If he had just shown ID, would things have turned out differently?

[LSN80]

A disclaimer here, as I'm not blaming Chris Lollie whatsoever for what happened here. But there are certain situations-especially with law enforcement-where cooperation goes a long way. In 2007, I was out with a female friend who had just bought a brand new Porsche. As in, she bought it at the dealership and the first place she came to was my house to take me out for a ride.

She had yet to get a hold of the fact that this wasn't like most cars. Pressing the gas with her lead foot wasn't going to push the car to a 74 in a 65, it was going to push it to a 90. The predictable thing happened, and she flew past a cop going about 92, and the next thing we saw was flashing lights in the rear-view.

In Pennsylvania, a ticket of(I believe) 25 or more is an automatic suspension of one's driver's license. Compounding the issue was the fact that she didn't have her license or any other form of identification on her. So the officer asked me for my name, and if I had my license on me. I did, but nothing legal compelled me to hand it over. I hadn't been driving, nor had I broken any law. But respect for a man in a position of authority compelled me to give it to the officer. He ran it, saw my record(which was none)-and made us one hell of an offer: He would let my friend Tina off with a warning, if I was the one who drove her home.

What would have happened had I not turned over my license? It was my right to refuse, but I didn't want to see the possible consequence if that was the choice I had made.

Not that I'm saying what happened to Chris Lollie was right. If his version of the story is the truth, I hope the police officers are punished severely-perhaps even in the shape of losing their jobs.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/04/us/minnesota-video-profiling-accusation/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

On August 26th, Chris Lollie uploaded a video to YouTube, one he had filmed on his phone as he was being questioned, then later(presumedly)tasered and arrested.

The incident to which I'm referring to took place in late January of 2014, some seven months before Lollie's video went viral. The incident began when Lollie was sitting on what he believed to be a public bench inside the First National Bank Building in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota. Lollie stated he was waiting to pick up his kids from daycare. However, a security guard for the band alleged that the bench was for employees only, and that Lollie needed to leave as he was trespassing. Lollie noted that there was no sign indicating the bench was a private one, so that made it public, and he refused to leave. At this point, the St. Paul police are called, and the video picks up from there.

[YOUTUBE]oGWIZlmDRIQ[/YOUTUBE]

Lollie is first approached by a female police officer, and she asks him for his name and to see identification. Lollie refuses, stating that he was simply there to pick up his kids, and there were no signs marking the bench on which he was sitting as private. The female officer continues to press Lollie for ID, stating that she wants to get to the bottom of the problem. Lollie's response was this:

"The problem is I'm black. That's the problem. No, it really is. Because I didn't do anything wrong. Firstly, there isn't a sign there designating this as a private area, so no one can tell me I can't sit there. Second, I know my rights. I'm not required to tell or show you who I am, because I haven't broken any laws. As I told him(referring to the bank security guard), I'm waiting to pick my kids up at New Horizon Daycare at ten."

In both cases, the ACLU of Minnesota has confirmed that Lollie is correct. According to them, he had every right to sit on the bench which he was sitting on, and he was within his rights to refuse to give the female officer his name, or show her his ID.

But as I read this, the same question kept going through my mind, over and again:

Wouldn't this entire situation have been avoidable if he had just listened to the security guard, or shown the female police officer his ID?

Again, I'm not defending the actions of the police officers. Lollie was tasered when he asked what he had done that required him to 'Put his hands behind his back', which one of the officers says repeatedly. His patience fully tested apparently, officer #2 responds to Lollie's repeated question of 'What did I do?' with the following:

You're going to jail. Put your hands behind your back right now, otherwise this is going to get ugly.

It is at this point that the video goes black, and Lollie starts screaming for help, alleging that one of the officers had tasered him. Children can be heard crying in the background, and Lollie begins to cry for help, and yells that those are his children "right there". Lollie is told by one of the officers that he will have to make "other arrangements" for the pick up of his kids, as he is going to jail. The video ends-still black-with Lollie maintaining his innocence, yelling at the officers that they're profiling him because he's black. He also is heard screaming expletives at the police officers. The police officers continue to simply repeat to Lollie that he is going to jail, at no time telling Lollie what it is he did wrong.

When all was said and done, Lollie was charged with trespassing, for sitting on the "private" bench. He was also charged with disorderly conduct, likely for his screaming and use of profanity. The final charge was obstruction of the legal process, which I would think was due to his refusal to give his name or show I.D.

Six months later, however, on August 26th 2014, all charges against Lollie were dropped, and he was given his phone back. It was at this time that Lollie posted the video on YouTube. Regarding the level of aggression shown towards Lollie, specifically the tasering, St. Paul Police Chief Tom Smith said the following:

"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."

He...was...there...to...pick...up...his...kids. It's something he makes clear through out the video, both before and after he was being tased. What's more, the charges against him were all dropped. The chief said that the video didn't show the "totality" of the circumstances, which is true. Parts of it was in black, so we don't know what Lollie was doing at times. But if there were things- done by Lollie- during that time as bad as Smith would like us to believe, why were all charges dropped?

Smith also said, with regards to the fact that the incident is being reviewed by independent investigators:

"I promise transparency. I can tell you, even the officers involved will welcome this investigation."

I'm curious to see in the following days, weeks, and months as to how this plays out. As for Lollie, while his actions may fall under the line of legally correct, his behavior wasn't very smart. He may have known his rights, but were his actions the right thing to do here, in his own best interest?

All thoughts and discussion regarding this are welcome.

 

[Nate DaMac]

He was being unlawfully detained. Why are these cops not being punished? They didn't uphold the law, they didn't do their job. They abused their power. You don't get to arrest someone because you don't like the way they're talking to you. These fucking scumbags need to be out of a job immediately.

Sure, he could have avoided the situation by listening to the security guard or giving the cop his ID, but the cops, the people who are supposed to be a trained to handle these situations, could have also avoided the situation by acknowledging that the man was correct and wasn't breaking the law rather than assaulting the man for hurting their pride. These people are not emotionally or mentally equipped to be police officers. Get them out of the force immediately.

The second he said " Firstly, there isn't a sign there designating this as a private area, so no one can tell me I can't sit there. Second, I know my rights. I'm not required to tell or show you who I am, because I haven't broken any laws. As I told him(referring to the bank security guard), I'm waiting to pick my kids up at New Horizon Daycare at ten," the police officers should have walked away.

 

[Slash-LN]

At around 48 seconds when he says there was no sign stating it was a private area so he can sit there doesn't the officer say "right"? Maybe I'm just hearing that and it's not really there but I think she agreed with him.

The female officer is very calm and polite with him and he seems to be very calm and polite with her.

From reading the text before I saw the video I was expecting him to be yelling and screaming about it right off the bat. That didn't happen.

He doesn't get upset until the male officer touches him and he politely says "Please don't touch me."

It seems like that was a bigger issue than him not showing his ID because the male officer gets hostile right after that.

This guy could have avoided all of this by just walking away when the security guard approached him.

He could have avoided it by giving the first officer her ID as she calmly explained that's what they do when they get a call on someone. They ask for an ID.

Did he have to do either of those though? Certainly not.

This probably wouldn't have escalated to the point it did had that male officer not touched him and then acted in a negative manner when the guy politely said "Please don't touch me."

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Although this probably could have been easily avoided if he just cooperated and showed his ID, its not like he had anything to hide and better this lasting 2 minutes than 6 months but its obvious he wasn't in the wrong at all in regards to this situation. The fact is he wasn't breaking any laws and the second the female officer agreed that it was a public bench that should have been the end of it because at that point it was apparent the cops didn't need to be there.

Could he have been more cooperative? Sure he could have but outside of not handing over his ID he was pretty respectful until the male cop put his hands on him and simply saying "please don't touch me" isn't being disrespectful where I come from. All in all it comes down to this: He wasn't trespassing, he wasn't breaking any laws, he was respectful to the cops and the security guard so what reason do the cops have to taser the guy and take him to jail? There is no good reason to do so and the cops should be fired, I feel like a broken record saying that but its true.

 

[Mustang Sally]

He would let my friend Tina off with a warning,if I was the one who drove her home.

That was the part that got to me. She was clocked at 92 mph in a 65 mph zone and was driving without a license.....and wasn't cited? My initial thought was that she must have been really pretty, which has been known to get some girls out of jams with police. As hard as an officer's job may be, this uneven dispensing of justice is something I've always railed against. In a similar situation, any of you guys know damn well you'd get a ticket, right?

He may have known his rights, but were his actions the right thing to do here, in his own best interest?

I'm at a disadvantage commenting on the Lollie situation because the YouTube video fades to black at the 2 minute mark, and the closed-captioning is useless, so I couldn't gauge Lollie's actions. Still, although the law (and simple logic) seems to dictate the cops did wrong because Lollie wasn't doing anything wrong and shouldn't have been hassled in the first place, I still submit that the police have a very tough job to do and when a citizen is uncooperative and antagonistic, it has to be hard for the officer to deal with the situation. If all he's asking for is Lollie to show his ID, wouldn't it be wiser to just do it and (hopefully) be done with the situation?

Instead, once the facts start to emerge, Lollie immediately goes to:

The problem is I'm black. That's the problem.

....the true details of the fact-finding mission will be lost in a Trayvon Martin/Ferguson, Missouri-type maze: that once the term "racist" is thrown, white people, who are terrified of being depicted as such, stop looking at the facts and instead spend their time trying to prove they aren't racists ...... a factor Al Sharpton learned to his advantage years ago when looking to distract law enforcement entities from doing their jobs.

Did the security guard who first approached Lollie do so because he didn't want a black man sitting where he was.....and if he saw a white person there, wouldn't have bothered him? Only the security guard knows.

But....right or wrong....while standing up vociferously for your rights might be a noble action, it might also lead to a negative result. I can sympathize with Lollie's plight, but I would have shown my ID and....hopefully....be done with the whole thing.

If you want to argue the man should be able to stand on his rights without being tasered.....yes, he should.....but real life doesn't always work out that way.

 

[Trill Co$by]

That was the part that got to me. She was clocked at 92 mph in a 65 mph zone and was driving without a license.....and wasn't cited? My initial thought was that she must have been really pretty, which has been known to get some girls out of jams with police. As hard as an officer's job may be, this uneven dispensing of justice is something I've always railed against. In a similar situation, any of you guys know damn well you'd get a ticket, right?

Not entirely. I was clocked just recently going 80 mph on the interstate in my hometown of Clarksville, Tennessee in a 55 mph zone. I hadn't been in Tennessee since my grandmother passed away 2 years ago, and even that was a few days. Before that, I hadn't been there in five years since moving away... when I was 15 or so with a permit. But I did remember that while I lived there, the same spot was posted at 75 mph. I explained it to the officer, in pure honesty and was let go with a warning. I'm sure the instances of women being let go are far more, but it happens for men too. It just depends on you and the officer.

 

[Барбоса]

Personally, I think Lollie deserved to be inconvenienced by the police for the sheer stupidity of making a whole song and dance about standing up for his 'principles' over sitting on a fucking bench.

So what if it was a public bench?

Should the police have done what they did? Absolutely not and the case was quite rightly thrown out, but if Lollie had had some common sense, it would not have gotten that far. Instead, he let whatever chip he has on his shoulder over authority or the police get the better of him.

 

[Navi]

There is never a good reason for acting like a jackass, and both sides in this confrontation where wrong.

The cops overacted, and this Chris Lollie guy could have avoided the whole thing by just showing his ID when asked for it. Did he have to, well no, but once the cops are there for whatever reason, they want to know who they're dealing with.

When getting into these types of situations you have to mitigate your own damage, and Lollie instead of doing so, acted like a prat. The cops weren't much better. You may not like the police for whatever reason, but they do have a job to do, and pissing them off is never good. If he had just pulled out his ID, the problem would probably have been solved immediately and the only inconvenience would have been him reaching into his pocket and showing his driver's license. When you can't do a simple thing like that then you have issues.

If he lived in a place like Israel he wouldn't last long. You can be stopped as many times as they like and asked to see your papers. If you refuse they are then empowered to take you in. A friend of mine was stopped at least 15 times at the Tel Aviv airport from the front door to the gate when he was boarding a plane back to New York. He showed them each time without issue, if he hadn't he would have been taken to a Tel Aviv jail and God knows what would have happened to him.