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

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



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



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



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



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



http://ift.tt/1qhl1om



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



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







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

Quote:

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

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



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



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



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

Quote:

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

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



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



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

Quote:

"At one point, the officers believed he might either run or fight with them. It was then that officers took steps to take him into custody. He pulled away and resisted officers' lawful orders. They then used the force necessary to safely take him into custody."

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



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

Quote:

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

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



All thoughts and discussion regarding this are welcome.