I respectfully disagree that it is automatically harrassment if a cop asks me to identify myself. I think it was unfair of this woman to insult this cop with calling him a racist. I see no evidence that the color of her skin had anything to do with how this played out. She appeared to be behaving in a much more bigoted manner than the cop was. They probably owe each other an apology.
Ha ha! But, the cop is racist, don’t you see that?
What a couple of fucking douchebags (Watts and dipshit boyfriend).
So you agree that it wasn’t harassment. The officer was legally entitled to ask for identification and detain the person, as he was following up on a 911 complaint about the couple having sex in a public place.
He didn’t just ask one time. When she refused, he persisted and then put her in handcuffs when she tried to leave.
So if we agree he was not entitled to see her ID, when did it become harassment in your view? I say it became harassment the second he pestered her for ID when she declined the first request.
Curious to hear you and other’s thoughts about this case. http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2014/08/st_paul_police_roughly_arrest_black_man_sitting_in_skyway_video.php . I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but I will recap it again. There is video as well.
Like Watt’s situation, cops were supposedly summoned to the scene because of a call. In this case, the call was about alleged trespassing. However, the area was publically accessible and had public seating, with no signage indicating otherwise. The subject of the call was a black guy–a man waiting for his kids to get out of school so he could take them home. After the cops came up to him and starting questioning him, the guy started walking away. The cops, trotting right alongside him, kept demanding to know his name. He rightfully refused to give it to them and as the exchange continues he increasingly gets agitated because they won’t grant him free passage unmolested. But he doesn’t become violent or physically aggressive; just non submissive and noticeably unhappy.
Eventually, because they see he’s not going to “play ball” with them, they tase him and then put him in handcuffs. The scene unwinds right in front of his children.
Now. Would you consider this harassment? I most certainly do. It started the minute the cops wouldn’t let up from interrogating a guy minding his own business. Like Watts, there was no evidence he was committing a crime and he wasn’t hurting anyone. When he tried to get away from them, he was prevented. And just like Watts, their pursuit of his ID was so dogged and single-minded that they were willing to deny him his civil rights just to get it. So dogged in fact that it makes me wonder why exactly they were so determined to know the name of a person who hadn’t done anything wrong. How would this information advance the cause of public safety?
Do you agree with my analysis in this case? How is Watt’s any different?
You left out the part where the employees had already asked the man to leave and he had refused and raised his voice at them as well, which overrides any posted sign or lack thereof.
And that, in this case, this was not a “completed” misdemeanor, as the act of trespassing was ongoing and the police had the right to detain him.
No harassment occurred here other than the harassment of the police by an unruly individual whose immediate response to any LE interaction is “THIS IS CAUSE I’M BLACK”.
The article does not state that the man was on private property. If he was on public property, they had no right to demand that he leave.
It was inside the First National Bank Building.
IMO the guy was nothing but an obnoxious jerk.
People like that make things difficult for other people. Because cops get even more impatient with the normal people than they otherwise would be, because of their suspicion that anyone might be like Chris Lollie.
I do agree that it’s very similar to the Watts case. Remarkably similar.
Because that didn’t happen.
You’ve missed the point that he was legally entitled to ask for her ID and detain her.
I thought it was in the skyway that led to that building.
He was not legally entitled to detain her, if you’re talking about Watts. Bricker laid out under what circumstances a cop can detain someone, and Watts didn’t qualify.
According to the St. Paul City attorney, the skyway in question is public property.
So the detained man was not trespassing, and was acting lawfully.
It was in a skyway area of Minneapolis. There is no signage that the area was reserved for employees or anyone else. And the public routinely sit on the couches thatare there to seat people.
Even if we posit the area was “private”, the harassment took place as he was trying to leave. Why didn’t the cops just arrest him as soon as they saw him, if he was truly trespassing? Instead, they hounded him for his name and then tazed him when he refused to give it to them. That’s not conducting an investigation for trespassing. Calling it harassment is being charitable.
We don’t have to – see the link in my last post.
Thanks for that link. Not that it will help Smapti.
This is going to be a matter of “what’s the definition of harassment”, but to me harassment requires some sort of animosity, a “I’m going to fuck with you now” purpose. I believe that the cop thought, and still thinks, that he was legally authorized to detain her for ID purposes. I think he’s wrong, but I don’t believe his intent was to harass Watts, I believe his intent was to do his job.
WRT St Paul, the guy was in a private building***, asked by building security to leave, and he didn’t. Textbook trespass, and the police were witnessing it, so despite the fact that it’s a misdemeanor, they DID have the right to ID him, and frankly had the right to arrest him for trespass from the moment they showed up.
***I don’t know the building, but if he was in a publicly owned, public use space, like a park, the entire conversation goes a different way.
Per Minnesota law, one who “trespasses on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor” is guilty of trespassing regardless of whether any signs are posted.
At which point he was already being lawfully detained by the police as per Terry, and had no right to leave.
See the last few posts – he was in a public space. He had every right to be there, and was acting lawfully even when he did not identify himself to the officers. They have the right to ask for ID, and he has the right to say “no” unless certain conditions are met (and they weren’t met here).