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

Jerry said:

You can bet this isn't the first time his children have seen him act like a jackass.

Click to expand...

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?

roguenuke said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Mason66 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Mason66 said:

Just to clarify this man was not asserting any rights as he was on private property and refused to leave.

Click to expand...

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.

dirtpoorchris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

CrabCake said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Jerry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

VanceMack said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

dirtpoorchris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

dirtpoorchris said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

But it still comes down to the fact that he was wrong.

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

He should have left when asked by the security guard, and if that was wrong, report him.

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

roguenuke said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

CrabCake said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

He didn't have a right to be there, it is that simple. He was told this by a security officer. Had the officer called before telling him, that would have been harassing him for nothing. But that isn't what happened. He asked him several times to move because he was not supposed to be sitting in those chairs/seats. He refused to move after being asked those several times and had the cops called on him. Likely they are trying to ensure that there aren't random people loitering in the skywalk.

Likely, the DA felt it simply wasn't a case he would win with a jury. Just because the DA drops charges, doesn't mean the person didn't do anything wrong.

He didn't have a right to be there though. It was not "public property". It is a private business building open to the public except it does have areas that are not open to the public. And even businesses open to the public can ask people to leave. This guy went straight to claiming racial discrimination. Why? Because that is in fact what he does, writes/sings songs about racial discrimination (imagine that). No, signs don't need to be there if someone is telling him multiple times that he can't be there, an official of the building in fact. If the security guard is wrong, that is dealt with somewhere else. You complain to management, you don't not listen to the security guard, who is a representative of the owner/manager.

His actions are what caused him to get tasered, actions that could not be seen on the video. Actions described by the police on their reports however. Cops do get to taser people who are resisting arrest, as this guy was. That is not an abuse of power, it is controlling the situation.

Bull. The DA did nothing but drop the charges, months after they were filed. Most likely because he felt he couldn't win the case or had a lower than he liked chance of winning, so figured the charges weren't worth pursuing. It didn't have to have anything to do with whether the DA actually believed the guy or the police was right in the matter, only what he felt he could or couldn't prove.

And police are not held to the same level when it comes to what they need to prove to either detain or arrest someone, heck even for use of force. Just because the DA didn't feel the case could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean the police wouldn't be justified in their actions to detain/arrest this guy, including tasing him.

ChezC3 said:

You watched a different video perhaps?

Click to expand...

That's entierly possible. I saw the video linked in the OP, which video did you see?

A bully huh....hmmmm.... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying... the police "used phisical force....to dominate another". Yes the cop's actions meet the literal criteria for a bully. I guess a police officer's job does require them to be a bully to effect an arrest. Any and every time they make an arrest. Anytime they subdue even the most violent drugged up knife/gun wielding gangbangers, they are using phisical force to dominate another; they are being bullys.

Sometimes you have to be a bad guy to do the right thing.

A woman attacked by a rapist pulls out a gun and shoots him dead, she "used phisical force....to dominate another". She bullied the rapist out of raping her.

I have to admit, then, that I support a color of bullying. Not all bullying is bad.

Its not what you do, its why you it.

roguenuke said:

He didn't have a right to be there though. It was not "public property". It is a private business building open to the public except it does have areas that are not open to the public. And even businesses open to the public can ask people to leave. This guy went straight to claiming racial discrimination. Why? Because that is in fact what he does, writes/sings songs about racial discrimination (imagine that). No, signs don't need to be there if someone is telling him multiple times that he can't be there, an official of the building in fact. If the security guard is wrong, that is dealt with somewhere else. You complain to management, you don't not listen to the security guard, who is a representative of the owner/manager.

Click to expand...

Whether it is posted or not matters. If you owned any amount of property beyond a homestead, you would be well aware of this. If random strangers are hunting on your land and you didn't have any signs saying this is private property, guess what? They get to hunt there and cannot be prosecuted for trespassing. You can ask the people to leave because this is your land, but if they choose not to believe you then you will just have to call the police and wait until they get there so they can inform the people that this is, in fact, private property and they must leave. In some jurisdictions even that isn't enough and the police will tell you "I'm sorry, but there aren't any signs posted anywhere, they can legally be here." Signs matter tremendously in these situations, they are basically what matters the most.

roguenuke said:

His actions are what caused him to get tasered, actions that could not be seen on the video. Actions described by the police on their reports however. Cops do get to taser people who are resisting arrest, as this guy was. That is not an abuse of power, it is controlling the situation.

Click to expand...

He was not resisting arrest. This is another of the charges that was dropped.

roguenuke said:

Bull. The DA did nothing but drop the charges, months after they were filed. Most likely because he felt he couldn't win the case or had a lower than he liked chance of winning, so figured the charges weren't worth pursuing. It didn't have to have anything to do with whether the DA actually believed the guy or the police was right in the matter, only what he felt he could or couldn't prove.

Click to expand...

So, how is it bull? You just called what I said bull and then proceeded to describe exactly what I said as the correct interpretation. Are you simultaneously wanting to present a position and call your own position bull?

roguenuke said:

And police are not held to the same level when it comes to what they need to prove to either detain or arrest someone, heck even for use of force. Just because the DA didn't feel the case could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean the police wouldn't be justified in their actions to detain/arrest this guy, including tasing him.

Click to expand...

I never claimed they weren't justified.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be wanting to argue with someone who sees things in black and white and thinks there is a right and a wrong here and that clearly one side is wrong and the other is right. You should probably look to another person's posts to find such a person. Read my post again. My whole point is that there aren't clear-cut good guys and bad guys here. If you decide to pretend I am anti-cop and address me from that angle, you're doing nothing but fighting straw men.

buck said:

it could have been all avoided had the guy just provided his ID when asked. It seems like a reasonable request when someone is in a private area. The cops would have probably run it through and let him on his way, assuming he didn't have a warrant or something.

Click to expand...

The police do not have a right to demand we identify ourselves if we've done nothing wrong. Although such practices are common in Europe, this is America.

Henrin said:

Control = ownership. The whole premise of public property is actually flawed for a few different reasons. One of those reasons is that if the government controls the property they are the owner of the property and everyone else is only given permission to use their property at their behest. The fact is "public property" is something that only exists on paper, because in reality all property is private.

Click to expand...

I, for one, find it amusing that the same group of people that seem to hate the government arguing that it encroaches on liberty, are quick to support the cops (the enforcement arm of government) when they encroach on the liberties of individuals. They are outraged when the government taxes, but cheering it on when the government tazes...

VanceMack 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.

Click to expand...

That's not true and you know it.

reinoe said:

That's not true and you know it.

Click to expand...

Thats very true. You know how white people dont get ****ed up by cops? They treat them with respect and cooperate. You know how black people dont get ****ed up by cops? Same way.

Conversely...you know how EVERYONE ends up in a bind with the law? You be an asshole to them and dont cooperate. Oh...and make sure you tell them all about your 'rights'.

reinoe said:

The police do not have a right to demand we identify ourselves if we've done nothing wrong. Although such practices are common in Europe, this is America.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. You DO have to identify yourself if you are being detained. You could give your ID or just state your legal name and date of birth, but yes you do have to identify yourself even if you did nothing wrong.

Lillie was being detained, so refusing to identify himself was a crime, refusing to answer questions without spisificaly invoking his right to remain silent was a crime, walking away was a crime, resisting arrest was a crime, on top of the original trespass.

Jerry said:

That's entierly possible. I saw the video linked in the OP, which video did you see?

A bully huh....hmmmm.... Bullying - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia... the police "used phisical force....to dominate another". Yes the cop's actions meet the literal criteria for a bully. I guess a police officer's job does require them to be a bully to effect an arrest. Any and every time they make an arrest. Anytime they subdue even the most violent drugged up knife/gun wielding gangbangers, they are using phisical force to dominate another; they are being bullys.

Sometimes you have to be a bad guy to do the right thing.

A woman attacked by a rapist pulls out a gun and shoots him dead, she "used phisical force....to dominate another". She bullied the rapist out of raping her.

I have to admit, then, that I support a color of bullying. Not all bullying is bad.

Its not what you do, its why you it.

Click to expand...

Word garble, eh?

Everyone knows bully's are cowards. And the kids that stand behind the coward's shoulder?????

Jerry said:

Violence does not mean intent to harm. Violence is merly the use of phisical force. The word does not regard intent, only behavior.

Police even have to use an aproved martial art with aproved grappeling tecniqus designed to use phisical force while causeing little to no harm.

Click to expand...

vi·o·lent

adjective: violent

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

its plain stupidity for the police to ever say they were violent, ...use......necessary force, respond with force..

and to say "we became violent [aggression], because we believe he may run"...........running away is not an aggressive action.

ChezC3 said:

Word garble, eh?

Everyone knows bully's are cowards. And the kids that stand behind the coward's shoulder?????

Click to expand...

It is about the reasoning. Bully's use violence or force to intimidate people for their personal gain. That is not what police officers do. They are enforcing the laws and trying to maintain public peace.

The police officers in this situation could not simply allow a person to walk away when they need information from that person. They had a report of someone trespassing. It is their job to find out the information of the case. Why the guy was there when he was told not to be by a representative of the owner of the property (the security guard) and who he is was relevant to the situation. He refused to give that information. This is hindering a police investigation. Then he tried multiple times to simply leave when he was being detained by the police, further hindering the investigation of the complaint. It doesn't matter if his children or any children were there at the time. That is irrelevant to the situation.

What is the definition of being detained by a police officer

The officer has the authority to temporarily deny you the ability to leave while he investigates his suspicion. You may still refuse to answer any questions, but you have no right to leave. The officer must use a reasonable amount of time to investigate his suspicions until the detention elevates to the level of "probable cause" to arrest you. If the officer fails to determine there is probable cause for an Arrest, he must release you in a reasonable amount of time. The courts have determined that what is a reasonable amount of time is relative to the criminal activity being investigated. If you attempt to leave a detention without the permission of the police officer, you may be subject to Arrest.

Click to expand...

This is what happened. He was being detained by the police because they had a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime had occurred because they had gotten called by the security officer. This means that they had a right to investigate that "crime", including detaining the "suspect". He starting walking away and never asked if he could leave. He should not have felt free to leave since he was told not to several times by the police. Had he not continued to try to leave, then he wouldn't have been arrested. Had he then not resisted arrest, he would not have been tasered.

roguenuke said:

It is about the reasoning. Bully's use violence or force to intimidate people for their personal gain. That is not what police officers do. They are enforcing the laws and trying to maintain public peace.

The police officers in this situation could not simply allow a person to walk away when they need information from that person. They had a report of someone trespassing. It is their job to find out the information of the case. Why the guy was there when he was told not to be by a representative of the owner of the property (the security guard) and who he is was relevant to the situation. He refused to give that information. This is hindering a police investigation. Then he tried multiple times to simply leave when he was being detained by the police, further hindering the investigation of the complaint. It doesn't matter if his children or any children were there at the time. That is irrelevant to the situation.

What is the definition of being detained by a police officer



This is what happened. He was being detained by the police because they had a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime had occurred because they had gotten called by the security officer. This means that they had a right to investigate that "crime", including detaining the "suspect". He starting walking away and never asked if he could leave. He should not have felt free to leave since he was told not to several times by the police. Had he not continued to try to leave, then he wouldn't have been arrested. Had he then not resisted arrest, he would not have been tasered.

Click to expand...

They never even stated he was detained. Dude just assualted him. Did the cop ask him to follow him so they could talk to both parties or did he burst assualt him on his own whim. He assaulted.

Capster78 said:

You have a few options. Write your state representative. You can start a protest campaign and bring your situation into the public eye. You can move out of the state. All of these are much better then getting shot over something that really is not that big of a deal and can be handled in a more mature manner.

Click to expand...

I never consented to the police authority over my person. Anything they do towards my person is therefore a BIG deal. My choices are either be aggressed upon by others, or ummm..

I don't know, do you know my other choices? Do I have any way to not be aggressed upon by police officers?

roguenuke said:

This is what happened. He was being detained by the police because they had a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime had occurred because they had gotten called by the security officer. This means that they had a right to investigate that "crime", including detaining the "suspect". He starting walking away and never asked if he could leave. He should not have felt free to leave since he was told not to several times by the police. Had he not continued to try to leave, then he wouldn't have been arrested. Had he then not resisted arrest, he would not have been tasered.

Click to expand...

If they wanted him to leave from the start and then he decided to do it on his own I fail to see the problem. It seems to me he was doing as they asked.

It seems kind of illogical to come in wanting him to leave and then change your position to wanting him to stay.

dirtpoorchris said:

They never even stated he was detained. Dude just assualted him. Did the cop ask him to follow him so they could talk to both parties or did he burst assualt him on his own whim. He assaulted.

Click to expand...

Don't have to. The fact that they were "asking" him not to leave means he was detained. They did not "just assault him". They were being civil to him and he was continually trying to leave. He was not free to go, yet he kept trying to leave. Then he resisted arrest. He refused to put his hands behind his back or cooperate. They can legally arrest you for trying to leave a legal detainment. And they have a right to legally detain someone involved in a complaint until they at least get the facts about the situation. Had he just stood there and waited for the police to talk to the security guard and check out the area, then likely nothing more would have happened. He likely would have been told he was free to go within minutes. Had something happened with him just waiting, he would have had a case. His actions destroy his case.