Mgbako Arrested, Paying Small Fine for Misdemeanor

[Golfman25]

8 minutes ago, Ngw7183 said:

I will again say, you are reading the police report as 100% gospel. That is rarely the case. This is why we have trials, juries, witnesses etc.

look, he could have been a complete idiot but the assumption that he was is the problem.  Zero reason to believe he is a bad kid.  Why are so many assuming that he was 100% in the wrong? 

heck. Maybe he left, called his dad and his dad said no, go back, I am on my way. Don’t get out of the car. Maybe his dad didn’t understand situation. Maybe he did leave (as suggested) and when he came back to a different parking lot that wasn’t good enough for them? 

this is my number 1 issue with this. The assumption of pure guilt by some. 

That’s just it. If he went to a different parking lot, there technically is no trespass.  Sure it can be viewed as a smart @$$ move, but not illegal.  Busting a window to make an arrest under those circumstances is pretty iffy.  Which is why Chris may have said charges would eventually be dropped. Don’t forget, these kids have money now and can afford big $$ lawyers.  

[MikeRoberts]

7 hours ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

It would be nice if someone in the media would make the FOIA request and then publish the report.

Not sure we want that… be careful what you wish for

[MikeRoberts]

22 minutes ago, Ngw7183 said:

I will again say, you are reading the police report as 100% gospel. That is rarely the case. This is why we have trials, juries, witnesses etc.

look, he could have been a complete idiot but the assumption that he was is the problem.  Zero reason to believe he is a bad kid.  Why are so many assuming that he was 100% in the wrong? 

heck. Maybe he left, called his dad and his dad said no, go back, I am on my way. Don’t get out of the car. Maybe his dad didn’t understand situation. Maybe he did leave (as suggested) and when he came back to a different parking lot that wasn’t good enough for them? 

this is my number 1 issue with this. The assumption of pure guilt by some. 

You can ignore the police report in its entirety and go 100% off of Mack’s side of the story assuming the report shared by 007 is that.. not sure who else’s it could be.

in that case he refused to leave the drive through long enough for them to call the police and him still be sitting there when they arrived. 

he then complied and moved his car when police asked. When they told him to leave, he did but came back to the scene or within arms length and parked again.

why? Why when offered a chance to leave without incident, come back? 

if you are a cop and have a run in with someone and offer them a chance to leave, to have them leave and then come back only to sit in their car is a scary situation for a police officer. Did he go and get a weapon? What is going through that persons mind to have them return and refuse to unlock their car, get out, comply etc? 
 

 

[Alford Bailey]

9 minutes ago, MikeRoberts said:

Not sure we want that… be careful what you wish for

Not sure MM, his family or IU want this either.

[RaceToTheTop]

21 minutes ago, MikeRoberts said:

You can ignore the police report in its entirety and go 100% off of Mack’s side of the story assuming the report shared by 007 is that.. not sure who else’s it could be.

in that case he refused to leave the drive through long enough for them to call the police and him still be sitting there when they arrived. 

he then complied and moved his car when police asked. When they told him to leave, he did but came back to the scene or within arms length and parked again.

why? Why when offered a chance to leave without incident, come back? 

if you are a cop and have a run in with someone and offer them a chance to leave, to have them leave and then come back only to sit in their car is a scary situation for a police officer. Did he go and get a weapon? What is going through that persons mind to have them return and refuse to unlock their car, get out, comply etc? 
 

 

There is one part of the police report, though, that does give me pause.

Officers determined that Mgbako would be arrested for trespassing, but he then moved his vehicle to a nearby lot and parked again. Officers approached his vehicle and advised him that he was under arrest and that he needed to exit his vehicle, but he refused to do so. 

By that report, it says 'officers determined Mgbako would be arrested for trespassing.....but does NOT indicate that at that point the officers had informed MM that he was being arrested or was under arrest.  So it sounds like he was not told he was under arrest until after he left the property.  If that were not the case, I have no doubt that the report would have read that way.

---------

Piecing together the two stories would make it seem that MM was told he needed to leave, he said that he was waiting on his parents.  He did not leave and was refusing to.  This goes on for awhile.  Police decide that they are going to arrest him but had not informed him of this final decision and he leaves the property to go to another lot while waiting for his parents.  Police then go to that lot and arrest MM.

My question is:  at that point, why were they arresting him?  He had not been told he was under arrest and although he did ignore their directions to leave prior, he was now no longer on the property that he was asked to leave.  So what was the need for arrest at that point if they had indicated he was under arrest and had -- even if belatedly -- complied with their request?

Certainly not defending MM and he should have complied initially knowing the potential consequences, but I don't understand the actions of police here.  If they had wanted to arrest MM, there was ample opportunity to do so while he was on the property.  But they didn't until he left the property.

[Whoozhers]

Is it time to bring out the FAFO graph to find out what’s really going on?

Not sure.

Anyway, I hope this ends nil/nil. This dust up seems to be an unforced error. Certainly an unneeded distraction.

Regardless >> GO HOOSIERS!

[str8baller]

12 hours ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Piecing together the two stories would make it seem that MM was told he needed to leave, he said that he was waiting on his parents.  He did not leave and was refusing to.  This goes on for awhile.  Police decide that they are going to arrest him but had not informed him of this final decision and he leaves the property to go to another lot while waiting for his parents.  Police then go to that lot and arrest MM.

My question is:  at that point, why were they arresting him?  He had not been told he was under arrest and although he did ignore their directions to leave prior, he was now no longer on the property that he was asked to leave.  So what was the need for arrest at that point if they had indicated he was under arrest and had -- even if belatedly -- complied with their request?

Even assuming your version is true—the officers didn’t inform him, he drives away as they approach to inform him—if he just goes home the night ends. Worst case he maybe gets a ticket in the mail, which probably gets plead down to nothing or outright dropped in a couple months.  
 

Leaving and returning or returning to an adjacent lot is stupid under any circumstances. It’s also in line with reports of him being rude and uncooperative earlier. At that point the police are well within their rights to address the situation and issue the ticket. THEN the person is further uncooperative by locking themselves in their car. They have little choice but to make the arrest at that point.   
 

It’s probably just youthful naïveté, but MM screwed the pooch by not just going home. That is the simplest form of compliance and anyone scared of the police as some have implied would jump at the chance to get away from them and go home.  
 

In the end, it’s not going to be that big of a deal. This will go away and nobody will remember, especially if MM and/or IU have a good season. 

[Alford Bailey]

I’m reminded of a few situations I found myself in where the cops just telling me to leave was not an option LOL!

[ElectricBoogaloo]

21 hours ago, Muskie for three said:

I'm sure Bloomington makes it difficult and expensive . I thought it was 15 bucks where I'm from for handling time . But that was quite awhile back . 

"Handling time" for a public employee who is already paid by taxpayers. For body camera footage that is already funded by taxpayers. Ridiculous.

[Stuhoo]

27 minutes ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

"Handling time" for a public employee who is already paid by taxpayers. 

While what you're saying is accurate, IMO it's not that simple.

If there were no charge for public records requests, the amount of requests would be absolutely, unequivocally, unmanageable. Where I work there is one person to handle public records requests and they do so as a collateral duty. For each request, they have to look at and potentially redact every speck of production to insure that there is no non-disclosable information such as

• someone's social security number,
• information that is not disclosable because of pending law enforcement matters,
• protected health information or
• the name or face of a minor anywhere on the materials or video. 

Moreover, we routinely get public records requests that are overly or extremely broad, or are from people with mental health issues.

For instance, if the Bloomington Police got a request from a person with mental health issues or someone trolling that asked for "every document, email, or video of anything related to fraud, corruption, or terrorism in Bloomington for the past five years," that would take a full staff and they'd have to shut down what they were doing to handle it. And if that mentally diminished person or trolling person had their request filled, that same person would potentially be enabled to email a similarly broad request on a regular basis. THAT would cost the taxpayers a ton. By the way, that type of initial request happens fairly often (about 10-15 times a year)!

The answer?

• A charge per hour of employee time, with the first 30 minutes free.
• So, if someone asks for a specific document or video and the response can be easily and quickly inspected and then emailed to them, the charge is often $0.00.
• If the response would be estimated to take hundreds of hours? They get a cost estimate and are invited to narrow the scope of their request. and the request is then filled, but only once payment of the estimated cost is received.

 

[IndyResident16]

22 hours ago, Ngw7183 said:

I hear you and agree on the precedent. That you can’t run a police force this way.  But this was also a very minor dispute of accounts on a fast food incident. This was not a shooting, DUI etc where he asked to call his dad and wait. Nope! Don’t have time for that, let me break the glass and force you out of the car over a drive through dispute. 

What I don’t have a good answer for is what these kids are supposed to do in situations like this. The “comply always” crowd is dead wrong. People have lost their lives like that and false charges added etc. again, watch  “When they see us” and if that doesn’t change your opinion of always compiling then I don’t know what to tell you. 

I can see where he was potentially really scared. Probably never had a run in with police ever. I mean, he called his dad. Not another player etc. he wasn’t trying to hide that he was in trouble.  
 

We won’t solve the worlds problems with policing on here. However, we can stand against those who choose to assume guilt and land terrible accusations against a kid who by all accounts is a stellar kid with great parents. Some of the things said are so upsetting. 

"Comply always" crowd???

You think if MM simply left the establishment and went the hell home during the 15 minute window they continually asked him to leave the premises the situation still escalates the way it did? I'm going to say that's a big fat NO.

[IndyResident16]

15 hours ago, Ngw7183 said:

look, he could have been a complete idiot but the assumption that he was is the problem.  Zero reason to believe he is a bad kid.  Why are so many assuming that he was 100% in the wrong? 

Cursing at fast food employees to the effect of having the police called on you automatically puts you in the wrong. How silly can you be?

[Stuhoo]

3 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

Cursing at fast food employees to the effect of having the police called on you automatically puts you in the wrong. How silly can you be?

Maybe, but maybe not. 

Until you truly know what happened, you are making conclusions based on suppositions.

[IndyResident16]

1 minute ago, Stuhoo said:

Maybe, but maybe not. 

Until you truly know what happened, you are making conclusions based on suppositions.

Taco Bell called to have him criminally trespassed. Fast food joints don't call the police to have you criminally trespassed just for the hell of it. 

[Stuhoo]

7 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

Taco Bell called to have him criminally trespassed. Fast food joints don't call the police to have you criminally trespassed just for the hell of it. 

It seems pretty clear to me that he would not leave the drive thru lane, where he was in an argument with the employees.

And therefore they called the police. 

What was said by Mgbako or the employees is a guess. So, I can't know for sure who was at fault and who acted appropriately. I can speculate that many of the participants in this share some blame because that's usually how it goes. But I do not know because I haven't seen the evidence.

[IndyResident16]

5 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

It seems pretty clear to me that he would not leave the drive thru lane, where he was in an argument with the employees.

And therefore they called the police. 

What was said by Mgbako or the employees is a guess. So, I can't know for sure who was at fault and who acted appropriately. I can speculate that many of the participants in this share some blame because that's usually how it goes. But I do not know because I haven't seen the evidence.

What does it matter what was said? He was asked to leave a private establishment and refused to the extent the police were called. That automatically puts him in the wrong.

[Stuhoo]

13 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

What does it matter what was said? He was asked to leave a private establishment and refused to the extent the police were called. That automatically puts him in the wrong.

For sure! If that's what happened (and I don't doubt that) then he certainly bears a real part of the blame and that would have accelerated what was already not going well.  But the entirety of the people who may have acted inappropriately is still up for conjecture. 

For instance (and i am not saying this happened because i just don't know); if he pre-paid for his food and was asked to get his car out of the drive-thru lane while they called the police, but stayed there in the lot because he wanted to tell the police they ripped him off (in his mind)? 

Lots of "ifs."

[Golfman25]

24 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

Taco Bell called to have him criminally trespassed. Fast food joints don't call the police to have you criminally trespassed just for the hell of it. 

There isn't an employee at a Taco Bell that knows what a criminal trespass is.    They called because some dude was yelling at them for his food and wouldn't leave the drive thru.  :)

[mamasa]

25 minutes ago, IndyResident16 said:

Taco Bell called to have him criminally trespassed. Fast food joints don't call the police to have you criminally trespassed just for the hell of it. 

Mmm, I’ll disagree. I’ve seen people trespassed because someone working there has a beef w the “trespasser”, I’ve seen police called because someone working wants to get someone else in trouble, etc. Just because they’re the ones that initiated the police call doesn’t mean they didn’t contribute to the problem 

[Stuhoo]

1 minute ago, Golfman25 said:

There isn't an employee at a Taco Bell that knows what a criminal trespass is.    They called because some dude was yelling at them for his food and wouldn't leave the drive thru.  :)

Also entirely likely! But I also don't know if that's what happened either.