Except that they did, because they arrested him.
Yep. Pretty much all of your claims here have been uncited and incorrect.
Time out!
Smapti, think about that for a moment.
You’re in a debate in which you’re defending the detention as lawful, and your opponents are attacking the detention as unlawful. Right?
So you cannot offer, as evidence, the fact that the detention happened as proof of its legality. Your opponents are arguing that the police erred – that the detention was unlawful. So that fact that they arrested him for trespassing on private property is the action in dispute. You can’t rely on the arrest to prove the arrest was justified.
That’s a logical fallacy called petitio principii, or Begging the Question.
Farther down in the page, several examples are given. I thought #2 was amusing, given this context: “If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law.”
It’s remarkable that by your own admission, you would roll over meekly and do whatever a cop tells you to do, be it murder or fellatio, and yet you will fight tooth and nail simply to avoid admitting you’re wrong even on the most minor of points. Why not save some of this obstinance for when you really need it?
They never disputed where he was standing. They never said “Lollie’s claims about where he was standing are false”. They never said anything at all about where Lollie was standing. You are incorrect here.
Then why was he arrested?
The claim is that his arrest was illegal, and unsupported by probable cause.
I’m not using the fact of the detention as proof that the detention was justified.
I’m using the fact of the detention as proof that the police believed him to be trespassing, because if they didn’t believe as such, they wouldn’t have detained him in the first place.
Perhaps we’re just asking him for the wrong things? Who’s up first?
Because the police made an error.
I only admit to being wrong when I am.
If they made such an error, which you have yet to establish, it’s one that they could not have reasonably been expected not to make, unless it is now your contention that all police called to investigate a report of trespassing must carry full and complete surveyors’ maps and make measurements down to the micrometer of where the person was standing at all times during which he was being directly observed.
How do you investigate a crime if the person accused of committing the crime leaves without you identifying them?
If the police had enough information to have probable cause to suspect that he committed the crime of trespass, then they get to detain him and ID him during the investigation. If the guy won’t stop, won’t ID himself and physically resists detainment, then he gets tased and arrested.
The City Attorney has established this. The lawsuit Lollie and his attorney are preparing may establish this further.
St. Paul police should know that the St. Paul skyways are public places, except for areas clearly marked. Lollie was not in a marked area when the police arrived.
Except that, as has been established, there is no legal requirement to mark those places.
Misdemeanor’s are treated differently for these purposes, as Hentor and Bricker have repeatedly pointed out. Because he was not in the act of committing a misdemeanor, nor was the misdemeanor any danger to the public, they did not have a right to detain him to identify himself. He had the right to refuse to provide ID.
This has not been established. It has been established by various cites that the St. Paul Skyways are public places with the exception of clearly marked areas like “employees only”. This was not one of those areas.
Not at all.
I find statements like “I’ll try to keep in mind that you believe …” (followed by distorted versions of what the person said) to be pathetic attempts at intimidation, so I noted it. Nothing else to it.
He was still loitering in the same vicinity with no apparent purpose as he had been when the call was made. Regardless of what exact square inch of land his foot was placed upon at the instant the police made eye contact with him, they clearly had reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress, and thus the authority to detain him.
Cite the law requiring the posting of an “employees only” sign.
Furthermore, cite that there exists no easement giving the management of the First National Bank Building the authority to control foot traffic through that area of the skyway.