Black man taken to jail for sitting in public area

[The Merg]

What did the man do to deserve being tased, arrested and charged?

He left the area in question. There was no more issue to deal with. He had a legitimate reason for being in the building. A legitimate reason that could be easily verified with virtually no effort on the part of the police officer.

The officer in question chose not to take the most obvious path to resolving any outstanding worries she might have had regarding his presence in the building. That being, accompanying the man to meet his children. Nothing more was needed other than, perhaps, a warning to pay attention to where he might find himself in the building in future.

Instead the officer apparently called for backup and when that backup arrived he was extremely aggressive and immediately ramped up the situation which escalated to the point where the man was tased and arrested.

It was the police who escalated the situation, not the civilian. The civilian appears to have at no time been acting in a threatening or suspicious manner. He was correct in stating that he was not legally required to provide his name to the officer when she asked. He had given her a reasonable and verifiable reason for being in the building. She declined to attempt any such verification.

Based on all the information available, including audio and video of confrontation by the police, which includes the immediate escalation of intimidation when the 2nd officer arrived, what exactly did this man do to deserve being tased and arrested?

You seem to be missing that I've already answered your questions. Even if he left the area, that doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. So, if someone conceals merchandise at a store, but disposes it prior to leaving the store and leaves the area before the police get there no crime has been committed? That is still a crime. In this case, the security guard reported the subject was told to leave multiple times and refused. That's trespassing. The police can detain him and very well arrest him for that even though he has left before the police arrived.

I would also gather that the officer didn't call for backup considering how fast the other officer arrived. Most times two officers are dispatched for any non-report only calls. He most likely just arrived a bit after the first officer.

And yes, MN does not have a stop and ID law, however, if you are detained for a legal reason (and being detained for trespassing is a valid reason) you are required to provide truthful information.

And once again, yes, the information he provided could be verified, but an officer is not going to just let him walk on his way there when you have a reason to detain them. The officer does not know where he is heading or who he is. It's very well that she might have tried to verify the information, if he had not kept walking away and refused to answer her questions.

The second officer did use force, but only after the subject did not comply after being told he was under arrest. It even appears that he started to walk away after being told that. The officer can go hands on to effect the arrest and if the subject resists additional force can be used. In this case, the officers used a Taser. I've been hit with one. For five seconds you can't move. I did not find it overly painful and at the end of the five seconds you are completely fine. The officers could have used other methods of force, but opted for the one that would end the situation quickly.

- Merg

 

[Victorian Gray]

You seem to be missing that I've already answered your questions. Even if he left the area, that doesn't mean a crime didn't occur. So, if someone conceals merchandise at a store, but disposes it prior to leaving the store and leaves the area before the police get there no crime has been committed? That is still a crime. In this case, the security guard reported the subject was told to leave multiple times and refused. That's trespassing. The police can detain him and very well arrest him for that even though he has left before the police arrived.

I would also gather that the officer didn't call for backup considering how fast the other officer arrived. Most times two officers are dispatched for any non-report only calls. He most likely just arrived a bit after the first officer.

And yes, MN does not have a stop and ID law, however, if you are detained for a legal reason (and being detained for trespassing is a valid reason) you are required to provide truthful information.

And once again, yes, the information he provided could be verified, but an officer is not going to just let him walk on his way there when you have a reason to detain them. The officer does not know where he is heading or who he is. It's very well that she might have tried to verify the information, if he had not kept walking away and refused to answer her questions.

The second officer did use force, but only after the subject did not comply after being told he was under arrest. It even appears that he started to walk away after being told that. The officer can go hands on to effect the arrest and if the subject resists additional force can be used. In this case, the officers used a Taser. I've been hit with one. For five seconds you can't move. I did not find it overly painful and at the end of the five seconds you are completely fine. The officers could have used other methods of force, but opted for the one that would end the situation quickly.

- Merg

This is obviously a waste of time. bye

 

[Zaap]

^ An illustrated summary of the above

 

[Victorian Gray]

^ An illustrated summary of the above

If it makes you feel better.

 

[The Merg]

This is obviously a waste of time. bye

We have different points of view. I was also pointing out that there are two sides. I'm not saying that your point of view didn't happen, just that it could have happened another way. Why's that a waste?

- Merg

 

[Tweak155]

We have different points of view. I was also pointing out that there are two sides. I'm not saying that your point of view didn't happen, just that it could have happened another way. Why's that a waste?

- Merg

Because he has no counter argument.

 

[HumblePie]

Going along with what I read from the articles and Londo here.

Man was probably in the tenant lounge which is near the skyway and the public area. He, and others he knows, had probably wandered in there from time to time and never been asked to leave previously. The assumption was probably made that the employee lounge was public as well.

Security guard finally notices he was not where he was suppose to be and asked him to move. He probably originally states to the guard that he doesn't need to move because he mistakenly believes the lounge to be public. The guard tells him it's private, but if he wants to remain there then he's calling the cops. Guard goes over to call police. When police on coming, the man moves from lounge to public area. Police at this point are under the mistaken impression that the area he is currently in, the public skyway area, is the private area. They ask him to leave and he goes into his diatribe. The man was recording the event because he was probably already told by the security guard that the police were coming to remove him from the lounge area. Why else all of a sudden have a recording going as the police arrive?

So police arrive, have the mistaken belief the current area he is in is private not public and ask him to leave. Guy refuses and everything goes stupid. Cops arrest him. Everything comes out later that where he was arrested was in a public place and so the charges were dropped. That still doesn't mean the guy wasn't previously in a place he wasn't suppose to be.

Guessing the bank is going to beef up access restriction to the lounge from the skyway area.

This to me seems to be the most reasonable and simplest explanation of events given all the current information. Occams Razor and all.

EDIT..

added info,

Minnesota statues on trespassing.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.605

It's a misdemeanor crime. Can't find the enforcement policy of misdemeanors for Minnesota, but if I hazard to guess it is like most places I know. That being for a misdemeanor offense an officer has to witness the offense at the time of the offense. For example a few weeks ago I had some construction crews blocking access to my driveway of my house. I asked them to move and they just seemed to ignore me. Blocking access to my driveway like that is a misdemeanor offense in my area. I called the cops. Right before the cops arrive, the guys drive their vehicle out of the way of my driveway. I speak with the cop, and show him the picture I took of them blocking my driveway. He said he can speak with them and the company that employees them, but he can't issue any citations since they were moved before he arrived despite the photo evidence I had.

This goes for most minor offenses in most places. Cops can't actually do anything for minor offenses unless they witness the offense. As I noted previously in this post, the cops probably showed up thinking the skyway was the private area. They mistakenly believed they were witnessing the event taking place and actually asked him to leave instead of just arresting or citing him. The person could have been more cooperative and said that the was mistakenly in the wrong area previously but had left for the current public area. The cops would have told him not to do it again and been on their way. Instead it turned into this big spectacle circus.

Again, the reason the charges were dropped later are because as I stated. The skyway where the cops arrested the man was public. They aren't allowed to enforce minor offenses if they don't witness them directly. They didn't witness the man trespassing in the private area so they legally couldn't arrest him. That didn't mean the guy didn't lead them on to the actions they took.

 

[The Merg]

Definitely a viable explanation.

- Merg

 

[Moonbeam]

We don't know which one is the truth (and very possibly never will).

- Merg

I knew this the moment I read the OP. What is of interest to me is that it's not obvious to everybody, that what people see in this incident is what they have been programmed to see, what their brains tell them is the reality, the need to assume it is this or that because that point of view provides some sort of comfort to the ego, hubris as a substitute for real self respect, a sick unconscious emotional need. All this has happened here a thousand times before and is going to happen again. People who have an ideological indoctrinated point of view that establishes their ego with the feeling of belonging to the right faith, causes folk to vomit that faith based inculcated ideology whenever incidents like this occur. Ideologues can't abide uncertainty

 

[The Merg]

I knew this the moment I read the OP. What is of interest to me is that it's not obvious to everybody, that what people see in this incident is what they have been programmed to see, what their brains tell them is the reality, the need to assume it is this or that because that point of view provides some sort of comfort to the ego, hubris as a substitute for real self respect, a sick unconscious emotional need. All this has happened here a thousand times before and is going to happen again. People who have an ideological indoctrinated point of view that establishes their ego with the feeling of belonging to the right faith, causes folk to vomit that faith based inculcated ideology whenever incidents like this occur. Ideologues can't abide uncertainty

Wow! We agree! 🙂

- Merg

 

[Victorian Gray]

We have different points of view. I was also pointing out that there are two sides. I'm not saying that your point of view didn't happen, just that it could have happened another way. Why's that a waste?

- Merg

You apparently believe that he deserved what he got and I don't. No point in us telling one another the same thing more than we already have. The end.

We'll see if anything more comes out if he follows through on the official complaint.

 

[The Merg]

You apparently believe that he deserved what he got and I don't. No point in us telling one another the same thing more than we already have. The end.

We'll see if anything more comes out if he follows through on the official complaint.

Not quite. I'm saying that there are two possible version of events. If he was in the right, then yes, the arrest was unlawful and the force would be excessive then. If he had been trespassing, then he was in the wrong and the force could be justified then by his actions.

Either way, (not that this justifies excessive force or unlawful arrests), he could have avoided the issue if he had complied with the officer in providing information and not walking away even if he thought he was in the right.

As you said, we'll need to wait for more information to come out.

- Merg

 

[stlc8tr]

I agree with you. If one source (the police) are saying one thing, and another (Lollie) are saying something different, about the initial location, then it is difficult in a forum location, to reliably tell who is telling the truth and/or misunderstanding what exactly happened.
Juries in court cases have a similar problem, where different witnesses/evidence/information disagree with each other, and the jury have to decide how to put all the available information/evidence together and come out with a verdict.

Here's an article with Lollie explicitly saying that he was in the public skyway area.

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

We texted Lollie a screengrab of the post and asked him if he can confirm it shows the very chair he sat in before his arrest.

"I sure can, it's the one in the first set facing toward the camera," he replies.

We also asked Lollie how long he was sitting in the chair before a security guard approached and started giving him a hard time.

"Two minutes after," he replies. The guard "walked up to me, we talked for about two or three minutes."

"I sat down at 9:40 [a.m.] and by roughly 9:45 our conversation was done and he was calling the police," Lollie continues.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Here's an article with Lollie explicitly saying that he was in the public skyway area.

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

If you find a super big version of the picture:

like this one here

and expand it (or zoom in), there seems to be a man at a desk, which you partially need to get past to get to that set of seats. So maybe it is a semi/fully private area. It's hard to be sure, as I can't pan round the rest of the area, to see how private it looks, or see it in the busy daytime period, and see if people use it as a free/public walkway, or if it is private.

EDIT: But I can understand why anyone, could get frustrated if asked to leave that area, as it is somewhat close to the apparently more open/public area(s). So this could be a big misunderstanding, combined with a person with too much attitude at the time.

 

[stlc8tr]

If you find a super big version of the picture:

like this one here

and expand it (or zoom in), there seems to be a man at a desk, which you partially need to get past to get to that set of seats. So maybe it is a semi/fully private area. It's hard to be sure, as I can't pan round the rest of the area, to see how private it looks, or see it in the busy daytime period, and see if people use it as a free/public walkway, or if it is private.

If the bank meant for the area to be private, they shouldn't have posted a picture of it on Facebook along with an invitation for the public to take a seat.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

If the bank meant for the area to be private, they shouldn't have posted a picture of it on Facebook along with an invitation for the public to take a seat.

It does weaken the banks case. But I think in the US, you can be asked to leave any privately owned area, such as that, for ANY reason, which they probably DON'T have to specify. Refusing a request to leave, can cause the owners/representatives to contact the police.

But not everyone knows about the above, and that area in the picture could be perceived as being "public" by some people, potentially making this more of a "misunderstanding", rather than criminal/trespass situation, which unfortunately escalated when the police were called.

 

[stlc8tr]

It does weaken the banks case. But I think in the US, you can be asked to leave any privately owned area, such as that, for ANY reason, which they probably DON'T have to specify. Refusing a request to leave, can cause the owners/representatives to contact the police.

This is apparently a big deal in the St. Paul area so lots of articles about it.

Here's one that argues that the skyways may be covered by a public easement.

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

(Of course, this assumes that Lollie was sitting in the skyway when bank security tried to kick him out.)

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

This is apparently a big deal in the St. Paul area so lots of articles about it.

Here's one that argues that the skyways may be covered by a public easement.

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

(Of course, this assumes that Lollie was sitting in the skyway when bank security tried to kick him out.)

That's an interesting possible turn of events, if correct, because it makes him not guilty of trespassing in the first place.

Also the bank would probably NOT want any adverse publicity, as it would be bad for the banking business (they want as many customers as possible), which could be another factor, in the charges being dropped.

 

[The Merg]

It does weaken the banks case. But I think in the US, you can be asked to leave any privately owned area, such as that, for ANY reason, which they probably DON'T have to specify. Refusing a request to leave, can cause the owners/representatives to contact the police.

But not everyone knows about the above, and that area in the picture could be perceived as being "public" by some people, potentially making this more of a "misunderstanding", rather than criminal/trespass situation, which unfortunately escalated when the police were called.

Yup. If he is on the building's property, he can be asked to leave at any time for any reason. It is considered to be publicly accessible private property. It's similar to a shopping mall.

This is apparently a big deal in the St. Paul area so lots of articles about it.

Here's one that argues that the skyways may be covered by a public easement.

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

(Of course, this assumes that Lollie was sitting in the skyway when bank security tried to kick him out.)

That would be an interesting argument. Basically, the skyway would be like a sidewalk in that the building would be responsible for it, but could not prevent access. The one fault with that is that it seems that the buildingings that own the skyways can close them at night. In order for them to be able to do that, they must be considered to be private property.

Edit: Just read the full blog. Makes a good argument. Here is the part that got me:

The easements will grant to the public the right of use of the skyway system for purposes of ingress and egress and pedestrian transit without limitation, except that such easements may attach reasonable conditions regarding closing parts or all of the skyway system within the developer's or owner's structural improvements during non-business hours as dictated by reasonable security requirements of the buildings through with the concourse passes. The City will attempt to negotiate 24 hour easements.

So, while the skyway is owned privately, it is considered to be a sidewalk (for all purposes), but can be closed at night by the property owner.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

That's an interesting possible turn of events, if correct, because it makes him not guilty of trespassing in the first place.

Also the bank would probably NOT want any adverse publicity, as it would be bad for the banking business (they want as many customers as possible), which could be another factor, in the charges being dropped.

Yup, absolutely. If this is all true, the next question is what information did the police have when they arrived. Did the security guard imply to the police that the subject was on the bank building's property and not in the skyway? I would think/hope that the skyway issue has been brought up before within the police department (or through court cases) and that the police would know about the easement doctrine. Or have the courts always just turned a blind eye and people have been charged/convicted with private property violations in the skyway?

For example, I know one judge that if you plead not guilty for having an open alcoholic container in your possession, you will be found not guilty if the officer does not have a lab report that the drink was alcohol (in VA, a drink is alcoholic if it has over a certain % of alcohol and not that it just has any alcohol in it. Once a bottle/can is open, you cannot say without certainty that the alcohol content listed on the container is exact.). If you plead guilty or don't show to court and are tried in your absence, the same judge will find you guilty.

- Merg

 

[stlc8tr]

Another day, another set of articles on the case. 🙂

http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_26462438/st-paul-man-arrested-skyway-was-public-area

It's odd that the city is saying that the skyways are public but the bank is claiming that they're private and refusing to let reporters take photos though.

 

[The Merg]

Another day, another set of articles on the case. 🙂

http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_26462438/st-paul-man-arrested-skyway-was-public-area

It's odd that the city is saying that the skyways are public but the bank is claiming that they're private and refusing to let reporters take photos though.

Looks like the city prosecutor just answered most of our questions here. The only thing I would debate would be if the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the subject. I would say that information provided by a security guard that works at the location would be enough. Yes, it appears to be incorrect information, but thecourts have said that type of source is considered to be reliable for the police.

The defense lawyer also remarks that the police should have done nothing since he left the ara, but I would disagree with that as the police still need to investigate a possible crime that he was involvedin, which as we know now was not a violation.

I'd say that Lollie's suit would basically be against the Bank Building and the security guard company.

- Merg

 

[justoh]

We have different points of view. I was also pointing out that there are two sides. I'm not saying that your point of view didn't happen, just that it could have happened another way. Why's that a waste?

- Merg

Just how white are you?

 

[The Merg]

Just how white are you?

And that has what to do with my posts?

- Merg

 

[justoh]

And that has what to do with my posts?

- Merg

Everything? Nothing?