• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

If he refuses to cooperate with the investigation they can take him in. It's called "obstruction" and every state I know of has a statute covering it.

Then they should have taken him in. Yes he refused to show them ID, but that doesn't warrant the two cops ganging up on and assaulting him.
 
Did they have an employee's sign only where he was in clear view?

All I know is what's in the link I posted. They say it was a employee only area, he was asked to leave repeatedly, he refused, he acted the fool, he got tuned up.
 
Then they should have taken him in. Yes he refused to show them ID, but that doesn't warrant the two cops ganging up on and assaulting him.

That's not what they claim prompted their actions.

So, your claim is the cops are lying? What do you base that on.
 
Minnesota Taser video: Christopher Lollie of St. Paul Tased in front of children.




Ummm... I dont get how people could just stand around and let a cop do that. People are ****in cowards. These 2 cops just 2v1'd a man for no reason. That means you can help the man and fight the cops until they hit the ground, pacify them. Who gives a **** if th ey have a badge if they break the law they get dealt with just like any other criminal. If a random guy and a girl assualt you in the street you would be allowed to beat the crap out of them until you are safe. Give those same 2 people a badge and now they have a pass to be ignoble?

Assuming of course he did nothing wrong.
Right at the beginning the officer said something like "what happened back there". So what happened back there? What occured prior to the video? What prompted this guy to start up his camera?
 
Last edited:
Then they should have taken him in. Yes he refused to show them ID, but that doesn't warrant the two cops ganging up on and assaulting him.

Well, asking politely wasn't working and neither was asking impolitely so at some point I guess the cops just figured they were done asking. Mr. Lollie had every right to keep speaking his mind but he didn't have the right to keep obstructing the officers in their job.
 
Well, asking politely wasn't working and neither was asking impolitely so at some point I guess the cops just figured they were done asking

So they decided that, instead of following procedure and taking him in, that they were going to gang up on him and assault him. And this is a quality within law enforcement that you are ok with?

Mr. Lollie had every right to keep speaking his mind but he didn't have the right to keep obstructing the officers in their job.

That's not the issue at hand here. You stated that the officers were well within their right to arrest him for obstruction. For the sake of argument I will take your word on that. If that is the case, then that's what they should have done. Assaulting the man was unnecessary.
 
St. Paul police Chief Tom Smith says officers became violent with Lollie because they "believed he might either run or fight with them



so they became violent...because he may run away?.. or because he may fight them......

putting the cart before the horse there.
He was "fleeing on foot". Anyone can see that from the video. When stopped by cop you cannot just walk away. You do not have the right to do that. You have to ask "am I free to go". If the cop says yes *then* you can walk away. If the cop says no then you are being detained, and while detained yes you do have to give your legal name and date of birth.

Everyone should take a concealed weapon permit class so they know these things even if they hate guns and would never carry one.
 
They could have found out who he was and what he was doing if he'd simply told them but instead he chose to go off on a "because I'm black" rant. He made his own bed in this one and the more I read about it the less sympathy I have for him.
Yeah, the whole "because I'm black" thing is lame. Black people need to get over it already.
 
So they decided that, instead of following procedure and taking him in, that they were going to gang up on him and assault him. And this is a quality within law enforcement that you are ok with?



That's not the issue at hand here. You stated that the officers were well within their right to arrest him for obstruction. For the sake of argument I will take your word on that. If that is the case, then that's what they should have done. Assaulting the man was unnecessary.

He was being uncooperative and combative. All he had to do was say that he wanted a lawyer and put his hands behind his back. If he was in the right and the cops were in the wrong he could then sue them for false arrest or whatever else he wanted to. Instead of doing that he chose to be belligerent. His choice.
 
Interestingly enough...during an interview he admits he initially recorded 22 minutes of video...ostebsibly showing his interactions with the security guards prior to the police showing up but that has been narrowed to 6+ minutes with no accounting of the earlier interactions. That might tell a different story.

Its funny how its always the guys that 'know their rights' that end up getting tazed and a free ride to central booking. Had he said..."hi...yeah...I was a little snippy with the private security cuz he was a little snippy with me. Sorry...heres my ID...Im just waiting to pick up my kids" this whoooooooooooooole thing would have been avoided.
 
They can detain you, but considering he was going to be sitting there for a while they could have easily found out who he was without doing anything towards him.

But if we know anything, we know that cops love their toys. What good is a taser if you can't have some fun with it now and again?
 
Yeah, the whole "because I'm black" thing is lame. Black people need to get over it already.

How exactly do they get over being black and knowing that because they're black, cops automatically assume they've done something wrong?
 
But if we know anything, we know that cops love their toys. What good is a taser if you can't have some fun with it now and again?
 
But if we know anything, we know that cops love their toys. What good is a taser if you can't have some fun with it now and again?
Fun fact: the Army markets itself to women by promoting financhial security in the form of a reguler pay check, insurance and verious benifits. The Army markets itself to men by promoting all the cool toys they'll get to play with such as MRAPS, machienguns, night-vision etc.

I wonder if police atract recruits in a similer way.
 
How exactly do they get over being black and knowing that because they're black, cops automatically assume they've done something wrong?
Why do you think THAT incident would have ended any differently had he been white? Hell we have 20 years of COPS episodes to draw from. Stupid white people that try to tell cops they know their rights end up with the same consequences as stupid black people.

 
How exactly do they get over being black and knowing that because they're black, cops automatically assume they've done something wrong?
The same way I got over being White: replace race with a better Master Class. I chose religion, I identify as a christian before anything else. Others choose nationality and identify as American first, or being a father/mother or husband/wife, etc.
 
I see a tasing in your future.

Why is that? Because I want to be left alone and consider two cops in my face annoying? If I don't want to be bothered by people there is very little chance I'm going to help them bother me. My far too stubborn to change my answer from go away to here is what you want. :shrug:
 
How exactly do they get over being black and knowing that because they're black, cops automatically assume they've done something wrong?

They don't know that. They assume that.
 
Am I the only one that thinks it's weird to have a restricted area on public property? If everyone owns the property what is the deal with the "restricted area?
 
He was being uncooperative and combative. All he had to do was say that he wanted a lawyer and put his hands behind his back. If he was in the right and the cops were in the wrong he could then sue them for false arrest or whatever else he wanted to. Instead of doing that he chose to be belligerent. His choice.

All the cops had to do was arrest him. Instead of following procedure, which is to arrest any individuals that obstruct an investigation, they chose to lose all sense of self-control and assault the man. Unacceptable. The man is not completely innocent in all of this but cops cannot assault people at will simply for being "uncooperative." That's not how this works.

Procedure said to arrest him. They should have arrested him and called it good. This situation was a show of excessive force and should not be tolerated. We should keep our law enforcement in check. They do, after all, work for us.
 
Did they have an employee's sign only where he was in clear view?

The posted information said the private security guards asked him to leave a few times and he refused being in a private area of a bank.

Anybody would have called the police and the police have every right to think this guy is up to no good.

If he just wanted to go pick up his kids, he would have left when the security guards asked him to.

No sympathy for this one.
 
Back
Top Bottom