Althouse: "The problem is I'm black.... No it really is because I didn't do anything wrong."

August 30, 2014

"The problem is I'm black.... No it really is because I didn't do anything wrong."

"I'm not sitting there with a group of people. I'm sitting there by myself… not causing a problem with anyone."

137 comments:

traditionalguy said...: So tell me again how the northern guys practice desegregation. It looks more like they keep their White Only signs are in invisible places. At least the old southern guys were up front about it, and then decided to quit doing it at all 45+ years ago.

I suspect northern upper middle class suburbs never gotten used to seeing black men roam free.; 8/30/14, 9:56 AM
steve uhr said...: Based on the video it appears this took place in St. Paul, MN. In some states it is a crime for a person to refuse to identify themselves when asked by a police officer. Not in MN, however, making the incident even more troubling.; 8/30/14, 10:02 AM
Michael E. Lopez said...: Ven eeffen zee *racist* police ask for your papers, you should probably show zem your papers, if you haff zem.

Zis cooperation doss not make zem in zee right -- zey are probably in zee vrong -- but it vill safe you much in troubles.

Best to keep your hands clean for venn you sue zem.; 8/30/14, 10:04 AM
madAsHell said...: The church lady has a badge, and a uniform??; 8/30/14, 10:07 AM
rhhardin said...: The reason for racial profiling is horrible black crime statistics.

You can't live without profiling. It's Bayes' theorem, and correct.

One political message might be for blacks to come out against black behavior, so that becomes no longer black behavior but just deviant behavoir.

Then the profiling has no advantage and stops.

Cops are always jerks and always will be.; 8/30/14, 10:08 AM
Diogenes of Sinope said...: Please explain again why we should grant so much power, put so much authority and trust in government?; 8/30/14, 10:12 AM
Anonymous said...: #3 on the 'CITIES WITH THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE' list from the other day. Come to Georgia buddy.; 8/30/14, 10:13 AM
Birches said...: He wasn't belligerent. The problem isn't necessarily a black issue. It's a young male issue. I know plenty of guys who would end up in the same situation if they acted like that. The "I'm not your brother" cop has a hair trigger; he was looking forward to roughing someone up.; 8/30/14, 10:19 AM
Michael The Magnificent said...: Professor, it would be helpful if you would explain to your readers when an order to show ID is lawful, and what the consequences are for refusing.

Just as it would have been very helpful had you explained, in the Ferguson threads, the legality of self defense, with explanations on imminent death or great bodily harm, and where a broken eye socket falls on the bodily harm spectrum, especially when administered by a physically aggressive 290+ pound 6'6" man. As well, an explanation of Battery on a Peace Officer might have been of help.; 8/30/14, 10:25 AM
iowan2 said...: Exactly where is it required by law to provide ID? Can't think its true.; 8/30/14, 10:34 AM
Ann Althouse said...: @Michael The Magnificent

I take care to notice what I know and what I don't know. You're talking about 2 fact-specific situations where I do not know all the facts. I don't agree with your conception of what is "helpful."

I am being helpful in the way I see fit, and if it doesn't help, that's part of the process. If it doesn't help the way you want to be helped, I'll do what I'm doing here: Telling you I don't do it that way.; 8/30/14, 10:34 AM
Balfegor said...: Re: Birches:

He wasn't belligerent. The problem isn't necessarily a black issue. It's a young male issue. I know plenty of guys who would end up in the same situation if they acted like that.

He might not be "belligerent," but by the time the video picks up, he is interrupting and talking over the policewoman every time she tries to ask a question.

It's obvious from the conversation/monologue that before the police arrived, he was in some kind of altercation with another person (in which he maintains the other person was the aggressor and he did nothing at all ("he walked up to me a minute after and got irate with me"), and that there was some kind of complaint made to the police all before the video cuts in ("that's what police do when they get called").

It's hard to know exactly what the complaint the police were trying to investigate was because he repeatedly talks over the policewoman every time she tries to get any information from him. But we're only seeing half of this. Not to say that the complaint had any merit, but the police don't seem to have been out to hassle just any random young black man. There was a complaint made, possibly about this specific man, and the police came to investigate.; 8/30/14, 10:35 AM
David said...: So. Black fathers should be engaged with their kids, but they should do it in their own neighborhoods?

I hope he sued their silly asses and wins big time.

And sir, in case no one else has, my apologies to you. Not a guilt apology. A general principles apology.

Be careful out there.; 8/30/14, 10:35 AM
Ann Althouse said...: If you want a primer on how to deal with interaction with the police, I think you can find that on other websites. I would not purport to be your best adviser on that.; 8/30/14, 10:35 AM
MaxedOutMama said...: This was in St. Paul.

If you go to Youtube, you can see the "perp's" comment saying that all the charges were dismissed.

"This happened January 31st 2014 I'm the downtown st Paul sky way... And they confiscated the phones for 6 months"

"This is for everyone....
All of my charges were dismissed as of July 31st which means everything I did I had a legal right to do so... You can say as much as you want against my case... But the fact that it was already dismissed shows your opinionated predisposition when you comment saying Ignorant things... I was vindicated of all charges already....
So what's the debate about again?"

This is shocking, but it is of a piece with widespread police misconduct. All over the country, photographing or videotaping the police will get you arrested.

As for what lies behind this - St. Paul/Minn had a problem with flash mobs. Here's one incident:
http://www.citypages.com/2012-04-04/news/flash-mobs-attack-minneapolis/full/

And if you read especially the comments here:
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/03/downtown_minneapolis_rocked_by_five_violent_flash_mobs_attacks_during_last_two_months.php

So the police and local businessmen have been trying to preserve the safety of the Sky Way. And so the police were instructed to crack down on all loitering, panhandling, etc. That's why the man was telling the police that he was just sitting there alone.; 8/30/14, 10:37 AM
steve uhr said...: Michael -- ever hear of a law library? Figure it out yourself.; 8/30/14, 10:38 AM
David said...: Michael The Magnificent:

Here's a thought on great bodily harm. It is unlikely to be inflicted by a person who is running away from you.; 8/30/14, 10:39 AM
n.n said...: Is it systemic or an isolated incident? If it was the former we would likely see more viral videos. If it is the latter, then investigate the circumstances, and resolve the dispute with appropriate remediation.; 8/30/14, 10:41 AM
traditionalguy said...: Ah yes. Minneapolis that is also where the government SPECIAL OPS conducted low level night practice attacks on the city with a squadron Black Hawk Helos last week, "...just like they do in 10 or 12 American cities every year."

The only war Obama seems in favor of is a war on Americans that he is training Special Ops units for. But unlike the local Police being trained in crowd control by tazer, one black man at a time, the Special Ops units are being trained in white militia control by 40 Cal. wadcutter firing machine guns one city at a time.; 8/30/14, 10:42 AM
ErnieG said...: What was the outcome?; 8/30/14, 10:47 AM
chillblaine said...: "In some states it is a crime for a person to refuse to identify themselves when asked by a police officer."

Why isn't the ACLU looking into this? Too busy trying to prevent deportations, apparently.; 8/30/14, 10:50 AM
Paco Wové said...: I think there's a problem with your link, 'cause it just points back to your own post.; 8/30/14, 11:04 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Sorry the link was bad. I've fixed it.

Thanks to those who alerted me.; 8/30/14, 11:05 AM
traditionalguy said...: The angry black man bad dream must still be creating a national crisis up north. Down south we don't disrespect black men so they don't get angry and then expect a white police Sgt to tazer him and arrest him on false charges for us...it is going to be a black police Sgt who shows up anyway.; 8/30/14, 11:14 AM
Unknown said...: It is permissible for a statute or ordinance to require identification --and it appears there was no such statute or ordinance here ---when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity under Terry. Without that, which does not appear to exist here, cannot require identification. This is from headnotes:
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that:
(1) arrest of Terry stop suspect for refusal to identify himself, in violation of Nevada law, did not violate Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and
(2) defendant's conviction for refusal to identify himself did not violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt County 542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451 (U.S.Nev.,2004); 8/30/14, 11:22 AM
Wince said...: Seems to me no matter what basis the first (female) officer had to question him, there was no subsequent probable cause for the second officer to arrest him.

It seemed he was moving with the first officer in the direction she was leading him, even if he was filibustering to avoid answering her questions.

The exception would be if she had sufficient probable cause to arrest before the video started and was only waiting for back-up to arrive. But that didn't seem to be the case.; 8/30/14, 11:24 AM
Anonymous said...: The reason for racial profiling is horrible black crime statistics

True. However, the reason for horrible black crime statistics is because of racial profiling.

And so it goes on.; 8/30/14, 11:38 AM
jr565 said...: JUST COOPERATE. YOU DON"T KNOW WHY THEY ARE COMING TO ASK YOU WHY YOU ARE SITTING THERE. IF YOU SHOW YOUR ID, AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT 9 TIMES OUT OF 10 THAT WILL BE THE END OF IT.
EVERY TIME WE HAVE ONE OF THESE VIDEOS IT ALWAYS INVOLVES SOMEONE BAD MOUTHING THE COP SAYING THEY DON"T HAVE TO COOPERATE. AND THEN WE SEE THE REACTION.
EVERY TIME!; 8/30/14, 11:42 AM
jr565 said...: He shouldn't assume that the only reason the cops went up to him was because he's black. Just because you don't think you're doing anything wrong, doesnt' mean the cop doesn't have a legitimate reason to pull you over.; 8/30/14, 11:44 AM
jr565 said...: "Ven eeffen zee *racist* police ask for your papers, you should probably show zem your papers, if you haff zem.

Zis cooperation doss not make zem in zee right -- zey are probably in zee vrong -- but it vill safe you much in troubles.

Best to keep your hands clean for venn you sue zem."
While it's always a joke that making people show you your papers makes you Nazi Germany, most reputable states that aren't Nazi Germany also ask you to show the papers. Think of transactions throughout the day when you might be asked for your papers.
Buy booze? "Show zem your papers".
Gtting into clubs "Show zem your papers". Voting in some states "Show zem your papers". Applying for loan "Show zem your papers".
Its not a police state therefore, simply because cops, even, ask you for your papers.; 8/30/14, 11:47 AM
Hagar said...: Even in the old country - and Norway is not a totalitarian country, or at least not yet back then - I was taught to not argue with the constable on the street. Save it for downtown and, if it comes to that, the judge.; 8/30/14, 11:48 AM
jr565 said...: The cop says "The problem was...
and he immediately cuts her off and says "the problem was I'm black".
Does he even want to know if the cops thought there was a legitimate reason to ask for his papers? I'd like to know. The fact that he immediately jumps to assumptions makes me think the cops had a right to ask for his papers. I'm not going to assume racism on the cops part when she tries to explain and he says "No, its because I'm black".; 8/30/14, 11:51 AM
traditionalguy said...: Seriously, a dream about angry black men roaming free is NOT probable cause. Trust me on that.

Police can find a purpose in doing a good job without servicing the nightmare visions of white middle class people who have never spent any time with real black men in everyday life. BTW, their trick of all looking alike to you is not a crime either.; 8/30/14, 11:55 AM
SteveR said...: Coming (late) to assist another officer and ramping up the negative tone by the second officer was the problem. Rather than calm things down he just went right to arrest mode, almost like he was looking out for the female officer like a big brother. Whatever the circumstances, if they don't involve imminent physical threats to the officers, they need to resist the aggressive response mode.; 8/30/14, 12:04 PM
Meade said...: "the reason for horrible black crime statistics is because of racial profiling."

Simplistic but partly true.; 8/30/14, 12:09 PM
Bobber Fleck said...: @ rhhardin

Cops are always jerks and always will be.

My Dad was a police officer for 25 years. He was a patient man with an even keel. He would absorb the first blow from a perpetrator without reacting. If the perpetrator persisted, my Dad would quickly give him a close up view of the floor.

In the line of duty my father was spat upon, punched, kicked, hit with stones and sticks, and called every name imaginable. He took it all in stride.

In the early 70's he was part of the police line during the anti-war protests in Madison. He calmly absorbed the violence and hatred of the protestors.

For a long time I have believed that everyone should spend a day in a police car, an abortion clinic, a food pantry and a social security disability office. Real life experience has a tendency to alter the "narrative" we are being fed.; 8/30/14, 12:10 PM
jr565 said...: traditional guy wrote:
Police can find a purpose in doing a good job without servicing the nightmare visions of white middle class people who have never spent any time with real black men in everyday life. BTW, their trick of all looking alike to you is not a crime either.

You know one way to differentiate people? When they show ID?.
The cop says early on, when asked why she is bothering him and she says "Beacuse thats what police do when they get calls to identify people (or some such. Couldn't hear her whole point because he kept talking over her).
So, do you traditional guy know with certainty that there was no such call? How then are you assuming the cop was in the wrong to approach him? It could have been racism, sure. But we don't have full information here. we have an interaction where one side is going out of his way to not cooperate, to the point where he wont even let the cop explain to him why she is asking for his ID.
At the very least,that is not a very smart way to conduct business with cops unless at the end of it you want to get tased.; 8/30/14, 12:15 PM
ErnieG said...: According to this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Minnesota does not have a Stop-and-Identify statute.; 8/30/14, 12:16 PM
TomHynes said...: Was he trespassing on private property or was he on public property? A private security guard told him he was waiting in an employee area. He responded that he didn't see a sign, he wouldn't leave, and guard called the cops.

The fact that the trespassing charge was dismissed doesn't mean that it can't be filed again and he could be arrested.; 8/30/14, 12:19 PM
jr565 said...: traditional guy wrote:
Police can find a purpose in doing a good job without servicing the nightmare visions of white middle class people who have never spent any time with real black men in everyday life. BTW, their trick of all looking alike to you is not a crime either.

You're doing exactly what you accuse white people of doing vis a vis blacks but applying it to cops actions. Not every cop who pulls over a black person is doing it because they can't tell the difference between black people or have never spent time with a black person a day in their lives. If you want to tell people to get past the stereotypes I'd suggest you do the same.
Do you know with certainty why the cop came up to him? She mentioned a call, are you certain it didn't take place. And even if the call turned out to be erronous are cops not supposed to respond if they get such a call?
And there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with cops, even if they are ultimately wrong about why they are pulling you over. Telling them the reason is racism before they can tell you the reason themselves is a way to get yourself arrested.; 8/30/14, 12:27 PM
MayBee said...: It's hard to know exactly what the complaint the police were trying to investigate was because he repeatedly talks over the policewoman every time she tries to get any information from him.

He was tased for mansplaining.; 8/30/14, 12:28 PM
Paul said...: At least in Texas if you are asked for identification, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM YOUR IDENTIFICATION.

To fail to do that is called, 'failure to identify.'

But yes, the cops now days tend to say, "Comply or else', like some Nazi.; 8/30/14, 12:31 PM
jr565 said...: Tom Hynes wrote:
Was he trespassing on private property or was he on public property? A private security guard told him he was waiting in an employee area. He responded that he didn't see a sign, he wouldn't leave, and guard called the cops.

The fact that the trespassing charge was dismissed doesn't mean that it can't be filed again and he could be arrested.

So lets assume that this is what happened. the cop was in his right to come up to him and ask for ID, because the cop received a complaint that he was sitting in an employee area and wouldn't get up.
Are you allowed to sit in employee areas when you are not employees? No. Should you move from one when a guard tells you to. Of course.
So, traditional guy are you 100% certain that this is in fact a lie, and the ONLY reason the cop pulled up on him was because out to get blacks?
Suppose he let the cop get a word in edgewise, and said "i'm sorry sir I didn't notice the sign" while presenting ID, he would have been let go, MAYBE got a ticket.
But NO, he had to go and litigate it. And he may well have been in the wrong.
And if he continued acting that way he walked himself into his own tasing.; 8/30/14, 12:32 PM
harrogate said...: Until some cops face some real consequences, they will not abate in their behabior. Media attention has been intense lately and that is good. But there needs to be follow through. "I'll-Fucking-Kill-You" guy's story with Ferguson PD, after all, ended only with his resignation. That's not enough.; 8/30/14, 12:34 PM
William said...: The cops look bad, and the guy involved will get a payday for his trouble........Cops have to interact with assholes, and part of their job is to be bigger assholes. This guy was an asshole, but in a minor league way. That cop with the taser was a major league asshole. There's something here to confirm everyone's prejudices.; 8/30/14, 12:38 PM
jr565 said...: I bet he thought the guard telling him not to sit in the employee area was also racist.
But we can determine who is telling hte truth here. IS it the employee area, and was he sitting there. If he was, and it is, he's in the wrong.
So if cops then come up to him and say "can we see your ID please" he should show it to them. They have every reason to investigate why someone who doesn't work there is sitting in the employee area AND wont move when to told to move.
And if he can show his ID, maybe he can show to cops that HE does belong there. And then the cops can say "We received a complaint,but obviously the person making the complaint was wrong". But that didnt' happen, because he never showed his ID.
Not showing his ID and not cooperating with both the guard and then the cop who comes into investigage the initial charge does not in fact make his case look good.
I'd ask people who say they don't need to show ID to cops in such circumstances what they expect cops to do? Just let you continue sitting in a restricted area? BECAUSE you refused to identify yourself? That would lend credence to the fact that you don't belong there. Because otherwise you would just show your ID.; 8/30/14, 12:39 PM
harrogate said...: "At least in Texas if you are asked for identification, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM YOUR IDENTIFICATION.

To fail to do that is called, 'failure to identify.'"

Yet another in a long line of disturbing facts about Texas. Not the least of which is, the idea that I must have ID on me at all times. And I wonder if there are particular demographics with whom that little bit of Texas legislation is most often applied?; 8/30/14, 12:39 PM
David said...: ErnieG said...
What was the outcome?

He was prosecuted (!) but the judge dismissed the charges.

The fact that he was actually prosecuted gives you a pretty good idea that this is more systemic than just a few stupid and ignorant cops.; 8/30/14, 12:41 PM
jr565 said...: harrogate wrote:
Until some cops face some real consequences, they will not abate in their behabior. Media attention has been intense lately and that is good. But there needs to be follow through. "I'll-Fucking-Kill-You" guy's story with Ferguson PD, after all, ended only with his resignation. That's not enough.

But was their behavior justified? I'd say yes. If the story being told is accurate. He was sitting in a restricted area, was told by a security guard to move. He refused. Then the cop came over and asked to see his ID and he started an argument with them. Then called them racists for investigating the guy who wasn't sitting where he was supposed to go. Then when it escalated to "put your hands behind your back" he still woudn't cooperate.
for your own safety, cooperate with police.; 8/30/14, 12:42 PM
jr565 said...: harrogate wrote:
Yet another in a long line of disturbing facts about Texas. Not the least of which is, the idea that I must have ID on me at all times. And I wonder if there are particular demographics with whom that little bit of Texas legislation is most often applied?

If you don't have ID, then you should say "I'm sorry sir, I don't have ID, I left it in the car. What seems to be the problem. Oh, this is a restricted area? I didnt realize. I apologize. I didn't hear the security guard because I was wearing head phones". Whatever. Not "Why are you doing this? Because I'm black!"; 8/30/14, 12:44 PM
harrogate said...: "If you don't have ID, then you should say "I'm sorry sir, I don't have ID, I left it in the car."

And those thoughtful empathetic police officers in Texas will certainly decide not to enforce the "failure to identify" law in that case, right?; 8/30/14, 12:45 PM
traditionalguy said...: We are always IDing everyone else we as we meet.

We look at their shoes and then suit cut. Then colors of the clothes. Then haircut. Then beard or mustache or clean shaven face. Then nose.
Then body language.

Add in spiritual discernment by looking in and the eyes that are either warm and lively or cold and darkly glazed over. You can see more than you think that way.

Government hassling free men to produce an ID happens to be a FORBIDDEN activity according to our Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Should we amend those rights that were found by experience to be absolutely needed for free citizens faced with an Army of occupation in 1776.

Or are you saying that Taney got Dred Scott just right until that Lincoln guy, with Sherman's Army's helping a lot, used Thaddeus Stevens skills to slip in the tricky 13th and 14th Amendments?

Don't expect me to cry about the suffering Authorities wanting everybody's ID on demand (or a chip implanted in us at birth next) so they can more easily enforce laws against literally everything without respecting free men.; 8/30/14, 12:47 PM
harrogate said...: "Government hassling free men to produce an ID happens to be a FORBIDDEN activity according to our Constitution's Bill of Rights."

Ding Ding Ding!!! Hear, Hear!; 8/30/14, 12:48 PM
n.n said...: jr565:

So, the problem is not systemic, not prejudice, but situational. I'm surprised that they haven't formed a lynch mob to exploit the event.; 8/30/14, 12:48 PM
jr565 said...: harrogate wrote:
And those thoughtful empathetic police officers in Texas will certainly decide not to enforce the "failure to identify" law in that case, right?

I dont' know what they'll do. They might cite you for not carrying an ID. But you're not going to help your case if you refuse to cooperate are you?; 8/30/14, 12:49 PM
William said...: We should look to Chris Brown's VMA party to show us the proper way to interact. There was none of that demeaning stop and frisk at the door to the party. The gunman who shot Suge Knight fired only a moderate three shots in his direction, not six like that bloodthirsty Ferguson cop. Despite the fact that he fired in the middle of a crowded party, there are no eyewitnesses to testify against the gunman. This is because Bloods are respectful of community values, and no one wants to subvert heir authority......While it's true that the Bloods have killed far more people than the police, you won't hear a word against them at the VMA or any Hollywood celebrity publicly bad mouthing them. If the police acted with the tact and discretion of the Bloods, all these problems would disappear.; 8/30/14, 12:51 PM
harrogate said...: "But you're not going to help your case if you refuse to cooperate are you?"

In the moment, no. But we're also not going to help our cases as free citizens if we don't establish better boundaries, and impose stiffer consequences, for what police officers may and may not do. Are we?; 8/30/14, 12:51 PM
jr565 said...: traditioanlguy wrote:
Government hassling free men to produce an ID happens to be a FORBIDDEN activity according to our Constitution's Bill of Rights.

the courts have already upheld stop and frisk. Cops are allowed to ask for your ID, or arrest you so long as there is reasonable suspicion on their part.

In Nevada "Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of state laws authorizing police to detain people who refuse to identify themselves even when there are no other grounds for an arrest."; 8/30/14, 12:53 PM
cubanbob said...: If Crack was here on this I would agree with him. The cop and security guard were just being assholes because they could-a show of force. The guy tells the guard at the begging of the video that he is there waiting to pick up his kids in 20 minutes from a location that is apparently in the complex. Either the place the kids are at exists and is in the complex or it isn't. How difficult is that for the guard and the cop to understand? The man was sitting by himself, disturbing no one and some guard comes out with some crap excuse just to hassle someone for no apparently good reason and when the person harassed declines to be a sheep then calls a cop for a show of force. One would think that a cop would have somewhat more sense and experience than a security guard and would actually listen to the guy before going in to arrest mode since at that point in time there was nothing visible to him to indicate the guy was a threat to anyone. But no, he didn't. Both the cop and the guard deserve to be fired. Neither of them has enough common sense to be doing their respective jobs.; 8/30/14, 12:55 PM
jr565 said...: harrogate wrote:
But we're also not going to help our cases as free citizens if we don't establish better boundaries, and impose stiffer consequences, for what police officers may and may not do. Are we?

What boundaries did these cops cross. They received a complaint from a security guard about a customer who was sitting in an area he wasn't stupposed to be sitting in, and when he told him to move didn't.
Cops then need to find out is this guy sitting in a restricted area, who is he and get him out of the restricted area. HIm not showing his ID doesn't end the conversation. Because he's still sitting in the restricted area. If he didn't want to hear what he was doing htat got the cops to come to him in the first place it was beacuse he was too busy trying to lititgate the situation and insinuate that they were racists. If he had shown his ID, they may have simply said "Did you know this was a restricted area? Why dindnt' you move when the security guard asked you earlier" and they might have given him a ticket. But he WAS in a restricted area. The reason it escalated was because at every step of the incident he REFUSED to cooperate.; 8/30/14, 12:57 PM
Paco Wové said...: Harrogate – I commend your marvelous telepathic powers vis-à-vis the Texas constabulary and its motives. I am in awe!; 8/30/14, 12:58 PM
jr565 said...: "The cop and security guard were just being assholes because they could-a show of force. The guy tells the guard at the begging of the video that he is there waiting to pick up his kids in 20 minutes from a location that is apparently in the complex. Either the place the kids are at exists and is in the complex or it isn't. How difficult is that for the guard and the cop to understand? The man was sitting by himself, disturbing no one and some guard comes out with some crap excuse just to hassle someone for no apparently good reason and when the person harassed declines to be a sheep then calls a cop for a show of force."
This is crap. If he was sititng in an area where he wasnt' supposed to be sitting then the excuse that he was waiting for his kids doesn't fly. And security guards jobs is to make sure people are not where they are not supposed to be.
if he simply said "I didn't know" got up and moved to the designated area where he coudl sit and wait for kids, would this have occurred?; 8/30/14, 1:00 PM
traditionalguy said...: @jr565. Reasonable suspicion is not a standard FOR AN id STOP unless it is suspicion of committing a crime. And despite abortion laws, still being alive is not a crime outside of Nazi controlled territory where still being alive most definitely is a crime that they enjoy the power to stop quickly.; 8/30/14, 1:01 PM
jr565 said...: Waiting for your kids is not an excuse to sit in areas where you are not supposed to be sitting. Is it a major deal? Usually not. usually it's based on ignorance of the person sitting in the place they aren't supposed to be. And if they cooperate and move that usually ends it. But if the story is accurate that he was told it was an area for employees only and that he had to move and refused, he's in the wrong, and the cops have every right to approach him and ask for ID.; 8/30/14, 1:03 PM
rhhardin said...: @madisonfella

True. However, the reason for horrible black crime statistics is because of racial profiling.

And so it goes on.

It's more the discovery of victimhood as conferring advantage.

Profiling is just fuel for that discovery.

Not noticing black crime statistics is being tried, under the name of affirmative action and political correctness.

Blacks ought to do their part by deploring deviant black behavior.

But they're being bribed by the beads and trinkets of outrage that black leaders are offering them and for some reason think it's the route to dignity.

A nice line to try on the officer, when you're a black minding his own business being hassled, is "You're just hassling me because I'm acting white."; 8/30/14, 1:04 PM
jr565 said...: traditional guy wrote:
Reasonable suspicion is not a standard FOR AN id STOP unless it is suspicion of committing a crime

Security guard in mall goes to cop and says some guy who doesn't work there is sitting in the employee area and wont move even though he was told he couldn't sit there.
Are cops unreasonable to act on this information and ask for ID?; 8/30/14, 1:05 PM
jr565 said...: If cops shooting blacks for being black, is as bad as black people are saying, then for the love of god, why would you mouth off to a cop? If they ask for ID, show it to them.

Wesley Snipes thought based on some weird reading of the constitution that the govt couldnt' force you to pay income taxes. And went to jail for it. when a cop asks you for your ID, then is not the time to test the limit of your first amendment priviliges. Unless you don't mind that you might get tased for your effort.; 8/30/14, 1:08 PM
traditionalguy said...: The greatest and broadest crime is now "Conduct Unbecoming" a (fill in the blank).

That means We Forbid Everything and then we make exceptions for our friends. Are you being friendly???

We warned you. The only discipline is perfect discipline.u; 8/30/14, 1:10 PM
jr565 said...: traditionalguy wrote:

Don't expect me to cry about the suffering Authorities wanting everybody's ID on demand (or a chip implanted in us at birth next) so they can more easily enforce laws against literally everything without respecting free men.

You're starting to sound like a zealot here. YOu are not totally free. You are free insofar as you don't break the law. The cops could always search your house, provided the search was based on reasonable grounds. Now you're saying that the very act of producing ID is a violation of our rights. So then why do I need to show ID when I go into a bar? Or get on a plane? Or buy a gun?
Law abiding gun owners say we should have less gun regulations because law abiding people are being penalized, when its really the criminals who are the problem. True. But how are people selling guns going to know who the criminals are if they don't produce ID that says who they are?; 8/30/14, 1:13 PM
traditionalguy said...: Jr565...Yes and no. They can ask for a confession too. But they cannot arrest a man of any race for saying, " no thanks, I am one of those uncooperative free man protected by the US Bill of Rights.

The Bill of rights was designed to protect smugglers and merchants who used smuggling to avoid taxes from the Royal Governors' using armed forces to arrest wealthy men, confiscate all their goods, and send them to England for a trial.

The Bill of rights is designed to stop the gathering of evidence! When smuggled goods cannot be found, it means no crime has been committed.

So what a few men go free.; 8/30/14, 1:22 PM
Jason said...: Why cops get shot.; 8/30/14, 1:32 PM
traditionalguy said...: I wouldn't worry about these police getting shot. The proved their dominance of force over a clearly innocent man waiting for his kids at the mall...why he knew that he was black...he admitted it. And everyone knows in their imaginations that means he was planning shooting the police later. But by the grace of God the brave men stopped it in the nick of time. It just makes my heart flutter for these brave men in white skin.; 8/30/14, 1:48 PM
rcocean said...: I love how people jump to conclusions. Evidently, the man was on private property, was asked to leave, and wouldn't.

He refuses to identify himself, or cooperate, and talks over the officer. Then tells us he's being hassled by the Man because he's black.

No sympathy. Maybe he's looking for some police harassment in order to file a lawsuit. And then mucho dinero $$$.; 8/30/14, 2:00 PM
rcocean said...: A lot of people have problem with authority. Of course, these same overgrown adolescents whine and wank on and on when the police don't protect them well enough or come soon enough when they need them.; 8/30/14, 2:03 PM
cubanbob said...: jr565 said...
"The cop and security guard were just being assholes because they could-a show of force. The guy tells the guard at the begging of the video that he is there waiting to pick up his kids in 20 minutes from a location that is apparently in the complex. Either the place the kids are at exists and is in the complex or it isn't. How difficult is that for the guard and the cop to understand? The man was sitting by himself, disturbing no one and some guard comes out with some crap excuse just to hassle someone for no apparently good reason and when the person harassed declines to be a sheep then calls a cop for a show of force."
This is crap. If he was sititng in an area where he wasnt' supposed to be sitting then the excuse that he was waiting for his kids doesn't fly. And security guards jobs is to make sure people are not where they are not supposed to be.
if he simply said "I didn't know" got up and moved to the designated area where he coudl sit and wait for kids, would this have occurred?

8/30/14, 1:00 PM"

You assume facts not evident. A security guard, an occupation not know to require a lot of smarts or people skills and with no actual police powers acts like a wannabe cop and tells someone who is a public space (did you see the employee only sign?) that he needs to move. Is the guard the property owner? You think the property owner would have let this idiot guard escalate this if he or she knew what was going on in real time? What was so effing important that the guard just had to insist the guy had to move? Maybe, just maybe if the wannabe idiot cop and the actual idiot cop had some God given sense they would have let the thing just slide instead of trying to show how powerful they are. So tell me why should the cop take the word of a security guard absent any visible corroboration of the guards complaint? What dad hasn't at some point hasn't sat waiting 20 minutes or so to pick up his kids? Is that such an implausible story? Was the guy's assertion so unlikely to be true that the cop had to go all arrest mode over nothing? You have any evidence the guy was lying, that the place his kids were at wasn't in the complex? Cops do have discretionary authority NOT to arrest people so it isn't like he was retired to do the guards biding. If the guy was clean shaven and wearing a business suit you think the guard would have started this? What is it you are trying to defend? The right of a security guard and a cop to be jerks just because they can?; 8/30/14, 2:03 PM
Jason said...: I'd have a lot more faith in the arguments of the cops' defenders if the charges didn't get dismissed in court.

To cops: if you're going to pull this shit, and continue prosecuting even after the guy's kids walk out of New Horizons (a computer school, as far as I know), thus demonstrating the guy has legitimate business in the mall, waiting for his kids, you better have something that sticks.; 8/30/14, 2:18 PM
traditionalguy said...: I have to go watch Georgia v Clemson on the SEC Channel.

Fortunately all of the black talent now stays down in the south. The institutional hating and disrespecting young men for being black in public did not work out so well for us in the 1950s and 1960s when they all were leaving to play for Pittsburgh or Notre Dame or Michigan.

But the Northern colleges are the ones losing the best recruits now. Thanks for the help guys. AJust keep on hassling them for ID as if you hate them.; 8/30/14, 2:28 PM
damikesc said...: Until some cops face some real consequences, they will not abate in their behabior.

Ditto government employees.

Being an employee of the state shouldn't absolve you of crimes you commit.; 8/30/14, 2:45 PM
Paul said...: harrogate,

Just where in the Constitution does it say you don't have to show ID if asked by a peace officer?; 8/30/14, 3:14 PM
Freder Frederson said...: In some states it is a crime for a person to refuse to identify themselves when asked by a police officer.

Well, if that is the law in some states, it is an unconstitutional law.; 8/30/14, 3:20 PM
Michael K said...: I didn't read all the comments but I think he has a good lawsuit. I hope he wins and that sovereign immunity does not obtain. I am not a big fan of cops. This was not Ferguson and he had a right to be there as far as I can tell.

I'm a white grandfather and have and a couple of unpleasant interactions with cops, or the DEA in one case.; 8/30/14, 3:20 PM
Rusty said...: Hagar said...
Even in the old country - and Norway is not a totalitarian country, or at least not yet back then - I was taught to not argue with the constable on the street. Save it for downtown and, if it comes to that, the judge.

Same here. I know in Illinois if you get stopped by the popo they have to tell you why they stopped you. They might be making it up, but they still need an excuse.
More than once I've had to say to an overly belligerent officer, "Ok. Lets argue it out in front of a judge." Usually they back off.
Rule of thumb. Just be polite.
The older you get the less interested the cops are in you unless you do something stupid.; 8/30/14, 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: God damned mother fucking pigs. May each and every one of them burn in hell very, very soon, as they so richly deserve. Each shit, you filthy stinking bastards.; 8/30/14, 3:33 PM
Drago said...: harrogate: "And those thoughtful empathetic police officers in Texas will certainly decide not to enforce the "failure to identify" law in that case, right?"

Not to worry harrogate!

I understand it's only a couple of officers in the Cincinnat...er..Lubbock office who are not very empathetic.

Nothing to see there.

Move along.

Hater.; 8/30/14, 3:36 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Just where in the Constitution does it say you don't have to show ID if asked by a peace officer?

How about this:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."; 8/30/14, 3:42 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Would it were all cops were Buford T. Justice.; 8/30/14, 3:56 PM
harrogate said...: "Harrogate – I commend your marvelous telepathic powers vis-à-vis the Texas constabulary and its motives. I am in awe!"

The reason Texas came up is some police apologist on this thread was reminding everyone that in Texas, if a cop asks for your ID, you must pony it up or face legal actions. Which ridiculous law at least does us the service of rendering moot most caricatures of Texas.

As for "telepathic powers" and such, related to the case linked in this thread or any case involving the "constibulary." For too long now, the police officers have been granted benefit of the doubt in these types of cases. By the media, by the citizenry, by the powers that be in both major political parties at the national, state, and local levels.

That benefit of the doubt they--the police-- do not deserve (as though it were just their right to be believed and to have their motives assumed honorable, because they said so, by divine right).

In presuminfg the police officer honrable, you also presume telepathic powers. I say let them pony up, each time they must inteact with the citizenry, that what they are doing is legit. Record everything. Take nothing at their word alone. That is what they have earned, for many these long years.; 8/30/14, 5:47 PM
Anonymous said...: cubanbob wrote;

"So tell me why should the cop take the word of a security guard absent any visible corroboration of the guards complaint?"

He shouldn't. He should get both sides of the story before coming to any judgement. If one side isn't telling their side, but is instead interrupting you, talking over you, and otherwise being evasive, red flags go up.

"What dad hasn't at some point hasn't sat waiting 20 minutes or so to pick up his kids?"

I have. And if a police officer approached me during this time and started questioning me, I'd comply, understand he is just doing his job, and that a man sitting around in particular areas can seem suspicious. So I'd be happy to set aside the suspicion.

"Is that such an implausible story?"

Not at all. But police don't have the power to read minds. You have to tell them the story, cooperate with them as they investigate, in order for them to know what's happening. Otherwise, they only have one side of the story.

"Was the guy's assertion so unlikely to be true that the cop had to go all arrest mode over nothing?"

Not at all. It was the way he behaved towards the officers that caused them to be suspicious. What's more plausible is that these officers wanted to grab some lunch, relax, and enjoy their day, and go home safe like every other day. Then they encountered this guy, who wouldn't cooperate, who set off red flags because he wouldn't cooperate, and started making a fuse when, if true, all that was happening was he was waiting for his son. Who behaves like that if they're just waiting for their son? Officers have to go off of your physical behavior, your response to their questions, etc. Again, they aren't mind readers. They don't know if you're some racist who hates all white people and thinks all white people are racist. They can't know that. So, they start with the assumption you're just like everyone else they've encountered in the job. And when you start to act differently, red flags go up. Why is he acting differently? Why isn't he cooperating? What does he have to hide? We got called here because someone else thought he was acting suspicious, now he's showing us more suspicious behavior.

"Cops do have discretionary authority NOT to arrest people so it isn't like he was retired to do the guards biding. If the guy was clean shaven and wearing a business suit you think the guard would have started this?"

That's interesting, we don't want to make assumptions about the guy, but you're certainly willing to make assumptions about the police.

"What is it you are trying to defend? The right of a security guard and a cop to be jerks just because they can?"

How about the right to investigate a complaint, called in my a citizen who is supposed to be protected by these police, and the cooperation of the public in helping, instead of harming?

It wasn't the police who were being jerks here, it was the person they were questioning. Had he stood still, gave them ID, answered the questions politely, is there any doubt they all would have went their separate ways?

But, you want to hate these cops, not see the truth.

Good luck with that.; 8/30/14, 5:56 PM
30yearProf said...: The Saint Paul police are going to investigate the Saint Paul police officers involved (for transparency they are Michael Johnson, Bruce Schmidt and Lori Hayne). The St. Paul Police Federation, UNION, has already decided that the officers conduct met the highest standards of police procedure.

The white wash has begun. Thank God for video tape otherwise we'd just have another "ni**er" beaten to a pulp "resisting" arrest.; 8/30/14, 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...: The problem I have is how much many commentators here are hurting their own cause without realizing it. Many years ago, if you'd have told me, "That woman was raped!" immediately a mind picture of some large, oafish, homeless, evil man in a dark alley would appear and some innocent woman, beaten, assaulted, held down, and violently raped. All of that would have happened in my head in an instant hearing that a woman was raped.

Now when I hear that someone was raped, I think some lady is regretting her drunken party the night before, big deal.

In their effort to do.... something, they've hurt those who are genuinely raped. Let's put it like this, if everyone is raped, then rape isn't so bad, is it?

How do we apply that here?

Someday soon, we really are going to have jack booted thugs enforcing the law in the United States. You're going to be walking down the street and you're going to have a cross around your neck, or you're going to be wearing a pot t-shirt, or you're going to have something else that offends them. They are going to beat you, lock you up, and throw away the key.

But no one is going to care, why?

Because you idiots started to complain when it wasn't serious. When people refused to cooperate with an investigation. When some jack off wanted to sue a police force so went around carrying his AK47 at Starbucks trying to provoke a response. When some person of color went around yelling Racism and shouting as loud as he could until officer showed up and arrested him.

You're all sowing the whirlwind with this idiocy. We live in a great country right now with a lot of great cops just trying to do their job.

When that changes, no one is going to listen to you, because you will have been crying wolf for decades.; 8/30/14, 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: "The white wash has begun."

It's all a conspiracy and a cover up, buddy. Go smoke more weed.; 8/30/14, 6:04 PM
Skyler said...: It looks pretty bad, and I don't like the cops in general, but I've been fooled too many times now to believe this until more is known.

I was tricked into believing that the man in Ferguson was innocent because the police failed to tell us about him assaulting the policeman.

My first instinct is to assume that the black man is a racist, because that's the overwhelming trend, and that the rainbow coalition and its ilk are doing more "community organizing" to stir up racial resentment.

But if it is as the video would suggest, then this very nice man needs to get a whole lot of money from the city of St. Paul and two very bad cops as individuals.; 8/30/14, 6:28 PM
traditionalguy said...: Anybody watched Beverly Hills Cop again lately? This all seems like a replay without the humor. But Eddie Murphy's character did not have to face St Paul Cops protecting an upscale mall from the wrong race of customers using children as pawns so they will be seen as real people. Sneaky, sneaky.; 8/30/14, 6:36 PM
Jason said...: There's no law on the books that says this guy has to answer a single question from law enforcement. He has a constitutional right to say "feck off, pigs, I'm not talking to you." Without giving up any other rights to due process or any other constitutional protections.

Whatever probable cause the cops thought they had to arrest the guy, it wasn't much. They failed to get a conviction in court.

If he was asked to move from where he was sitting, he certainly did that when he walked down the hall with the female police officer.

If cops thought he was trespassing, that went out the window when his children came out of New Horizons to see him arrested, because he obviously had business there.

Surprising to see people defending the cops here. Good thing he had a cell phone recording it.; 8/30/14, 6:45 PM
Jason said...: It's time we had a national conversation about the racism that is pervasive throughout the Deep North.; 8/30/14, 6:46 PM
Fernandinande said...: Bobber Fleck said...
@rhhardin: Cops are always jerks and always will be.
...
Real life experience has a tendency to alter the "narrative" we are being fed.

MY real-life experience is that cops are dishonest and violent, which makes them jerks.; 8/30/14, 6:56 PM
Michael said...: Mall cops, security cops, all cops do not like to be confronted with the rights of the citizen. In their high school educated brains they are the law and their understanding of your rights trumps your understanding of your rights. Good for this guy for pushing back. It does not hurt to remind these guys who works for who . I hope he sues the shit out of them. And wins.; 8/30/14, 7:11 PM
jr565 said...: Jason wrote:
There's no law on the books that says this guy has to answer a single question from law enforcement. He has a constitutional right to say "feck off, pigs, I'm not talking to you." Without giving up any other rights to due process or any other constitutional protections.

And I'm shocked that people are suggesting telling cops to go f themselves is a good idea.; 8/30/14, 7:13 PM
jr565 said...: traditional guy wrote:
"I wouldn't worry about these police getting shot. The proved their dominance of force over a clearly innocent man waiting for his kids at the mall...why he knew that he was black...he admitted it. And everyone knows in their imaginations that means he was planning shooting the police later. But by the grace of God the brave men stopped it in the nick of time. It just makes my heart flutter for these brave men in white skin."

When did traditional guy morph into crack?; 8/30/14, 7:24 PM
Jason said...: Are you an idiot? Who said it would be a good idea? It not be a good idea. But it is a constitutional right we all have, and one does not forfeit any other rights by so doing.; 8/30/14, 7:28 PM
jr565 said...: Michael wrote:
Good for this guy for pushing back. It does not hurt to remind these guys who works for who . I hope he sues the shit out of them. And wins

So, he goes to court and sues. The security guard testifies that he told him that he was sitting in an employee restricted area and was asked to move. is he in the right there? No. So then the security guard calls the cop and says someone is sititng in a restricted area and refuses to move. And the come come and asks for his ID and he refuses.
Isn't the judge going to ask "Why didn't you just show your ID? OR MOVE?" Does he own the mall? Does he get to sit wherever he wants?
Is he going to be just as uncooperative in the judges court with the judge?
Because I imagine if he tried that the judge would very quickly cite him with contempt.
His lawyer would tell him "SHUT UP and don't test authority like you did at the mall, otherwise you will lose your case".; 8/30/14, 7:29 PM
jr565 said...: Jason wrote:
Are you an idiot? Who said it would be a good idea? It not be a good idea. But it is a constitutional right we all have, and one does not forfeit any other rights by so doing.

You don't have a right to not be arrested. So go ahead and be stupid. Don't cry when you get tased, bro.
Cooperate and nothing happens to you.; 8/30/14, 7:32 PM
traditionalguy said...: jr565...I morphed into Crack when I met had enough good black men to realize they are just as many good ones as there are good men of any different backgrounds. Culture is what you worship as a group and many black men are fine Christians. So now I only disrespect lawless men that are hurting people. That disqualifies as many whites as it does blacks.
Try it for yourself. You will be pleasantly surprised.; 8/30/14, 7:39 PM
houtex111 said...: In the video it's clear the man is carrying pot. Does this effect any of the judgements being made here? I don't see any comments that take this into account. Is his response to the police officer perhaps influenced by the fear of being caught with pot? Particularly since he is on his way to pick up his young children. His response seems a little bit over the top. When he gets close to New Horizon he really starts screaming and yelling. If it was me, if I was going to protest I would have at least kept it quiet so as not to scare my own children. Is pot legal in Minnesota? According to NORML less than 42 grams is a misdemeanor, more than that a felony. To be honest, he seems a little hopped up.; 8/30/14, 7:41 PM
Jason said...: Absent probable cause and no outstanding warrants as a result of due process of law, you absolutely do have a right not to be arrested, protofascist, or our Constitution has no meaning.

Holy crap, you give in totalitarianism easily.; 8/30/14, 9:28 PM
retired said...: The guy acted stupidly. Defy big city cops and you'll pay. No matter what you look like. The whole thing was recorded. File a complaint later if you feel aggrieved. But if you want to get tased the cops will oblige.; 8/30/14, 9:34 PM
retired said...: IMO there are police problems here. Lack of training, a willingness to escalate rather than deescalate. To go full non PC, the size and demeanor of the 1st cop leading to the escalation and likely contributing to the overreaction of the 2nd cop.
BOTTOM LINE:We don't know the whole story so crying racism or police brutality is voicing a less than informed opinion. And yes I am concerned about law enforcement overstepping it's authority. At the same time many do not understand what cops face every day. I have known many cops. Reread the post from the cop's kid above.; 8/30/14, 9:45 PM
Jason said...: We know there wasn't enough there for a conviction. Charges dismissed.; 8/30/14, 10:00 PM
Jason said...: https://www.facebook.com/yaliberty/photos/a.420478680196.191456.13187955196/10152335003280197/?type=1&fref=nf Heh.; 8/30/14, 10:04 PM
Paul said...: Freder Frederson said...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Freder, the cop is not searching you or seizing anything. They are asking for identification. They are not frisking you for it, nor opening your wallet.

If you fail to identify yourself then they will arrest you for that failure.

And not so shockingly, if you run from the police they can charge you with evading.

Asking for ID has passed SCOTUS muster many times and this it IS constitutional.

That's just the way it is.; 8/30/14, 10:09 PM
Birches said...: Where's crack when everyone is defending the black man against the cops?; 8/30/14, 11:50 PM
cubanbob said...: "What is it you are trying to defend? The right of a security guard and a cop to be jerks just because they can?"

How about the right to investigate a complaint, called in my a citizen who is supposed to be protected by these police, and the cooperation of the public in helping, instead of harming?"

@Eric
Investigate a complaint of what? Of being in a commercial establishment open to the general public doing nothing, of not allowing oneself to be harassed for no good reason? One in that there was no probable cause of any crime occurring? You did notice the court threw this out as having no merit.

In the rest of your comment you note that the cop was probably wanting get this over so he can go to lunch, so this is a reason to use force absent any other corroborating evidence that some sort of crime was committed? So what did officer friendly accomplish? Who did he serve and protect? How was the community protected?; 8/31/14, 12:00 AM
Michael K said...: "There's no law on the books that says this guy has to answer a single question from law enforcement. He has a constitutional right to say "feck off, pigs, I'm not talking to you."

That I doubt and his best course is to cooperate and sue later.; 8/31/14, 12:04 AM
retired said...: Beats being tased and tried, unless you like the attention.; 8/31/14, 12:16 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: "Cooperate and nothing happens to you."

Such sweet faith.

So cute.

In many respects Osama bin Laden felt and advocated the precise same concept.

Submit and everything will be okay.

Pay the man and justice will be, not a regrettable afterthought, but indeed a reason for existence.; 8/31/14, 12:40 AM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Let us say there was weed.

Then wasn't this brilliant?

He got off didn't he?

How do you measure victory if not beating the man, getting some fame for doing it, and holding your dignity with both hands outstretched for effect.; 8/31/14, 12:46 AM
retired said...: Did some looking and discovered he's a "hip hop artist." Now it all comes into focus. He gets free publicity and "street cred" although not a much as being shot 6 times at a party. You can act like an idiot when you are an "artist" and get away with it. In my former line of work my clients would have left after I had proven myself to be that stupid. Wonder what his poor children thought. "Oh, that's my dad..."; 8/31/14, 1:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Cubanbob,

This is exactly what a court is supposed to do. Determine innocence or guilt. The court did their job. Its not an officers job to make that determination. The officer is meant to investigate, ask questions, find out what's happening so they can determine what actions to take. They don't know this guy. So, like all strangers, they talk to him. And instead of talk, have a conversation, he argues, interrupts, and refuses to cooperate. Which brings out the high alert.

It must be great to have hindsight and sit up on your high hill passing judgment on these officers, but what would you have done in their shoes? Nothing? Jesus. How many cops get damned when they do nothing and then someone goes on a shooting spree?

You all are crazy. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Try not hating the police so much and you may have a little more insight into videos like this. Right now you're just coming off as a Monday morning quarterback with anaxe to grind.

Apologies to Althouse for mixing metaphors, I know she hates that.; 8/31/14, 3:19 AM
iowan2 said...: Eric@3:19

You have it backwards. It is not my responsibility to cooperate with the govt. The cop has to first prove that they have a cause for action. This case? Inform the person they are trespassing. (according to these comments, that is the complaint) There is no legal reason the govt needs to ID the perpetrator. The cop can ask the man to move off the private property.....or not.... there is no requirement that the govt gives you a chance to comply before enforcement. Or the cop can simply walk up and arrest perpetrator. There is no requirement for discussion.
As far as court ruling that asking for ID is constitutional, that is with the caveat of 'investigating a crime'. The govt cannot force you to proffer information,(search) without cause.
A cop can pull you over for not coming to a complete stop, they cannot search your car. They can ask. They can always ask, you can always comply. I never do. I have no idea what is in my vehicle. Other people ride in my vehicles. A year ago I found a syringe under my seat. Long story, friend of my Mother in law. Point is. The GOVERNMENT must prove their actions. NOT the other way around.

This case? The cops got it wrong. then the govt doubled down on stupid and CHOSE to prosecute. This is the HUGE red flag. After everything settled down, all evidence was gathered, the govt chose to proceed with prosecution, except they had no cause for the prosecution, hence to cause to "investigate a crime" This is much more about the prosecution than it is about a cop that that has not yet learned they serve the people because we allow them to serve. Not the other way around.; 8/31/14, 7:35 AM
jr565 said...: Notquitebuckleyt wrote:
"Cooperate and nothing happens to you."

Such sweet faith.

So cute.

In many respects Osama bin Laden felt and advocated the precise same concept.

Submit and everything will be okay.

wow we got a bunch of Easy riders' hear. No justice no peace, from the white guys who will 99.9 times out of ten give deference to the officer giving them a ticket and not be all social outcast on him.
I can't guarantee that in every case a person who cooperates will have a perfect outcome with a cop. They may have got the one cop that likes to tase people for no reason whatsoever.
But I can guarantee with equal certainty that if you make it your business to not cooperate with the cop, especially when it comes to potentially having you arrested, it would go better for you as an individual if you cooperate than if you tell him to go f humself, tell him he's a racist, reach for his gun, punch him and thrown him back in his squad car. Try to pull a way when he's trying to cuff you. Etc etc etc.; 8/31/14, 11:22 AM
jr565 said...: ""There's no law on the books that says this guy has to answer a single question from law enforcement. He has a constitutional right to say "feck off, pigs, I'm not talking to you."
Ther's no law on the books that says you can't walk down the middle of harlem with a sign that says "N*gger* on it, like John McCalane did in Die Hard 3
But I bet you could predict the reaction. So why would you do that?; 8/31/14, 11:25 AM
jr565 said...: traditionalguy wrote:
jr565...I morphed into Crack when I met had enough good black men to realize they are just as many good ones as there are good men of any different backgrounds. Culture is what you worship as a group and many black men are fine Christians. So now I only disrespect lawless men that are hurting people. That disqualifies as many whites as it does blacks.
Try it for yourself. You will be pleasantly surprised.

Where did I imply anything you said I implied? Nothing but straw men arguments all the way down, so you can call people racist. You're the beknighted good white right? lets all bow to your enlightened status as you look down on the masses of whites who haven't yet progressed to your level of understanding.; 8/31/14, 11:30 AM
jr565 said...: traditional guy wrote:
morphed into Crack when I met had enough good black men to realize they are just as many good ones as there are good men of any different backgrounds. Culture is what you worship as a group and many black men are fine Christians. So now I only disrespect lawless men that are hurting people. That disqualifies as many whites as it does blacks.
Try it for yourself. You will be pleasantly surprised.

So if there are just as many good men of different backgrounds, it would also mean that there would be just as many bad men of different backrounds. No? So then you take these kinds of cases on a case by case basis. And similarly since cops are people, there will be racists cops and non racist cops. So, you saying that they must be racist simply beuacs they are cops shows you are in fact bigoted and not practicing what you preach.

In this particular case, lets look at the facts. was he sitting in the restricted area? Yes or no? If yes, should he not have moved when the security guard asked him to? If no, wouldn't that then necessitate a cop being called and her motivation for coming may not have been because all blacks look the same to her as you insiniuate.
Should she not investigate the complaint? If he showed ID she could say he had a riht to sit there. But he refused to show it. I don't see the benefit of him not showing his ID, since he is in the wrong, nor her crime in asking for it since she doesn't know who he is and he's sitting in a restricted area.

And this would be true whether it was this black guy sitting here, or you, who I assume is white. So, the only reason this is a racial argument is because you are insinuating race.; 8/31/14, 11:36 AM
jr565 said...: cubanbob wrote:
You assume facts not evident. A security guard, an occupation not know to require a lot of smarts or people skills and with no actual police powers acts like a wannabe cop and tells someone who is a public space (did you see the employee only sign?) that he needs to move. Is the guard the property owner? You think the property owner would have let this idiot guard escalate this if he or she knew what was going on in real time? What was so effing important that the guard just had to insist the guy had to move?

IS IT YOUR PROPERTY? THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THE SECURITY GUARD WASN"T DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS TOLD TO DO?
On your property, if you have restricted areas let people who don't belong there sit in them. But my guess is if the security guard let him sit there after telling him he couldn't sit there he'd have been fired for not doing his job. Because it's a restricted area, and the guy isn't supposed to be sitting in it.; 8/31/14, 11:52 AM
jr565 said...: Cuban bob wrote:
A security guard, an occupation not know to require a lot of smarts or people skills and with no actual police powers acts like a wannabe cop and tells someone who is a public space (did you see the employee only sign?) that he needs to move.

Did you see the sign that said it was a public space and not an employee only space?

Is the guard the property owner? You think the property owner would have let this idiot guard escalate this if he or she knew what was going on in real time?
The security guard is the guy that is supposed to deal with things like people sitting in spots where they aren't supposed to. And his boss will fire him if he doesn't. For all I know his boss might have specifically told him to go to the guy and get him to move. That's for all you know too.

"What was so effing important that the guard just had to insist the guy had to move? "

what was so effing important that the guy had to ignore the call to me? It's almost as if he assumes that he makes the rules of the mall. If it's restricted area and he's sitting in it, and isn't supposed to be there, That's what's so effing important in insisiting that he move.

Also, at one point the guy sees his kids there. You'd think at that point he'd start cooperating with the officers. It seems lik it was more important to win on the merits of them being racist than go home with his kids; 8/31/14, 11:59 AM
traditionalguy said...: jr565...Don't ask questions you do not want to hear answers to.

When the desegregation first hit Atlanta about 1962-63, it was a shock to me when playing golf on a formerly segregated public course for the first time to seeg a foursome of black men golfers walking slowly over the hill. Everything seemed to be out of control.

Today I can see things through the eyes of the four peaceful black men boldly playing golf that day and probably wondering why white people get freaked out and want them gone.

Hiding behind statistics and the easy to accuse "high on Marijuana" charge is fear based. Learn to deal with desegregation gracefully. It is both races duty. That is all I am saying. Yes there are very bad black men, but in the real world there are more good black men.; 8/31/14, 12:36 PM
jr565 said...: traditional guy wrote:
When the desegregation first hit Atlanta about 1962-63, it was a shock to me when playing golf on a formerly segregated public course for the first time to seeg a foursome of black men golfers walking slowly over the hill. Everything seemed to be out of control.

Today I can see things through the eyes of the four peaceful black men boldly playing golf that day and probably wondering why white people get freaked out and want them gone.

Hiding behind statistics and the easy to accuse "high on Marijuana" charge is fear based. Learn to deal with desegregation gracefully. It is both races duty. That is all I am saying. Yes there are very bad black men, but in the real world there are more good black men.

Aghain, you're making assumptions. Im younger than you. I live in NYC. I've been to the south twice in my life. I work at company where my boss is black and a female, and half my cowoerkers are black. there has never been a time when I wasn't around desegregation, which to me is the norm. I have no problem with desiegregation. Why are you making blanket statements on racism when the issue is a single person being arrested by cops who didn't show his ID?; 8/31/14, 12:44 PM
n.n said...: Just a little bigotry expressed against police officers and especially security guards. It must be a personal issue.

It's not prejudice if all people are treated equally with the same restrictions on private property. It is prejudice if an individual expects special or exceptional treatment. It is belligerent if that individual refuses to respect common rights.

Perhaps this guy was an activist, hoping to make a political statement.

Oh, and there is still a family feud between North and South, really? It's a wonder that progressive corruption goes largely unnoticed and unchecked when people are wading neck deep in it.; 8/31/14, 12:51 PM
jr565 said...: I also know that people, of all races and creeds can go to a mall and sit in a spot where they aren't supposed to. And it's the security jobs job to get them to move. And if they don't want to and refuse to cooperate, whatever their race, they are responsible for what happens when cops inevitably decide to arrest them or book them or cite them or whatever. It's not a racial thing for me. The story would be the same whether the person being arrested was black white or Asian.
Stop presuming to know the racial mindset of people. You aren't a mind reader.

And I have some personal experience with this in my family. My cousin, who has subsuequently died in a drunk driving accident (which he caused) was ALWAYS involved with cops. And the reason was, he refused to show them any degree of respect. We'd hear about him being in jail for getting into fights with cops, and know that he was probably the one who instigated the whole thing. He'd get pulled over for speeding, or something minor even and then rather than simply take a ticket or be cordial it would turn into an "I don't have to show you sh*t officer" type escalation. And until he died, again from a drunk driving accident he was responsible for, he spent countless days in jail, all for minor instances, where he could have simply taken a ticket and walked away, but had to push cops.
That's not a racial argument since my cousin is not black. He was just AN ASSHOLE. (and I say that with love; great guy, but he didn't know how to not get in trouble with cops).; 8/31/14, 12:52 PM
iowan2 said...: jr565

You keep posting like the cop had justifiable cause.

AFTER all the facts were confirmed, the govt made a decision to prosecute.

The judge tossed out all charges.......because.....no crime was committed.

The accused was not acquitted due to a poor presentation of fact. The accused was exonerated because he did not commit a crime. In this case, the cop made a mess of things and in fact had NO CAUSE to ask for ID.

Cooperating with the govt does not mean I have to forfeit my constitutional rights in the process.; 8/31/14, 1:44 PM
retired said...: A look at the Ramsey county court records shows the perp was convicted of disorderly conduct in in 2010. No surprise. Bet he wrote a "song" or 2 about that, hanging in the the homies and drinking his 40's.; 8/31/14, 3:10 PM
houtex111 said...: Iowan2 said:
"The judge tossed out all charges.......because.....no crime was committed."

I don't see anywhere where it says why the judge dismissed the charges, only that the charges were dismissed. Was there some kind of plea deal? Who knows. This is hardly equivalent to saying no crime was committed. The defendant also agreed to not bring charges against the police.

I still don't see why, after having been asked multiple times to leave the private employee area of a BANK, he didn't leave. And if the security police should not have asked him to leave, then who? The bank vice-president? The teller? Sorry, but the guy was screaming racism to cover something up. And yes, it was probably the fact that he had some marijuana in his pocket. This is unquestionable, as the defendant himself tells us this. So yes, he was breaking Minnesota law, by his own admission. This thing didn't have a thing to do with race, or with civil rights. He asserted victim status to beat a rap. In Texas, I simply don't know of any law-abiding citizen, white, black, Mexican, or in between, who wouldn't simply show the policeman their ID. But then I don't know of anyone, of any color, who thinks they have a constitutional right to go sit down in the private employee area of a bank. At least not in Texas. Wisconsin, apparently, is different....; 8/31/14, 5:18 PM
retired said...: The deeper I research this guy, the worse he looks.; 8/31/14, 5:46 PM
houtex111 said...: This guy screamed racism because he knew liberals, and some civil liberties folks on the right, could be baited. Anymore it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Hating on the police has become a fad. The left needs to demonstrate that they're morally superior to the rest of us, and for those on the right who follow this fad it's a way of saying, yes I'm a rightwinger, but I'm not one of THOSE rightwingers. Their extreme urge/need for societal approval is a little unsettling, as it's in opposition to justice.; 8/31/14, 7:43 PM
Jason said...: You guys still arguing that he was asked to leave the employee area of a bank are idiots.

No, he wasn't. The bank security guard asked him to leave some seats in the skyway that are there for public use. It was not an employee lounge area. That is false. It was a public area. How do we know this? Because in St. Paul, skyways are public property.

The mall even put a picture of the skyway lounge area on its Facebook page with the caption, "need a quick five? Enjoy a seat in the skyway!"

It's clearly an area of public access, public accommodation and it's public property. The guy had a perfect right to be there. That is why the charges were dismissed. The guy's lawyer showed up in court with security tapes from the mall and records demonstrating that the skyway was public property, proving that there was no trespass in the first place. The bank security goon should have known this and the St. Paul police goons should know that the skyways on their own beat are public property.; 9/1/14, 6:08 AM
houtex111 said...: I don't care if the space is private, public, semi-public, or anywhere in between. If the police ask for an id, show them an id. The man was afraid they would bust him for possession, so he turned it into a racial incident to try and deflect attention from the pot. He then used his kids as instruments for the same purpose. Jeez, what a loser father. Did he ever even give so much as 2 seconds worth of thought as to the consequences for his children of carrying around an illicit drug? At the very least could he not have kept his drugs at the house? Seriously? Apparently the children have no right to expect their father to provide them with a drug free environment. But oh yeah, those evil cops asked him for an id. The injustice of it all! How dare they! Yeah, I'm sure his reaction had nothing to do with the pot. Nothing.; 9/1/14, 11:37 AM
Jason said...: I don't care if the space is private, public, semi-public, or anywhere in between.

No, you protofascist jackboot. Why would you?; 9/1/14, 2:43 PM