Tevlin: Lessons in Lollie videos, for untrained minds

When I first saw the video of St. Paul Police arresting Chris Lollie, a young black man, in the city's skyways, my gut instinct was it looked like overkill by the officers.

But the video, shot by Lollie, shows only his perspective. I count several cops among my friends, and I've seen how jumping to conclusions based on a single vantage point can be dangerous. So I withheld my opinions on the case until police released a second version of events, culled from video monitors inside First National Bank Building and Securian Center.

The new videos didn't change my mind.

Before St. Paul police showed the second set of videos to reporters, they tried to frame the event, explaining that viewing the two-dimensional video is a different experience than living it in real time, as the officers did. Seems obvious.

They even had reporters sign a very strange "video advisory" loaded with psychobabble clearly intended to alter the perceptions of the reporters. "The human brain, working through the lens of the human eye, is highly likely to perceive some things differently during stressful situations," the document said.

Ya think?

In other words, the police knew the new videos didn't help them much, so they issued an advisory that meant nothing and was nonbinding about anything.

I've watched the videos several times, and some things are still unclear. What is clear is that Lollie was sitting in what appears to be, and was later deemed to be by the city attorney, a public space.

He wasn't bothering anyone.

A security guard approached Lollie, and another woman sitting nearby, and told them to leave. Lollie's attorney, Andrew Irlbeck, said the woman was also black. The woman left, but Lollie stayed put. Another man, who appears to be white, sat down closer to the guard station. It doesn't appear he was ever told to move along.

Finally, Lollie gets up and leaves to pick up his kid from day care about the same time the first officer approached him and asks for identification.

Chris Wachtler, federation attorney for police, told reporters that if Lollie had "simply given officer [Lori] Hayne his name when she first encountered him some distance from the area in question, and agreed to have a rational conversation with her," the incident wouldn't have occurred.

"Because he didn't have to," said Irlbeck. "Everyone is so cowed by the government since 9/11" that they react negatively to anyone who is simply asserting their civil rights.

There was no evidence a crime had been committed, and no one was accusing Lollie of a crime, so he didn't have to show his identification.

"Nobody can point to any reason to stop him, other than race," said Irlbeck.

I'll give the police the benefit of the doubt. When called, they probably didn't know whether Lollie was in a public or private space, so they had the obligation to investigate.

But when the first officer arrived, saw it was a public area and witnessed Lollie leaving, "at that point the investigation is complete," said Irlbeck. The officer "knows no crime has been committed. That's why she walks along with him."

I asked two retired cops that I respect to give me their impressions of the videos. Seems even cops can look at the same video and come to different conclusions.

The first cop quickly sided with the officers, partly because — and I'll paraphrase here — Lollie was being a jerk.

Agreed. But being a jerk is not a crime; otherwise I'd have spent considerable time behind bars over the years.

Faced with the same situation, I likely would have complied and walked away unharmed, save for the small piece of my soul that I left behind.

But because I'm not a young black man, cops don't routinely stop me and ask for identification; Lollie is likely simply tired of it. I mentored a black teen for years, and the only time I was ever followed in a store was when we were together. Enough said.

The cops say Lollie was resisting arrest, but it's not supported by the videos.

Another retired cop I know, highly respected and decorated, who watched all the videos agreed Lollie didn't seem to be resisting, and said he wouldn't have used the Taser. The cop said it would have been smart for Lollie to play along ("sad but true") even though he didn't have to show identification.

"Sometimes when too many officers appear on the scene they overreact," said the retired cop, who didn't want his name used.

"The arrest was illegal, and he didn't physically resist," said Irlbeck. "Verbal resistance is not resistance. You are allowed to scream, 'why are you arresting me?' "

jtevlin@startribune.com 612-673-1702