Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 261

Thread: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

  1. #151
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,989

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    You can bet this isn't the first time his children have seen him act like a jackass.
    I'm not convinced his children were there at all. They were supposed to be at the daycare across the street from this building until at least 1000, according to what he told the female officer. And he then says that he didn't need anyone called to pick them up because they wouldn't be there yet. I honestly want more information here. Why would anyone bring his children to the building for him if they were at the daycare center? Or were those children in the background not actually his children at all?
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I'm not convinced his children were there at all. They were supposed to be at the daycare across the street from this building until at least 1000, according to what he told the female officer. And he then says that he didn't need anyone called to pick them up because they wouldn't be there yet. I honestly want more information here. Why would anyone bring his children to the building for him if they were at the daycare center? Or were those children in the background not actually his children at all?
    The reason for the public drop-off is there's probably a restraining order against him, or at least a history of making a scene, possibly violent, and public situations tend to defuse most of that.

  3. #153
    Professor
    CrabCake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    So you are saying this was a set up only to get the police reaction on video, is that right? Do you think he was lying about having kids in the area?
    No, I am saying he used the same tactics those people use. He reacted in the same way they do. I did not mean that he set it up, but that once it happened, he decided to use the tactics pioneered by libertarian activists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    Just to clarify this man was not asserting any rights as he was on private property and refused to leave.
    That's your claim, but the evidence that he did this is so lacking and the witnesses who say otherwise are so numerous, that the charges were completely dropped. The DA felt the evidence wasn't there to convict him. Keep in mind, the DA got to see the rest of the video we have not seen. Yet, he felt that even with the video evidence he wasn't going to be able to get a conviction.

    There's a number of things we can infer from this. The possibility that seems most likely to me is that, as the victim claimed, he didn't realize he was sitting on private property. It appears this was a bench in the middle of a public space but that it is not supposed to be open to the public, but only for the employees to take their smoke breaks. If there wasn't adequate notice of the private nature of this property, he broke no law. Some security guards came over and, whatever transpired, it did not lead to an understanding that property was private and he was not welcomed. In any case by the time police arrived he had left the property. One could argue that he broke the law by not giving his name, but according to the Hiibel decision, you are not required to give your name unless it is necessary as part of an investigation. Might there have been a proper case for obstruction based on his refusing to give his name if we can prove that the officers had met the necessary standards to consider this an investigation? Maybe, but the District Attorney didn't feel that way and dropped those charges as well.

    A lot of people are claiming that this guy broke the law. But the fact is that despite video evidence, the District Attorney felt the charges should be dropped. The evidence that he did anything illegal is so scant that even with a video showing exactly what happened the District Attorney felt the evidence that a crime was committed wasn't enough for a reasonable jury to find this person guilty.

  4. #154
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,714

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    How do you know he was refusing to leave and not just arguing with the bank on his way out? Griping about how they are being mean. Sorta as he was doing with the cop, calmy walking not trying to escape until the cop assaulted him.
    Dood admitted in an interview he had 22 minutes of video. All we have seen is the 6 minutes that started once the cops got there BUT, by all three accounts (his, the security guards, and the police) you are exactly correct. He was being a dick. As much as he was being a dickhead to the actual cops when they arrived on scene, I think it is a fair guess to say he was as bad if not worse when the private security guards told him he needed to move. At the end of the day...he was someplace he wasnt supposed to be, he gave the private security people **** instead of moving along, they called the cops, when the cops responded to the call, he refused to cooperate or answer the allegations, and then attempted to resist the police. This whole thing happened because he is a ****ing moron.

  5. #155
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,989

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrabCake View Post
    No, I am saying he used the same tactics those people use. He reacted in the same way they do. I did not mean that he set it up, but that once it happened, he decided to use the tactics pioneered by libertarian activists.



    That's your claim, but the evidence that he did this is so lacking and the witnesses who say otherwise are so numerous, that the charges were completely dropped. The DA felt the evidence wasn't there to convict him. Keep in mind, the DA got to see the rest of the video we have not seen. Yet, he felt that even with the video evidence he wasn't going to be able to get a conviction.

    There's a number of things we can infer from this. The possibility that seems most likely to me is that, as the victim claimed, he didn't realize he was sitting on private property. It appears this was a bench in the middle of a public space but that it is not supposed to be open to the public, but only for the employees to take their smoke breaks. If there wasn't adequate notice of the private nature of this property, he broke no law. Some security guards came over and, whatever transpired, it did not lead to an understanding that property was private and he was not welcomed. In any case by the time police arrived he had left the property. One could argue that he broke the law by not giving his name, but according to the Hiibel decision, you are not required to give your name unless it is necessary as part of an investigation. Might there have been a proper case for obstruction based on his refusing to give his name if we can prove that the officers had met the necessary standards to consider this an investigation? Maybe, but the District Attorney didn't feel that way and dropped those charges as well.

    A lot of people are claiming that this guy broke the law. But the fact is that despite video evidence, the District Attorney felt the charges should be dropped. The evidence that he did anything illegal is so scant that even with a video showing exactly what happened the District Attorney felt the evidence that a crime was committed wasn't enough for a reasonable jury to find this person guilty.
    Except for the fact that the security had also asked someone else to move as well, a woman, even after the security had asked the man to move at least once. She moved, he still didn't. But it still comes down to the fact that he was wrong. He should have left when asked by the security guard, and if that was wrong, report him. Then he should have cooperated with the police, and if they were wrong, file a complaint or even a suit. Instead, he was uncooperative the entire ordeal with the police, then acted the whole time as if they did something to him. He was trying to get "hassled".

    Otherwise, why would he tell the cop he had to pick up his kids at 1000, then say they were already in that building, and then turn around and tell the cop that the kids weren't there yet when the police officer asked if he needed them to call someone to pick up his children? This is the part I don't understand. I don't get the discrepancy with the children. If you had to be there to pick up your children, or across the street, since that is where the preschool was, then why would you not need someone to pick them up a little later if you are being taken to jail? Why would he assume that someone else would take care of them if they had just seen him arrested?

    Somehow, I doubt it was a smoke area, considering Minnesota has laws against smoking indoors, for most places at least (willing to bet the First National Bank Building is smoke free). Just because he ignored the security guard or more likely accused him of being racist, doesn't mean he didn't know that the area or at least those chairs were meant for employees.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #156
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,144

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I have a common take. Both cops that I could see in the video conformed to all ethical standards. Mr. Lollie is responsable for escalationg the situation, and the police were correct in their responcees to his behavior. That's professionalism.
    You watched a different video perhaps? I may concede and say the female cop acted in an appropriate manner. The one who came second? Nah. He was straight bully.

    I suppose we have a philosophical difference in the liberty we'd allot our authority.

  7. #157
    King of Videos
    dirtpoorchris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    WA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,025

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Dood admitted in an interview he had 22 minutes of video. All we have seen is the 6 minutes that started once the cops got there BUT, by all three accounts (his, the security guards, and the police) you are exactly correct. He was being a dick. As much as he was being a dickhead to the actual cops when they arrived on scene, I think it is a fair guess to say he was as bad if not worse when the private security guards told him he needed to move. At the end of the day...he was someplace he wasnt supposed to be, he gave the private security people **** instead of moving along, they called the cops, when the cops responded to the call, he refused to cooperate or answer the allegations, and then attempted to resist the police. This whole thing happened because he is a ****ing moron.
    I guess he was saying he was sitting on a bench outside the bank. And a witness who works in the area (who just so happens to be a white woman who works at a different store) eats her lunch there all the time without ever being bothered.
    I'm Finding it Harder to be a Gentleman, White Stripes ~ "You think I care about me and only me. When every girl needs help climbing up a tree."

  8. #158
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,714

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    I guess he was saying he was sitting on a bench outside the bank. And a witness who works there (who just so happens to be a white woman who works at a different store) eats her lunch there all the time without ever being bothered.
    Was he supposed to be there? Was he asked to move along by security? Did he ignore security to the point where they called the cops? When the cops came, did he refuse to identify himself and cooperate?

    The answer to all of those questions is yes. You know that. He was tazed and arrested because he was being an asshole to the security guards AND to the cops, and he resisted arrest. Anyone doing the same deserves what he got...and it wouldnt matter if they were green.

  9. #159
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,989

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    I guess he was saying he was sitting on a bench outside the bank. And a witness who works in the area (who just so happens to be a white woman who works at a different store) eats her lunch there all the time without ever being bothered.
    If she works in the building, she is allowed to eat there. That was the point. Only employees of the building were supposed to be using those seats/benches/whatever, and he was told this. Someone else who didn't work in the building was asked to leave (and did) the same time as the guy was asked for at least the second time.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #160
    Professor
    CrabCake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:09 PM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: "I'm Not Your Brother," Officer tazes Man in Front of His Children.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Except for the fact that the security had also asked someone else to move as well, a woman, even after the security had asked the man to move at least once. She moved, he still didn't.
    I'm not sure why you think this is relevant; it's not. If I have a right to be somewhere and someone asks me and another person to leave, the person leaves and I don't, I still have the right to be there. That someone else listened to the guards is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    But it still comes down to the fact that he was wrong.
    In your opinion. But your opinion is based on a partial video and a news article. The District Attorney seems to disagree with you. Despite seeing the full video, reading all the eyewitness testimony, and being familiar with the layout of the space and the presence (or lack of) signs, etc. He felt that the guy either did nothing wrong or that despite the video and eyewitnesses he could not prove the guy did anything wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    He should have left when asked by the security guard, and if that was wrong, report him.
    In your opinion. But if he had a right to be there then he had a right to stand up for that right. You don't have to leave when asked if you are somewhere that you have a right to be. Now we know that it is alleged this was a private area (although there seems to be no evidence that it was clear to everyone this area was private), so we know he didn't have the right to be there. But that's not what matters, what matters is whether the proper signs were posted letting it be known that this is private property. If the signs weren't there, you aren't required to listen to a security guard who is claiming the bench you're sitting on is private. We don't know what signage there might have been, but we do know the District Attorney chose to drop the charges, therefore we know he felt his case was not provable.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Then he should have cooperated with the police, and if they were wrong, file a complaint or even a suit. Instead, he was uncooperative the entire ordeal with the police, then acted the whole time as if they did something to him. He was trying to get "hassled".
    I agree with you on this. I don't approve of such tactics. But these tactics, pioneered by right wing libertarian groups, are legal. A bad idea? Yes. Harmful to society? Yes. But illegal? No. Worthy of being tased over? No.

    He may have been a douchebag for taking this route, but cops don't get to tase people for being douchebags. If they do, they are abusing their power.

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Somehow, I doubt it was a smoke area, considering Minnesota has laws against smoking indoors, for most places at least (willing to bet the First National Bank Building is smoke free). Just because he ignored the security guard or more likely accused him of being racist, doesn't mean he didn't know that the area or at least those chairs were meant for employees.
    Luckily we have someone who weighed in on this case who has seen all the video evidence, all of the eyewitness testimonies, and (most likely) pictures of the area and all the appropriate signs. This person also happens to be a professional who works in the legal field and has a team of people who research the law for him. This person, the District Attorney, reached the conclusion that the evidence that existed (video, eyewitness testimony, photographs, etc.) wasn't enough to prove this guy did anything illegal.

Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst ... 6141516171826 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •