Posted by The Taint on 9/2/2014 11:27:00 AM (view original):
Again, if he had really broken a law, or been in the wrong, charges would not have been dropped.

I punched my father when I was 16... Mom called the cops and they hauled me in. Parents decided not to press charges and did not show up for court. The state dropped the charges. Does that mean I did not break the law?

Posted by moy23 on 9/2/2014 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 9/2/2014 11:27:00 AM (view original):
Again, if he had really broken a law, or been in the wrong, charges would not have been dropped.

I punched my father when I was 16... Mom called the cops and they hauled me in. Parents decided not to press charges and did not show up for court. The state dropped the charges. Does that mean I did not break the law?

nope

In regards to racism... This dude has a point:

***The mayor was also criticized by Dave Titus, president of the local police federation.

“We do not choose what calls we respond to, and we do not have the luxury of all of the information prior to arrival,” Titus told the Pioneer Press. “The outcome of this arrest was determined by Mr. Lollie. He refused numerous lawful orders for an extended period of time. The only person who brought race into this situation was Mr. Lollie.”***

Except for the fact that Lollie was under no obligation to produce ID.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 3:52:00 PM (view original):
The amusing thing is that Taint and BadLuck are arguing that it was racism in MN, but not just plain BAD COPS.  As if cops can't overreact or be abusive ON THEIR OWN without a racial trigger.  



So, I guess black cops never abuse their authority and use excessive force....

The cops could have just been terrible. I do think racism motivated the initial call, though. I doubt if Susan Kleinberg from accounting had been sitting on the bench security would have asked her to leave.

Ah, so the INITIAL CALL may have been racially motivated now....  So it wasn't the cops being racist, maybe they were responding to a racially motivated report of a black guy causing trouble, which may have explained some nervousness on the part of the cops, which was exacerbated by a non-cooperative Lollie, which led to a unnecessary tasing.

Which means that it could have been avoided by:
(a) a less racist, more laissez-faire rent-a-cop
(b) a less nervous cop
(c) a less combative Lollie
(d) all of the above

Any one of these would have diffused the situation.  But all took the paths that all led to trouble.

Sure. But the police get held to a higher standard since they are the professionals.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Except for the fact that Lollie was under no obligation to produce ID.

He also had nothing to lose by producing it.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Sure. But the police get held to a higher standard since they are the professionals.

They're also the ones who are RESPONDING to a report about someone causing trouble.  They don't have the luxury of walking away.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Except for the fact that Lollie was under no obligation to produce ID.

He also had nothing to lose by producing it.

Ok. But he didn't have to. Arresting him was an overreaction.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Sure. But the police get held to a higher standard since they are the professionals.

They're also the ones who are RESPONDING to a report about someone causing trouble.  They don't have the luxury of walking away.

Um yeah they do. Once they got there and saw what the complaint was (black guy sitting in public) they should have walked away.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Sure. But the police get held to a higher standard since they are the professionals.

They're also the ones who are RESPONDING to a report about someone causing trouble.  They don't have the luxury of walking away.

Um yeah they do. Once they got there and saw what the complaint was (black guy sitting in public) they should have walked away.

If they guy had handed over his ID and been cooperative, they probably would have.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:54:00 PM (view original):
Except for the fact that Lollie was under no obligation to produce ID.

He also had nothing to lose by producing it.

Ok. But he didn't have to. Arresting him was an overreaction.

No, someone COMPLAINED about him.  He didn't cooperate.  So they were going to take him in to find out who he was.  They were doing their job by investigating the complaint.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/2/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):
Sure. But the police get held to a higher standard since they are the professionals.

They're also the ones who are RESPONDING to a report about someone causing trouble.  They don't have the luxury of walking away.

Um yeah they do. Once they got there and saw what the complaint was (black guy sitting in public) they should have walked away.

If they guy had handed over his ID and been cooperative, they probably would have.

Around and around we go. He didn't have to show ID. The complaint was "this guy won't leave a public area." That isn't a crime.

IOW, if I see you standing on the street, minding your own business, I can probably get you arrested by saying "There's a guy over here that is bothering my family.  I think he looks like trouble."  Especially now that I know you'll refuse to show your ID.

When the cops come, they will probably talk quietly to you, and ask for your ID so they can run a quick check for warrants, etc.  If you repeated refuse and say "Eff you, I know my rights", they will probably take you in until they determine who you are and whether you are, indeed, a troublemaker.

Is it right?  NO, but it's not the cops fault.  Whoever called it in put the "trouble" into the complaint.  The cops are just reacting to what they've been told.

Posted by toddcommish on 9/2/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
IOW, if I see you standing on the street, minding your own business, I can probably get you arrested by saying "There's a guy over here that is bothering my family.  I think he looks like trouble."  Especially now that I know you'll refuse to show your ID.

When the cops come, they will probably talk quietly to you, and ask for your ID so they can run a quick check for warrants, etc.  If you repeated refuse and say "Eff you, I know my rights", they will probably take you in until they determine who you are and whether you are, indeed, a troublemaker.

Is it right?  NO, but it's not the cops fault.  Whoever called it in put the "trouble" into the complaint.  The cops are just reacting to what they've been told.

He wasn't suspected of a crime. Without that suspicion, he has the right to now show ID (and not get arrested for the refusal). Figuring out who you are in a state that doesn't have stop and identify laws isn't a right the cops have.