If the police had done that, I’d be fine with it. Instead, they tazered him.
This is laughably false. Waiting for one’s children is a perfectly legitimate reason for someone to be in a public place.
Again – cite that one can trespass in a public place while it’s open to the public. You can’t, because this is yet another ridiculous assertion.
When you say he was trespassing, what specific crime is that in Minnesota? Do you mean he was violating Minn. Stat. § 609.605 ?
I think you’re trying to pick a fight… I’m just not sure why.
The laws of the state of Minnesota define trespassing as “refusing to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor”.
The statute does not differentiate between public and private property.
“Disorderly conduct” ? He was sitting in an armchair, on his own. Short of being dead and buried, it’s hard to come up with a more orderly course of action.
That’s right, that’s what the law says.
But you left some words out, didn’t you?
Doesn’t the actual statute say, “…without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor?”
Their job is to investigate what happened, not shrug their shoulders and say “I wasn’t sure what was going on, so I left.”
Minnesota law includes among the definitions of disorderly conduct “engaging in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.”
Which, as can be seen in his own video of the incident, is not an inaccurate description of his behavior.
I didn’t feel those words were relevant, because, as a non-employee, he had no claim of right to be on those premises.
Here is the statute. It is clearly talking about private property except in a few instances (public cemeteries, schools, and public areas cordoned off with tape/signs by law enforcement). This skyway does not fit.
Yes he did, because it was a public place, and he had a legitimate reason to be there.
At least part, if not all of, the skyway is property of the building that employed the security guards, as per the cites above, and your claim that it is “clearly talking about private property” is irrelevant to the fact that it does not specifically differentiate between public and private property.
And so the proper course of action was to taze the guy and arrest him? Why did he need to know his name to investigate trespassing?
It was an employees-only area, and he was not an employee.
The cites above state that he was in the public part of the skyway when the police arrived.
He was not in the employees area when the police arrived.
The cites above show that he claims he was in the public part of the skyway when the police arrived.
No one that I’ve seen has claimed anything different.
Where was he when police arrived?
And how do you know?
So, anyway, who volunteers to go down to the Ramsey County clerk’s office and acquire some blueprints of the skyway and specific measurements of what areas and easements are the property of whom, then conduct a spatial analysis based on the video evidence to determine whose property the suspect was standing in at what precise moments in time, so we can settle this?
…Anyone?