by lying to the police. Your CBD puts you in such a small ideologically approved box that you really can't think and that's just so limited a way to go through life, no?

 

[cubby1223]

My dear cubby, I noticed above that the bank didn't want a reporter to photograph in the area of dispute. Doesn't that suggest to you that somebody in the bank told security to move the black man and don't you see that the bank is trying to hide this fact to prevent a back lash of black customers and liberal white customers pulling their funds and going elsewhere? Isn't it far more likely that a security guard was following orders to move somebody along than trying to get himself fired by lying to the police. Your CBD puts you in such a small ideologically approved box that you really can't think and that's just so limited a way to go through life, no?

The bank employees aren't going to openly expose themselves as the racists they are. Suggests to me it was a customer of the bank who was so horrified by the site of a black man, and told a bank employee they must remove that person from the premises else this person would close all accounts with the bank.

Clearly the bank and the security guard did what they did purely for the financial well-being of the institution.

If you weren't so brain damaged you would have realized something so blatantly obvious.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The bank employees aren't going to openly expose themselves as the racists they are. Suggests to me it was a customer of the bank who was so horrified by the site of a black man, and told a bank employee they must remove that person from the premises else this person would close all accounts with the bank.

Clearly the bank and the security guard did what they did purely for the financial well-being of the institution.

If you weren't so brain damaged you would have realized something so blatantly obvious.

Perhaps what should be realized as being blatantly obvious is, other than the statements made by the police, the statements and film of the man who was tased and arrested, and the city attorney, you (and the rest of us) don't know anything more about what happened.

 

[Victorian Gray]

and lest we forget this facebook post by the bank

 

[cubby1223]

Perhaps what should be realized as being blatantly obvious is, other than the statements made by the police, the statements and film of the man who was tased and arrested, and the city attorney, you (and the rest of us) don't know anything more about what happened.

But I have internet access and a keyboard. That means I'm qualified expert on all subjects.

 

[Victorian Gray]

But I have internet access and a keyboard. That means I'm qualified expert on all subjects.

Good for you.

 

[norseamd]

and lest we forget this facebook post by the bank

Dear god.

Sue them. Sue them now.

 

[Moonbeam]

The bank employees aren't going to openly expose themselves as the racists they are. Suggests to me it was a customer of the bank who was so horrified by the site of a black man, and told a bank employee they must remove that person from the premises else this person would close all accounts with the bank.

Clearly the bank and the security guard did what they did purely for the financial well-being of the institution.

If you weren't so brain damaged you would have realized something so blatantly obvious.

Sorry I caused you to make a fool of yourself.

 

[Timorous]

Funny 🙂 Go back and read my earlier comments in this thread.

Please do point out what shit I'm making up to cause trouble. If Lollie was doing nothing wrong, and a security guard called the police on him, being deceitful while on the phone with the police...

(1) the security guard's job is at risk - that is a logical conclusion, employers cannot trust security personnel who lie.
(2) he potentially has legal issues coming his way - that is a logical conclusion.
(3) the call was made either because he is incompetent or he is racist, or both - these are logical conclusions given the premise that you bolded.


The option we have is to either accept this as the truth or seek out a different explanation. But, we're not likely to get any new information, what we have is what we have.

Why assume the guard lied?

In one of the comments on the linked articles someone claiming to be an ex-guard says it is company policy to ask people to move from the skyway and was adamant that the skyway itself was private property. It is entirely possible that the guards are trained to believe the skyway area is indeed private and that they should ask people to move if they do not look like they belong. Now this training is obviously wrong but you cannot really blame the guard for following their training as it is not unreasonable to believe that they are being trained correctly.

 

[Genx87]

I'd go with stupid security guard on this one. I listened to a couple of stories yesterday about this and it doesn't look good for the city. This is a public area and there was no right to force him from the area by private security nor police. The police however may have been mis-informed by the private security. The city attorney has admitted this is a public area.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You do realize that this isn't a "bank".

Its an generic office building that is part of the skyway system

Tenants and guests = Tenants of the building and guests.
There are several companies operating out of that building. A building connected to the skyway system.

However, none of this matters since other sources point to a different area. The only person that says that he was the employee lounge is the guard. All other sources, including the prosecuter who reviewed the surveillance tape indicate the skyway.
The police did not find him in the "tenant lounge", they found him in the skyway.

IF Lollie was seated in the Tenant lounge and asked to leave, the fact is that he left prior to police involvement.

Agreed, at most the police should done is speak with Mr Lollie as he was already complying with the guard's request to leave the private lounge. The police made the situation worse by not trying to have a calm conversation with all parties.