Ferguson Police should be outlawed Topic

bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 9/3/2014 5:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 4:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 9/3/2014 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 9/3/2014 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 3:29:00 PM (view original):
Regardless of whether or not it was racism, it was terrible police work.
Again, without all the facts, how can you arrive there as a definite conclusion?

Or, right.  You can't.

You just want to blame the cops.

And you just want to blame Lollie
No.

I just want to know what happened before I blame anybody.

Is that unreasonable?

Really...because I could have sworn you argued for several pages that Lollie should have just shown his ID...
I did.  If he truly was doing nothing wrong, it likely would have prevented him from being tased.

Why do you continue to argue that being confrontational and uncooperative with a police office doing his job is a good idea?

And what does saying that Lollie should have shown his idea have to do with fact finding and assigning blame?
It's not a good idea but he had the right to do it without being arrested.
9/3/2014 5:21 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 9/3/2014 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 9/3/2014 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 4:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 9/3/2014 4:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 3:23:00 PM (view original):
You're free to call the cops. And, if he's in Minnesota, he's free to not show the cops ID.

I think even you would have to admit that the two situations are different. One is a guy taking a seat in a designated seating area in a public place. The other is someone being weird next to your car. Also, neither is a crime.
This wasn't the first time he had been hanging around that area... At least its unclear.

“The guards reported that the man had on repeated occasions refused to leave a private “employees only” area in the First National Bank Building,” the department’s statement read.

Sounds like they have dealt with him before. Also no one has said what he was doing when asked to leave - consistently gawking at women, yelling at someone on his phone, whatever. We don't know.

Its trespassing the minute he is asked to leave and does not do so. The fact the cops had to come only enforces the fact that he would not leave and he was trespassing.
No, it isn't. He was on public property. It isn't trespassing until the cops tell him to leave and he refuses.

Just like a person standing on the public sidewalk outside your house. You can ask them to leave but it isn't trespassing until the cops come and tell them to leave and they refuse.
You can trespass on public property the minute those paid to enforce that property ask you to leave. Look it up.

It does not have to be the police. Its trespassing the minute you are asked to leave and don't. For example if I invited you over for a party and you got belligerently drunk and I asked you to leave... If you say after this beer you are now trespassing whether the cops are there or not.
In your house or on private property, that's correct. But not on public property. I have just as much right to stand on the sidewalk as you do.
He wasn't on a sidewalk. Sidewalks don't have security guards.

If an airport security guard asked you to leave a public airport...
Or a park ranger asked you to leave the public Forrest preserve....

They personally can not arrest you but if you stay you are now trespassing. If you are still their when the cops arrive you have a screw loose.... Cause now you can get arrested.
Skyways are public just like sidewalks. TSA and park rangers are law enforcement officers. Private security guards are not.
9/3/2014 5:22 PM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Here's an example. In California, all beaches are public up to the mean high tide line. Because of this, certain large property owners sometimes have to allow for public access to the beach through their property. That access is a public easement.

The property owner can hire a security guard to make sure no one vandalizes his property, etc. But that security guard is not in charge of the public property. He can ask you to leave the public property but you aren't trespassing until you refuse a police officer's order.
9/3/2014 5:32 PM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 5:32:00 PM (view original):
Here's an example. In California, all beaches are public up to the mean high tide line. Because of this, certain large property owners sometimes have to allow for public access to the beach through their property. That access is a public easement.

The property owner can hire a security guard to make sure no one vandalizes his property, etc. But that security guard is not in charge of the public property. He can ask you to leave the public property but you aren't trespassing until you refuse a police officer's order.
California has messed up laws. Either way though... To your example.... The security guard is hired to protect the building property... Not the public walkway. Good news from what I've read is in California the state lifeguards are peace officers and carry a gun and cuffs ;)


Now if a lifeguard told you to leave the beach and you don't leave they can get the police involved and have you arrested for trespassing. They are not federal employees but the beach is public property.
9/3/2014 8:55 PM (edited)
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Wtf? Beach lifeguards are like park rangers. You have to follow their orders. You do not have to follow the orders of a private guard when you're on public property.

The security guard in MN was there to protect the office building, not the public skyway. You realize what a skyway is, right? Because, so far, you've argued that they aren't public and given pretty convincing evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
9/3/2014 9:22 PM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Wtf? Beach lifeguards are like park rangers. You have to follow their orders. You do not have to follow the orders of a private guard when you're on public property.

The security guard in MN was there to protect the office building, not the public skyway. You realize what a skyway is, right? Because, so far, you've argued that they aren't public and given pretty convincing evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
OK. The state of Minnesota specific then:

Powers. Within these districts the city may:
(3) adopt ordinances regulating traffic in pedestrian skyway systems, public parking structures, and other facilities constructed within the development district. Traffic regulations may include direction and speed of traffic, policing of pedestrianways, hours that pedestrianways are open to the public, kinds of service activities that will be allowed in arcades, parks, and plazas, and rates to be charged in the parking structures;
(4) adopt ordinances regulating access to pedestrian skyway systems and the conditions under which such access is allowed;

www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/


So that's right from the office of revisor of statutes specific to skyways in Minnesota.

Basically the state says the city can do whatever they want with skyways so let's go to the city of St Paul's municipal codes...
9/3/2014 10:32 PM (edited)
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
library.municode.com/index.aspx  search keyword 'skyway' and its the first link to Chapter 140.

Chapter 140. - Skyway Conduct


Sec. 140.02. - Prohibited acts.
No person shall commit any of the following acts within the pedestrian skyway system or within any pedestrian mall:

(1)

Sit, kneel, lounge, lie or otherwise recline upon floors or stairs.

(2)

Stand upon any radiator, seat or other fixture.

(3)

Commit any act which tends to create or incite, or creates or incites, an immediate breach of the peace. Such conduct shall include, without limitation by reason of this specification: fighting; racing; obscene language, noisy or boisterous conduct tending to cause a breach of the peace; personally abusive epithets, or words or language of an offensive, disgusting or insulting nature, which epithets, words or language when addressed to the ordinary citizen are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction of fear, anger or apprehension; and words, language or statements which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

(4)

Stand, stop or otherwise linger in such a manner as to obstruct or impede or tend to obstruct or impede the free passage of pedestrians through the area. If the impediment or obstruction is caused by the size of a particular group of persons, all persons within the group shall be equally subject to this chapter.


There are more but these 4 are probably the most relevant - we don't know for sure exactly what 'Mr I know my rights' was doing before getting asked to leave.
9/3/2014 10:33 PM (edited)
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
The police officer only need 'probably cause' to believe a person has committed these acts... See below, same link.

Sec. 140.03. - Misdemeanor violations.
Whenever any peace officer shall observe a person committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 140.02, or shall have probable cause to believe that a person has committed any of said acts, he shall order that person to refrain from doing the proscribed conduct. Any person who shall refuse to refrain from such acts or conduct after being ordered to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
9/3/2014 10:46 PM (edited)
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
And lastly you'll see it is the responsibility of the tenants connected to the skyway to patrol it.... Once again, same link.


(6)

On and after June 1, 1991, the owner of a building containing an element of the pedestrian skyway system shall provide, in the building owned, for the reasonable observation or surveillance of the portions of the pedestrian skyway system located by video cameras or by patrolling security personnel.

a.

Video cameras used for observation or surveillance shall be monitored by personnel during all hours of skyway operation. The owner, when placing the video cameras, shall consider building design and internal layout, building usage and incident trends. The owner shall make every effort during the further development and implementation of a skyway security to achieve the optimum of a coordinated camera and voice communications and surveillance system. All cameras utilized shall provide video output at one (1) volt peak-to-peak, NTSC. The placement of cameras shall be reviewed for compliance with city standards by the skyway governance/advisory committee.

b.

Patrolling security personnel used for observation or surveillance shall patrol during all hours of skyway operation and the frequency of patrol shall be determined by the building owner. The building owner, when determining the frequency of patrols, shall consider the size and design of the skyway portion located in the building, the type of uses located in the building, incident trends and the means of surveillance implemented in adjoining structures. The department of safety and inspections in consultation with the Skyway Governance Advisory Committee shall recommend minimum city standards for patrol and review for compliance to be approved by the city council.
9/3/2014 10:34 PM (edited)
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Wtf? Beach lifeguards are like park rangers. You have to follow their orders. You do not have to follow the orders of a private guard when you're on public property.

The security guard in MN was there to protect the office building, not the public skyway. You realize what a skyway is, right? Because, so far, you've argued that they aren't public and given pretty convincing evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
So.... The private security guards in St Paul appear to be there to protect the skyways as well. Actually they are required to by law. Correct?
9/3/2014 10:37 PM (edited)
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 9/3/2014 10:46:00 PM (view original):
The police officer only need 'probably cause' to believe a person has committed these acts... See below, same link.

Sec. 140.03. - Misdemeanor violations.
Whenever any peace officer shall observe a person committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 140.02, or shall have probable cause to believe that a person has committed any of said acts, he shall order that person to refrain from doing the proscribed conduct. Any person who shall refuse to refrain from such acts or conduct after being ordered to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
"Only" probable cause is still a bar that needs to be cleared. What probable cause did the police have here?
9/4/2014 12:15 AM
bad_luck
Posts: 21761 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 1 10
Prospect
Posted by moy23 on 9/3/2014 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Wtf? Beach lifeguards are like park rangers. You have to follow their orders. You do not have to follow the orders of a private guard when you're on public property.

The security guard in MN was there to protect the office building, not the public skyway. You realize what a skyway is, right? Because, so far, you've argued that they aren't public and given pretty convincing evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
So.... The private security guards in St Paul appear to be there to protect the skyways as well. Actually they are required to by law. Correct?
They are still private security guards, not law enforcement. You aren't trespassing on public property until you ignore an order from law enforcement.

9/4/2014 12:17 AM
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2014 12:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 9/3/2014 10:46:00 PM (view original):
The police officer only need 'probably cause' to believe a person has committed these acts... See below, same link.

Sec. 140.03. - Misdemeanor violations.
Whenever any peace officer shall observe a person committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 140.02, or shall have probable cause to believe that a person has committed any of said acts, he shall order that person to refrain from doing the proscribed conduct. Any person who shall refuse to refrain from such acts or conduct after being ordered to do so shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
"Only" probable cause is still a bar that needs to be cleared. What probable cause did the police have here?
From everything I've read it doesn't matter.... Needs to be resolved in court.... Not with the police. In this case the probably cause seems to be that the security in charge of monitoring the skyways had asked this guy to leave multiple times and he refused. That's all they need for probable cause to be within 'their' rights to ask him to stop doing whatever he was doing. The question is what was lollie doing that violates any of the 4 rules of the skyway? I don't know, nor do you, but that's on security to prove and not the police. Police are not judges and if lollie had a complaint against security he should have taken it up formally with building management.
9/4/2014 8:41 AM (edited)
moy23
Posts: 13750 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 57 251 108
Prospect
Posted by bad_luck on 9/4/2014 12:17:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 9/3/2014 10:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 9/3/2014 9:22:00 PM (view original):
Wtf? Beach lifeguards are like park rangers. You have to follow their orders. You do not have to follow the orders of a private guard when you're on public property.

The security guard in MN was there to protect the office building, not the public skyway. You realize what a skyway is, right? Because, so far, you've argued that they aren't public and given pretty convincing evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.
So.... The private security guards in St Paul appear to be there to protect the skyways as well. Actually they are required to by law. Correct?
They are still private security guards, not law enforcement. You aren't trespassing on public property until you ignore an order from law enforcement.

Good so now we are working as a team.....

We are now in agreement of either.... 1) you are wrong about this and like a lifeguard (who is not law enforcement) its trespassing when they tell you to leave or 2) knucklehead in MN really didn't know his rights because the cops asked him to leave and he did not. But either way this guy was asked to leave by someone with the authority to do so and did not obey. Thus he was charged with trespassing.
9/4/2014 8:07 AM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If there is a God, something awful will happen this weekend.   That way, this ******* thread can die.  
9/4/2014 8:53 AM
◂ Prev 1...47|48|49|50|51...142 Next ▸
Ferguson Police should be outlawed Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.