Okay, but the guy was sitting in a chair when this whole thing started. Why put a chair there if you don't want loitering?
I have no idea. I do know the article is really giving only one side of the story. Whether the other side holds any water or not simply can’t be determined.
The subtext is that a black man minding his own business was rousted from a semi-public space for the crime of sitting while black. That fits it nicely with the liberal POV, but I just don’t buy it. I sincerely doubt low-paid security guys go looking for this type of trouble without any reason.
IOW, I don’t know what happened, but I suspect it isn’t as simple as the story portrays. Much as with the Trayvon and Ferguson issues, the story is almost certainly more complex, and quite possibly the opposite of what is initially portrayed.