Man tased for walking while black

[NowhereInTime]

I can't wait to see the YouTube of digitalpigmoron asserting his rights and getting pummeled for resisting arrest...

God I want to see that YouTube!

I had a falling out with a girlfriend once and I requested Police presence while she came to retrieve her belongings, and the dispatcher asked me if I owned guns, and I said yes, and when the Police arrived they asked me where my guns were, and I showed them my safe, and the Police were absolutely polite to me once they realized I was not their enemy.

I even wound up a shooting buddy with one of the officers that always wanted a Benelli M1 Super90, just like the pristine example in my safe, which he was drooling over!

8-rounds of 3" magnum 00 is just the thing for America-hating assholes!

Wow, QK's Fantasy Mind is working overtime!  Who here can spot the obvious lies?

Lie #1 "girlfriend".  It's called your "fist", dope.

Lie #2 "Police were polite to me"  I realize that after several batons to the head you were no longer cognizant (as if), but "polite"?  Maybe after you made bail...

Lie #3  "buddy".  Not in any interpretation of reality would anybody be your "buddy".  You are the rotted stench of the most bloated, runny, genital mutilated animal and incapable of human interaction.

Lie #4 "he was drooling over".  We know what he what collection of yours he was "drooling over", but I promised not to go there anymore.

"Son, you gotta do better than this."  - Lawrence Taylor

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

if the police have reasonable suspicion (which, in this case, they did), they can stop you (a Terry stop), detain you, and ascertain your  identification.

I just don't know how to tell you that you're wrong when you have your fingers jammed in your ears and are humming the "Dixie."

For everyone else who is not a brain-locked neocon, here is an excerpt from Justice White's concurring opinion:

"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation."

The bolded areas address FTF's fuckup, and also that of Gd5150.

There are exceptions, as noted by myself and RCD, which come into play where there is a state law requiring the detained party to identify himself.  These types of state laws, called "stop and identify" laws, were explicitly upheld in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada  The "Terry Stop" that FTF references allows the officer to briefly detain someone, ask questions, ask for identification, and perform a pat-down if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person detained is armed.  That person is NOT required to answer questions, including identifying himself.

Here's a quote from a Wikipedia article about it:

"The Terry doctrine was markedly extended in the 2004 case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), in which the Supreme Court held that a state law requiring the suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court did not legalize this process in all states but instead left it up to the states to decide whether they would pass such laws. So far 24 states have passed such laws."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

Minnesota, just to repeat it, does NOT have such a state law.

FTF and BuickCar[l] come from a big-bellied culture of farm animal sodomizers who privilege stupidity and ignorance.

[Quick Karl]

Prove it in court, asslick.

[FightTheFuture]

The problem here is that you are debating children that believe they know Constitutional law, just because they want to make-believe they do.

It's unfortunate, but it does seem that way at times. If you disagree with anything they say, you are automatically subjected to endless hate-filled diatribes. I have to admit,  over time, it does get old.

[Quick Karl]

If you disagree with anything they say, you are automatically subjected to endless hate-filled diatribes.

When they do that, it is because they know I am right, and they fear the truth.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Prove it in court, asslick.

Already done, more than 50 years ago, and refined in 2004.  But thanks for playing, and here's a copy of our home game.

Amazing, isn't it?  You can spell it out laboriously for Buick and his ilk, using freely available public documents.  It is undeniable that FTF and Buick are wrong on this point.  Anyone, absolutely anyone can confirm this for themselves.  Only someone delusional would claim otherwise.   But Quicky would rather be wrong and look like a jerkoff than admit that his cherished beliefs are wrong. [EDIT: and FTF too, it seems.]

[Quick Karl]

Already done, more than 50 years ago, and refined in 2004.  But thanks for playing, and here's a copy of our home game.

Amazing, isn't it?  You can spell it out laboriously for Buick and his ilk, using freely available public documents.  It is undeniable that FTF and Buick are wrong on this point.  Anyone, absolutely anyone can confirm this for themselves.  Only someone delusional would claim otherwise.   But Quicky would rather be wrong and look like a jerkoff than admit that his cherished beliefs are wrong.

Excuse me, douche bag,

Your only remedy is a court room - try to argue your case to a cop but PLEASE have someone record it because God, I REALLY want to see you having your head beat in while you are resisting arrest Mr. Constitutional Lawyer...

I would make pop-corn and have a party for that one.

[FightTheFuture]

I can't even believe I am wasting my time with this.

He was under obligation by the law, in accordance with the Terry act, to provide some measure of cooperation with the police. including, answering questions about his identification, etc.

Mr. Lollie REFUSED to cooperate AT    ALLwith the police in this matter. THAT is why he was forcibly detained. He resisted, and he was arrested. It's very simple, folks. It really is.

[Gd5150]

I can't even believe I am wasting my time with this.

Awe c'mon, Bellgab isn't that bad.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

I can't even believe I am wasting my time with this.

He was under obligation by the law, in accordance with the Terry act, to provide some measure of cooperation with the police. including, answering questions about his identification, etc.

Mr. Lollie REFUSED to cooperate AT    ALLwith the police in this matter. THAT is why he was forcibly detained. He resisted, and he was arrested. It's very simple, folks. It really is.

Moving the goalposts again?  And by a neocon, too!  Who could have imagined it??

Here's what you wrote earlier.  Grabbed a copy before you go backtrack and erase it.

In every state in this union, if the police have reasonable suspicion (which, in this case, they did), they can stop you (a Terry stop), detain you, and ascertain your  identification. If you refuse, you can be charged with obstructing.

This is simply not true.  It's a fuckin lie, in fact.  Terry was decided in 1967.  The case was centered around the legality of detaining a person and performing a simple search for weapons, or "stop and frisk."  You can read the entire SCOTUS opinion here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1

The Court issued a narrow ruling that only addressed the question of the legality of a search for weapons, stating:

we turn our attention to the quite narrow question posed by the facts before us: whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest. [p16] Given the narrowness of this question, we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him.

This didn't satisfy Justice White, who addressed some additional matters in his concurring opinion:

Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked, but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.

White's opinion did not, of course, carry the force of law, and the question of whether a person MUST identify himself, and how, continued to be an issue, one that the Court specifically refused to address until the Hiibel case.  The Court summarized that history thusly in its opinion of the Hiibel case:

Beginning with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, the Court has recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further. Although it is well established that an officer may ask a suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop, see, e.g., United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 229, it has been an open question whether the suspect can be arrested and prosecuted for refusal to answer...

The Court went on to rule that Nevada's state law requiring a person to identify himself if asked by a police officer was indeed Constitutional:

The Court is now of the view that Terry principles permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop.

The text of the Hiibel opinion can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html

The key point, and where FTF and BuickCarl failed, is in recognizing that there is NO Federal law requiring a person to identify himself upon the request of a police officer.  These are state laws.  There must be a law specifically requiring it -- and Minnesota doesn't have one.

Frankly, I think the long pause between his posts shows that FTF went back, found out that I was right all along, and is now trying to reframe it as a refusal to submit to detention.  That's the problem with these god damn neocons -- they're the most dishonest cocksuckers you will ever have the misfortune to encounter.  And kind of stupid, too.

FTF is a fuckin liar when he is telling you that every state in the union has a law requiring a person to identify himself if a police officer requests it.  I said he's a fuckin liar, I meant it, and if he isn't a deceitful pussy he'll cowboy it up and PROVE me wrong.  I just presented the SCOTUS text that supports my side.  Does FTF have anything beside chest-thumbing and pud-pumping to support his?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Excuse me, douche bag,

Your only remedy is a court room - try to argue your case to a cop but PLEASE have someone record it because God, I REALLY want to see you having your head beat in while you are resisting arrest Mr. Constitutional Lawyer...

I would make pop-corn and have a party for that one.

This is the sound of someone who has been cockslapped so badly that he's taking HIMSELF out of the debate.  And what does said cockslappee have to say about quitters?  Thanks for asking, and here is your DPS rewind for the day:

The worst kind of waste of human life there is, is a QUITTER -- nothing in all of the Universe makes me sicker.

Self-hatred: another characteristic of the typical neocon.

[Quick Karl]

This is the sound of someone who has been cockslapped so badly that he's taking HIMSELF out of the debate.  And what does said cockslappee have to say about quitters?  Thanks for asking, and here is your DPS rewind for the day:

Self-hatred: another characteristic of the typical neocon.

Your desperation to seem valid is beyond hilarious.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Your desperation to seem valid is beyond hilarious.

Remember when Romney lost, and you had to rename your dog, again?  What did you come up with, "Rand" or "Jeb"?

[Quick Karl]

Remember when Romney lost, and you had to rename your dog, again?  What did you come up with, "Rand" or "Jeb"?

I don't own a dog, but you are still just an angry asshole.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

you are still just an angry asshole.

Thanks!  I see you as something of an enchanted hobo with a dog named "Pud."  Both of you suffering from mange

[RealCool Daddio]

It's unfortunate, but it does seem that way at times. If you disagree with anything they say, you are automatically subjected to endless hate-filled diatribes. I have to admit,  over time, it does get old.

It is endlessly amazing that so-called Constitutionalist conservatives, who are the first to trumpet State's rights, are the first to ignore those facts when faced with with them.  As DPS correctly points out, the Minnesota statutes supersede Terry.  Ergo, this man was within his rights to refuse to identify himself (and yes, FTF, black folks have rights, too.). Moreover, even if Minnesota was a "Stop and Identify" state, the police would still have been in the wrong, because they had no reasonable suspicion of a crime being or about to be committed.

The relevant Minnesota statute regarding trespassing (a misdemeanour, BTW):

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.605

For those whose reading skills are limited, the relevant section is as follows:

"(3) trespasses on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor;"

This man was on public property when the police accosted him.  Even if he had been on private property without consent immediately prior, he had left when asked to do so.  So no crime had been committed (being black is not a crime, conservative Bellgabbers).

Why are those on the right so wrong, so often?

http://youtu.be/e_dV1P5hZTI

[albrecht]

It is endlessly amazing that so-called Constitutionalist conservatives, who are the first to trumpet State's rights, are the first to ignore those facts when faced with with them.  As DPS correctly points out, the Minnesota statutes supersede Terry.  Ergo, this man was within his rights to refuse to identify himself (and yes, FTF, black folks have rights, too.). Moreover, even if Minnesota was a "Stop and Identify" state, the police would still have been in the wrong, because they had no reasonable suspicion of a crime being or about to be committed.

The relevant Minnesota statute regarding trespassing (a misdemeanour, BTW):

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.605

For those whose reading skills are limited, the relevant section is as follows:

"(3) trespasses on the premises of another and, without claim of right, refuses to depart from the premises on demand of the lawful possessor;"

This man was on public property when the police accosted him.  Even if he had been on private property without consent immediately prior, he had left when asked to do so.  So no crime had been committed (being black is not a crime, conservative Bellgabbers).

Why are those on the right so wrong, so often?

http://youtu.be/e_dV1P5hZTI

I don't know Minnesota but I've had cops in my FEMA Region VI tell me to "tell" a person that they are not welcome on my property and only after that would they be cited for criminal trespass. They happened twice several years ago when I had some problems with homeless people crashing an apartment complex. Because it was a multi-unit rental dwelling and doors downstairs not locked it was sort of a pseudo public place the cops said. Until a person was "told" not to enter the premises. I don't know if that was the statute law or the "law" by the cop on the scene to avoid paperwork but it was interesting "telling" the vagrant "you cannot enter here" and then watching the cops let him go on his way and saying if he comes back he will be arrested. Also, the police had no problem with me holding said person with a bat, and another resident with a pistol backing me up, until they came on one occasion. And there was no SWAT tactics, no question of ownership of pistol, or guns drawn by police, or escalation. The police were polite and even the homeless guy was polite (granted confronted with a gun and a bat and the the police.) No paperwork, not much tax dollars wasted, nobody killed or tasered, hobo guy allowed to go on his merry way, and no problems. Times have changed.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Times have changed.

They sure have.  And if that fuckin Nazi who deliberately provoked a confrontation to "teach that darkie a lesson" hadn't been such a cocksucking prick, this never would have made the news.

I hope this becomes a national issue and they burn down the house of that racist cop and kill all of his family.

[SciFiAuthor]

And therefore white America is mostly unaware of what black America already knows.  Completely unprofessional behaviour from the 2nd cop, who provoked a confrontation. 

Call the police!  There's a nigger sitting outside my store!!  He's actually kind of lucky that he didn't get shot.  Which is a really fucked up thing to be lucky about, if you think about it.

Which white America? The trailer park or the wealthy suburban McMansion people? We are not monolithic and the white trash get fucked with as much as the black trash by the cops. We really need to reframe this shit, we have our normal cultures where blacks and whites interact and we're doing good and getting along and people are working and understanding . . . and then we have these sections of our ethnicities that are falling through the cracks in the inner cities and the trailer parks that are failing all of us badly. And they're being mistreated by the cops. It might be time to make this less about race and more about the content of people's characters, subculture and looking at the low end. Why do we have meth labs in the lily white rural areas? Why do we have the inner city gangs? One people regardless of color trying to solve our problems, that is the future. Current politics gets in the way of that.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Seems these days it's a great idea to leave your phone recording whenever having a confrontation with authorities. Also one might be smart enough to just show their ID, bite their tongue, and go about their business after 2min. Nope gotta throw attitude. And it's not a color thing, because if a stupid white person did this they'd have been treated the same way. Because stupid is stupid. Doesn't matter if the cops had the legal rights, that's life.

Maybe next he can challenge the constitutionality of the IRS.

So I challenged Gd5150 to come up with ONE similar video involving a white man.  I guess he must still be looking for it.

Here's another game, and I'll throw this open to anyone who cares to play.  I'll find an article by a black person describing unlawful police harassment.  Then, you come up with something similar from a white person.  Let's see who runs out of material first.

Here's my article to get started.

"Telling an unarmed individual that you would shoot him if he did not stop running is morally reprehensible, professionally unsound, and legally impermissible. Evading arrest while unarmed does not warrant one to be shot at. That's obscene. Threatening me with arrest without a justifiable cause is a violation of my civil and human rights. I have a right to be outside; to be black and outside. I have a right to care about what goes on in my neighborhood and on my block. I have a right to film you. And you do not have the right to arrest me for doing absolutely nothing wrong."

http://gawker.com/dear-police-officers-hands-up-dont-shoot-1628704385

[albrecht]

So I challenged Gd5150 to come up with ONE similar video involving a white man.  I guess he must still be looking for it.

Here's another game, and I'll throw this open to anyone who cares to play.  I'll find an article by a black person describing unlawful police harassment.  Then, you come up with something similar from a white person.  Let's see who runs out of material first.

Here's my article to get started.

"Telling an unarmed individual that you would shoot him if he did not stop running is morally reprehensible, professionally unsound, and legally impermissible. Evading arrest while unarmed does not warrant one to be shot at. That's obscene. Threatening me with arrest without a justifiable cause is a violation of my civil and human rights. I have a right to be outside; to be black and outside. I have a right to care about what goes on in my neighborhood and on my block. I have a right to film you. And you do not have the right to arrest me for doing absolutely nothing wrong."

http://gawker.com/dear-police-officers-hands-up-dont-shoot-1628704385

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVh_bBPhlKU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6S7LRrCru8

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

"Don't tase me bro!"

You're really using this artificially inseminated, pre-planned stunt as an example of "unlawful police harassment"?  You're joking, right?

"Meyer later issued a public apology for his "failure to act calmly", stating that he "stepped out of line"...he sent written letters of apology to the University Police Department, as well as UF President Machen and the Gator Community...According to the University of Florida, Meyer also accepted sanctions from the University for violations of the Student Code of Conduct."

Within days after the incident, Meyer registered "Don't tase me, bro" as a trademark and sells t-shirts with the phrase on his website.  He also wrote a book about it, but hasn't found a publisher. 

Next!

https://www.youtube.com/wach?v=PVh_bBPhlKU

"As his dashboard camera footage shows, when Bieze asked her to sign a ticket guaranteeing her appearance in court, Winkfein snapped back, “Take me to jail. Go on, take me to jail â€" a 72-year-old woman!”

"Bieze then ordered Winkfein out of her pickup truck so he could arrest her. Then things got ugly.

"When Winkfein walked toward a busy highway lane, Bieze shoved her back toward the shoulder. She shouted at Bieze, “Give me the fucking [ticket] and I’ll sign it.” But by now the situation had escalated to the point where Bieze threatened to Taser her. She shot back, “Go ahead, Tase me!”

"“I just lost my temper; I do that maybe twice a year, but that day I just lost it,” Winkfein told TODAY’s Matt Lauer..."

She admits that she provoked the incident.  Not unlawful police harassment.

Next!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6S7LRrCru8

From the video:

REPORTER: Authorities say they thought the water nozzle he was holding was a gun.



POLICE SPOKESMAN: As the subject was in a seated position, he used a two-handed pistol grip hold on an object with his arms fully extended...as like this [demonstrates] as the officers responded.



POLICE SPOKESMAN: ...Which is consistent with the behaviour of someone about to discharge a firearm, and he pointed that at one of the officers.

Okay, so a white trash drunk did something fucking stupid and an unfortunate, but entirely legal killing was the result.  Sad story, but not "unlawful police harassment."

Let me repeat myself, since it didn't seem to stick on it's journey between your ears: I'll find an article by a black person describing unlawful police harassment.  Then, you come up with something similar...

You're not even in the same galaxy with these examples.

[Gd5150]

Its funny the stupidity and close minded ignorance of the OP is clearly shown in the title. Never once is the persons color an issue. He was asked for his ID, he refused, at which point the cops arrested him. End of story. Any idiot of any color who refuses to cooperate with police will be treated the same way.

Shame theres so many pathetic white people who bend over backwards to attempt to create the perception of being non racist by being racist. The only people black people respect less than traditional ignorant white racists, are white neoracists who bend over with their white guilt to try to befriend and earn the respect of black people.

To the OP's credit, it is a great post. A classic illustration of politically correct ignorance.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Its funny the stupidity and close minded ignorance of the OP is clearly shown in the title. Never once is the persons color an issue. He was asked for his ID, he refused, at which point the cops arrested him. End of story.

It's hilarious that you talk repeatedly about "ignorance."  You were ignorant of the fact that what you describe above is ILLEGAL behaviour by police in Minnesota, and even though this has been explained and documented exhaustively in this thread, you STILL remain ignorant. 

It's that kind of perseverance in avoiding facts and knowledge that make you a conservative, and will keep you that way.

[PB the Deplorable]

Its funny the stupidity and close minded ignorance of the OP is clearly shown in the title. Never once is the persons color an issue. He was asked for his ID, he refused, at which point the cops arrested him. End of story. Any idiot of any color who refuses to cooperate with police will be treated the same way...

We all get the shitty end of the stick sometimes, choosing which battles to fight is something we all have to learn to do.

Knowing he was there to pick up his kids and they were going to be there any minute is not the time to get into a hassle with cops if it can be avoided.  Especially with these dumb cops.

[NowhereInTime]

We all get the shitty end of the stick sometimes, choosing which battles to fight is something we all have to learn to do.

Knowing he was there to pick up his kids and they were going to be there any minute is not the time to get into a hassle with cops if it can be avoided.  Especially with these dumb cops.

I knew you weren't totally evil.  I told people, they didn't believe me, but see?  Paper*Boy knows the score on some of the guys who are supposed to "protect and serve".

[RealCool Daddio]

Handcuffed.  In the back of a squad car.  Shot dead.

Coroner rules it a suicide.

Go ahead, guess what colour he was.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/08/new_iberia_mans_gunshot_death.html

[Quick Karl]

Handcuffed.  In the back of a squad car.  Shot dead.

Coroner rules it a suicide.

Go ahead, guess what colour he was.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/08/new_iberia_mans_gunshot_death.html

Too bad it wasn't you.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Too bad it wasn't you.

Tsk tsk Buick.  What would the Founding Fathers say?

[NowhereInTime]

Too bad it wasn't you.

Any one still asking "why?", this is why.