In my opinion, it changes the narrative if Daniele Watts and Brian Lucas were engaged in sex

[cali]

in public view. Witnesses claim that's what was going on. So if someone called the cops because of that (on the tape the cop can be heard saying that the report was that they were engaged in "lewd acts&quot , it seems to me there's reasonable doubt that is about racism.

I also listened to the interview with Daniele and Brian on CNN, and they didn't exactly wholeheartedly deny that they were engaged in sex.

Look, if you're going to get into it in public, you're taking your chances.

Brian claims that the cop says that the clip doesn't show the beginning, and that the cop says he had a call about a black and white couple.

And it seems as if the cop did have probable cause to ask for I.D. Oh, and I don't see the cop as sounding rude or imperious.

Frankly, I think that they both sound a tad entitled.

Pile on.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/14/showbiz/django-unchained-actress-detained/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. She'd have been cuffed for something different if that was the case.

And so would he. The fact that they cuffed exactly one person - her, shows that they weren't looking to arrest for 'engaging in sex in public'.

Also, most states don't actually have a law requiring you to present ID to police. Usually, in states that have identification laws, you're required to state your real name, address, and maybe birthdate. Not actually present ID to back that info up.

[cali]

3. He gave them his ID. She refused. The cop gave her more than one opportunity

to avoid being cuffed. so, no, it doesn't show what you claim. And if there is probable cause, you do have to show your ID.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. How does giving ID show that he wasn't engaged in sex in public?

Again, the fact that only she was cuffed shows that it wasn't about 'having sex in public', unless he's claiming she was masturbating, and that the boyfriend/husband wasn't involved. So the 'real' crime for which she was cuffed, by the facts on the ground, was 'failure to respect his authoritah!'. What was the 'probable cause'? An anonymous tip from some neanderthal who didn't like interracial couples?

Again, if it was truly about the sex, they would have both ended up cuffed, ID or no ID.

[cali]

7. it doesn't demonstrate that. My only point is that he had the legal right to ask for ID

because the phone call constitutes probable cause that an illegal activity may have taken place. He asked them both for I.D. The husband/boyfriend complied. She refused; thus the difference in treatment. And yes, she got cuffed because she didn't respect his authority/comply with his instructions. There is NO reason to believe that had he refused to show ID that he wouldn't have been cuffed too. It couldn't be clearer that she was cuffed for refusing his instructions. If she had show her ID when requested, she wouldn't have been cuffed. And anonymous tips are often used as probable cause. It may have been a racist who called or it may have been someone who is offended by public sex. That we really have no way of knowing.

[jeff47]

31. Nope.

My only point is that he had the legal right to ask for ID because the phone call constitutes probable cause that an illegal activity may have taken place.

Nope.

The cop would have to witness the act, or a complaining witness would have to point them out to the cop.

(Not a lawyer, but I'm not sure a complaining witness is sufficient for an infraction like public lewdness. Might have to be witnessed by the cop)

There is NO reason to believe that had he refused to show ID that he wouldn't have been cuffed too.

Yes, gender and skin color have no effect on how police react to people in this country.

It couldn't be clearer that she was cuffed for refusing his instructions.

Which means the cop violated CA law.

If she had show her ID when requested, she wouldn't have been cuffed.

Based on what? Your claim is that we don't know all the info, so we should not get angry about the cops breaking the law. Yet you assert she would not have been arrested based on nothing.

And anonymous tips are often used as probable cause.

It's sufficient cause to walk up to the car and see what's going on. It is not sufficient cause to arrest.

[uponit7771]

14. True...ID or none if they we're having sex in public the id....

...would make no difference

[randome]

17. I think often a cop asks for an ID to simply see the individual's reaction.

Someone who is trying to hide something may well refuse. That doesn't mean the cop intended or should have leaped to that conclusion, it's just a way to ascertain the attitude of someone you have been called upon to investigate.

Remember, a cop in this situation has no idea who is who when he/she arrives on the scene.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

32. He assumed she was a prostitute

I mean, how many couples are having sex in broad daylight? From a cop's point of view, that's probably a reasonable assumption.

[LisaL]

87. If he assumed anything, he never told her.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

173. Well, he did

the cop did ask her boyfriend/husband if he "knew her?"

[LisaL]

176. Cop was trying to ID her since she refused to provide an ID.

She didn't name herself either.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

181. He must have thought she could be a prostitute

Otherwise, he wouldn't have asked the question.

It makes no sense, otherwise. If you assume they're going out or married, you assume they know each other!

[hfojvt]

52. if she is a prostitute

then why shouldn't they both be cuffed for that? Both the prostitute and the john are breaking the law after all. Aren't they?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. That was my read on it.

I'm pretty sure both sides are illegal everywhere in the US outside of one small area in Nevada.

[pnwmom]

95. But she wasn't arrested for that. She was arrested for not giving her ID,

which is not required by law in California.

[LisaL]

107. She was not arrested. She was detained.

So they could find out her identity. Since she refused to give them her ID. Per law, they can do it.

PEREIRA: I know that we asked a couple of our legal analysts, because we wanted to understand what the law is in California. Because many of us wonder, do police have the right to ask you for ID? In California the police, if they have reasonable suspicion, they are permitted to detain an individual for a reasonable amount of time in order to ascertain the person's identity. You also heard on the video there, the police officer even saying look, if you just give me your ID, 15 minutes ago I could have been gone. Do you regret just not handing him your ID now or do you still feel strongly like I didn't have to?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1409/15/nday.06.html

[pnwmom]

108. But this all hinges on reasonable suspicion. Should they have had any reasonable suspicion,

when all they found were two fully clothed people, one of whom was on the phone with her father?

Should any Gladys Kravitz be able to phone in tips that cause people to be "detained" by a "reasonable" amount of time by the police?

[LisaL]

110. Per police, there was a 911 call about lewd acts being committed in the car.

She herself admits they were making out in the car.
How is that not reasonable suspicion?

[pnwmom]

118. There is no law against making out, and no reasonable suspicion to me

based on a phone tip that they were doing more than that. It just isn't reasonable for the police to take action on every phoned-in tip when they find no evidence at the scene.

I just found this statement by a police officer who says in CA they don't have the right to detain for ID -- but people should provide it anyway, because they can't know if the officer has probable cause.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711011931AAbmgHG

Just because we're police officers does not allow us to require identification from people.

Hiibel v. Nevada does not apply in California, even though it was decided by the US Supreme Court, because California has no statute requiring you to identify yourself when detained on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Nevada does, and Hiibel was convicted of violating it. If California had such a law, then Hiibel would apply. California does have a law having to do with resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer performing his duties, and it's possible someone can make a case for this if you refuse to ID yourself - I haven't seen it done yet, though.

[LisaL]

119. What action did police took other than asking her for an ID?

Why isn't it reasonable to ask for an ID given an accusation of lewd acts committed in public?

[pnwmom]

121. They detained her. They put her in handcuffs. And it would have been more reasonable

to think, when you find a woman talking on the phone to her father, who acknowledges previously making out in the car, to believe her. The person on the phone could be a crank, a racist, or just a busybody. Why put any credence in what that person said when nothing was found at the scene? And she told the police she had a publicist. Does that sound like something a prostitute would come up with? Should a reasonable officer have had a clue?

[pnwmom]

124. The police did detain her (or arrest her -- that's unclear) on suspicion of prostitution.

I haven't seen any reports of the police finding them "making out" or whatever -- have you? The only description I've heard is that she was on the phone. What seems clear is that the police found no evidence that she had done anything wrong, and let her go. So why did they have the right to arrest or detain her just on the basis of a telephone tip? Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-django-unchained-actress-arrested-on-suspicion-of-prostitution-2014-9

'Django Unchained' Actress Was Arrested On Suspicion Of Prostitution After Kissing Her Husband In Public

The Los Angeles Police Department said Sunday it had responded to a radio call from a concerned citizen about "indecent exposure" inside a silver Mercedes with the door open.

Following the pair's arrest, "upon further investigation it was determined that no crime had been committed" and they were released, the LAPD said.

[LisaL]

129. It appears to be a poorly written article.

It claims he was handcuffed which isn't true.
She wasn't accused of prostitution. The call was about lewd acts (which can occur without prostitution).
I don't believe she is married to this guy. He is her boyfriend, not her husband.
She was making out with him by her own admission.

[pnwmom]

130. I agree. But the bottom line to me is that the police didn't find any sign of a crime.

Which means they probably didn't see anything suspicious when they got there. Which means their detaining her, or arresting her (handcuffs were involved) wasn't reasonable.

[LisaL]

131. So police can only arrest/detain someone if they personally see a crime?

Obviously that is not the case.

[pnwmom]

134. If the crime consists of a DISPLAY, then yes, the police should SEE it.

Otherwise, it's just the word of some tipster on the phone vs. what the police can see with their own eyes.

I think the accused person should be given the benefit of the doubt. In this case, the police did give her the benefit of the doubt, after detaining her, since they ended up releasing her, having found "no evidence of a crime."

I see no reason for detaining anybody once the police followed up on the tip of indecent exposure and found two people wearing shorts and tops.

[cali]

143. so some flasher in the park shouldn't be bothered because the police didn't see that DISPLAY

brilliant.

[jeff47]

162. Either the cop has to see it, or a witness has to be with the cop saying "That's him, officer".

"There was a guy who looked like this flashing 30 minutes ago" is not sufficient for an arrest.

[LisaL]

171. How do you know what witness said or didn't say?

Per tmz, there were witnesses who claimed the two of them were having sex.

[jeff47]

198. There were no witnesses present in the video of the arrest.

The only people there were the cops and the couple. There were no complaining witnesses saying "that's them".

And I could tell TMZ you do all sorts of crazy things. Doesn't make them true.

[cali]

185. And Watts and Lucas weren't arrested.

[jeff47]

197. Actually, she was

Arrested is when you are not free to leave. She was not free to leave. The handcuffs are a big hint.

Police and their friends call it "detained" as a way to make it not sound as bad as "arrested". That's still what happened.

[pnwmom]

191. YES. n/t

[LisaL]

170. Ludicrous, isn't it?

I remember being questioned about a flasher in the park when I was a child. Police got reports, didn't see the falsher personally, but they still investigated.
They don't have to actually see the flasher personally for them to investigate the crimes of display.

[pnwmom]

192. But that's different. It's appropriate to ask other people in the park if they've seen something,

after getting a phoned-in tip. That's very different from detaining some fully dressed guy they see in the park because he may (or may not) match the description in the phone call. The people in the park could point out the actual person they saw doing the flashing.

But just using phoned-in tips as a basis for detaining people is a recipe for harassment.

In this case, there hasn't been one word written that there were onlookers in the area who personally told police they had seen anything, and wanted charges pressed. That would be different.

[pnwmom]

190. Not if their only evidence was a phoned-in tip, no. That would be a way to harass anyone

you wanted to harass.

[tonedevil]

208. A witness would...

have to swear out a complaint. At least that seems to be the way they handle it in my neck of the woods.

[KurtNYC]

64. Audio available here:

http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/15/django-actress-daniele-watts-lapd-race-card-fame-audio/

Daniele Watts had just left CBS studios in the San Fernando Valley around 2 PM Thursday. She says she was making out with her BF, but we've learned witnesses from the nearby Art Directors Guild office building told cops they were watching her and her BF have full-on sex in the passenger seat with the door open.

http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/15/django-actress-daniele-watts-lapd-race-card-fame-audio/#ixzz3DQ4s5W4P
(not my favorite source but the audio is of value in determining what really happened)

Many things in the original version of this are proven false now:

- the couple weren't merely "kissing" but rather were engaging all the way to climax with car door open at 2PM on a busy street in full view of the Art Director's Guild offices
- no mention of prostitution; the charge was to be "indecent exposure"
- Danielle Watts and Lucas are not married (not that it matters much, certainly not to me)
- Watts was cuffed after walking ("storms off&quot away from the scene

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

66. All of which is fine, but...

I'm gonna keep saying, if the crime was something that takes two people to do, then if you're being cuffed FOR THAT CRIME, then you cuff both people.

She was apparently cuffed for 'not respecting his authoritah'. White guy gives in, doesn't get cuffed. She stands her ground, gets cuffed.

[KurtNYC]

73. Did not "stand." She tried to walk away. That will get you cuffed no matter who you are.

In the audio she admits to having sex in public view, implies that she knew many people were watching them. Multiple witnesses confirm this.

She attempted to leave the scene of the crime during questioning, defied a lawful order to produce ID, abused the cops verbally and still got off (no pun intended) with a just warning.

[cali]

90. One more time: she was not cuffed for indecent exposure or lewd acts

she was cuffed for not showing ID when requested upon probable cause (the the telephone call(s)). He showed his ID upon request. She did not.

[jeff47]

164. A telephone call is not probable cause.

The cops have no idea if it's the correct car. The actual offenders could have driven off, or walked away.

The cops either have to see the lewd act, or they need a complaining witness identifying the offenders at the time the cops arrest the offenders. Then they can demand ID.

The cops didn't see the lewd act, nor did they have a complaining witness. All they could do is tell the couple, "We've had some complaints. Please move along". Even then, it's doubtful they could force the couple to move.

[cali]

186. yes it is. the caller described the couple and the attire they were wearing.

[jeff47]

199. And I bet I could find several identical couples in LA.

With ~15M people, it's not all that hard.

Again, the cop shows up and sees someone that kinda looks like the caller described. That is not proof that it is the people the caller described. The correct procedure at that point is to go get the caller, and have them positively identify the couple.

If they arrested a random black woman in a white shirt who was walking through the area, you'd be incensed. That is why the call alone is not sufficient probable cause.

[LisaL]

221. Per the police, witness gave a license plate number.

That's unique, if you didn't know. There is not going to be 15M cars with the same license plate number.

[alp227]

125. UGH. The 911 callers = snitches. nt

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

174. Snitches?

Really? Anybody having sex outside my office in the car with the door open will probably have a few snitches on them, too!

Snitches? They deserved to be snitched on!

[kiva]

215. Good for them.

Someone decides to have sex in their car in front of my house, I'm dialing 311. Seriously, why would you think it's OK to have pubic sex?

[cwydro]

217. "pubic" sex?

Pretty sure you made a typo there, but it still cracked me up.

[kiva]

220. A typo,

but what a typo Damn, those painkillers play hell with the spelling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. Not in America ...

She'd have been cuffed for something different if that was the case. And so would he. The fact that they cuffed exactly one person - her, shows that they weren't looking to arrest for 'engaging in sex in public'.

Too many times. one is cuffed; the other is sent on their way, with maybe a stern warning. Race, often, is the determining factor.

[joeglow3]

149. Evidence seems to indicate that is not the case here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

158. Ahhh, evidence! ...

But does that negate my observation of the current state?

[joeglow3]

178. I don't disagree with that

[hughee99]

2. I have to admit it changes the way I look at the story.

I don't know if it's true, or what "lewd acts" consists of, but if they are what I think they are, I suspect people will rather quickly stop using this as an example of out-of-control, racist police officers.

[snooper2]

5. You know, I heard about crying after sex

but this is ridiculous

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Your concern is noted, however...

I think it's best to wait for all the facts to emerge. Just because they didn't deny they were engaging in sex, it doesn't mean they were.

Were they engaging in sex? I have no idea.

The witnesses are most likely white, so cops and society in general will take them at their word and will not question their motivations, background etc...

Black witnesses and unarmed victims do not have that privilege. Every piece of their life will be examined and white America will go over their past with a fine tooth comb.

Just look at Ferguson....the motivations of the witnesses are being questioned like crazy. It used to be that blacks weren't even allowed to testify against whites. Now days white America attempts to simply discredit African American witnesses immediately.

I don't know what happened and neither do you.

[cali]

13. yeah, yeah. why not just have some guts and call me a racist.

You haven't waited for all the facts to emerge but you demand I do. You jump to conclusions and accuse me of doing so. double standard much?

I completely agree that black people in this country are often mistreated by cops and that it is a serious problem that cries out for a remedy on a federal and community level, but I'm not convinced that this incident falls into that category.

I don't know what happened, I'm speculating and you sure as hell are as well. For instance:
"The witnesses are most likely white....". Guess what? That's called speculation. Try practicing what you preach.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. I said that I have no idea what happened

My post:

I think it's best to wait for all the facts to emerge.

<...>

Were they engaging in sex? I have no idea.

<...>

I don't know what happened and neither do you.

Reading is fundamental.

You're the one jumping to conclusions and the OP is a good example.

Your immediate instinct is to discredit the African American woman who says she was victimized by police, which is not surprising.

My instinct, like I said, is to wait for the facts to emerge.

Two different approaches and perspectives.

[joeglow3]

150. You claimed the witnesses were "most likely white"

Based on the evidence so far, it appears she is "most likely full of shit."

[NCTraveler]

201. Why are the witnesses most likely white?

Going by park stats?

[Cali_Democrat]

204. I grew up in a diverse area with a good amount of whites, blacks asians etc...

It's my experience that white people tend to stick their noses in other people's business more and call the cops more than other races.

Minorities are more suspicious of police and will keep to themselves more.

Just my experience.

Are they white?

I have no idea.

[NCTraveler]

212. You summed it up nicely in your last two sentences.

"Are they white? I have no idea." Better than your previous claim. Should have stuck with it from the start.

"It's my experience that white people tend to stick their noses in other people's business more and call the cops more than other races."

So, If a neighbor is beating his wife he is more likely to get help from a white person. If a neighbor hears gunshots there is a greater chance of a white person calling the cops. If children are buying crack from a neighborhood addict it is the white neighbors who will call the cops. If someone is having sex in a park it is the white members of the community who will call the cops.

None of that has to do with minding your own business or not or sticking ones nose in others business.

Once again, you summed it up nicely with "I have no idea".

[Cali_Democrat]

213. Your hypotheticals are interesting

But still don't take away from my experiences when it comes to people calling the police and being a nosey busbody.

Many minorities are hesitant to call police because there's simply a lack of trust between police and minorities. People having sex in a car? Out of all the problems in the world, that ranks pretty low on many peoples lists.

Also, statistics show that cops do indeed engage in racial profiling and tend to target minorities more often than other races. See 'stop and frisk' and the contraband stats from cities like Ferguson. See people having sex in a public place? Better to just go about your own business than call folks who disproportionately target you.

I think you could use a little more education when it comes to these issues. It's clear you don't really understand the dynamic between police and minorities.

That's the case with people who grew up in sheltered/homogeneous environments.

[951-Riverside]

8. Hey Daniele Watts, Good luck ever getting another job in the industry. NEXT! n/t

[geek tragedy]

12. Didn't get enough victim-blaming in yet? nt

[Egnever]

83. She is not a victim

she is a self entitled asshat.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

175. +1

Self entitled actress.

[progressoid]

92. What is this, 1950?

Sex scandals don't ruin careers in Hollywood today, they improve them.

[joeybee12]

9. If this were Joe and Beverly Schmoe saying it was racism,

you know, I'd believe them, at least initially until facts indictaed otherwise. However, I've dealt with enough actresses and other Hollywood-types to have my doubts about the veracity of her claims...more is sure to come out, one way or the other.

[uponit7771]

10. to some a white person kissing a black person is lewd...

...the lack of specific s is telling

[cali]

15. what lack of specifics? Witnesses claimed they were having sex in the passenger seat of their car.

[uponit7771]

43. Witness could be dead wrong, cops should check first and the question of why they weren't

... arrested for lewdness (or similar ) is pretty valid no?

[LisaL]

72. What is it that you expect cop to check?

It seems that by the time the cop arrived, they were no longer doing whatever it is they were doing when witness called it in.

[joeglow3]

151. How do they check?

If a school calls police because a man is exposing himself to kids, are the cops rendered helpless when they show up and the man is fully clothed?

[jeff47]

165. No, because the school personnel are complaining witnesses.

When the police arrive, they can say "That was the man, officer".

In this situation, the cops did not have any complaining witnesses with them to ID the couple.

[geek tragedy]

11. I disagree.

1) if it was having sex in public, then why ask for ID then release after getting it? They cuffed her for not showing ID, not for public lewdness;

2) if public lewdness, why not just arrest instead of demanding ID's;

3) why wasn't husband cuffed/asked to produce ID?

[cali]

16. He was asked to produce ID and immediately complied.

I don't know why they asked for ID when they clearly had no intention of arresting either one of them- and she wasn't at any point arrested.

[jeff47]

21. She was not free to leave. Thus she was arrested.

The handcuffs are a big hint.

[Rex]

65. No, no...the new term for it now is 'detained'.

She wasn't arrested, just detained for the officers safety.

[jeff47]

99. Unfortunately for the officers, it's still legally an arrest no matter what they call it (nt)

[951-Riverside]

25. "Just do what we say and there won't be any trouble"

First it starts with ID, then it'll be pat-downs, then it'll be cavity searches then it'll be "...hey you look cute, why don't we go over to these bushes and talk about it?".

she wasn't at any point arrested.

I really hate playing word games, she was in cuffs and not free to leave. Arrested, detained, "questioned" or whatever you want to call it , she was not free to go.

[In_The_Wind]

138. Oh my!

[geek tragedy]

26. They had intent to arrest--they figured she was a street prostitute

turning tricks. They couldn't write a ticket for public lewdness without the cop witnessing it himself.

[kiva]

62. Have you listened to the tape?

Where on the actual tape of the encounter do you hear the word 'prostitute'?

[LisaL]

86. Exactly.

Nobody called her a prostitute.
Cop was responding to a 911 call about lewd acts in the car. She herself admits she and her boyfriend were making out in the car.

[randome]

18. Cops make an assessment on the spur of the moment sometimes.

Someone who refused to show an ID when the cops have a legitimate call starts looking a tad suspicious to them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

23. So, cops get to ignore the law when they are a tad suspicious?

CA law does not allow them to demand ID. Being "a tad suspicious" is not sufficient probable cause.

[randome]

28. When they arrive on the scene, what are they supposed to do? Nothing?

They probably should have just said something like, "We had a call of public lewdness so if that was you, you'd better go home." And be finished with it.

But without being on the scene, we don't know if something happened to make them take a second look. And then refusing to show your ID to an investigating officer was probably not a good idea. If they can't take you in for refusing to show an ID, then a civil suit should ensue.

But I bet it won't. I bet there's a loophole somewhere.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

33. Yes, nothing. Look around, see no evidence of a crime, move on.

Cop thought he had busted a street prostitute. And everyone knows how respectful LEO's are under such circumstances.

[WillowTree]

166. Did you listen to the recordings?

The cop didn't sound the least bit hostile or accuseatory or disrespectful to me. Frankly, he sounded more amused at her over-the-top histrionics than anything else.

[jeff47]

35. Legally, they were entitled to say "Hi, what's up?"

They probably should have just said something like, "We had a call of public lewdness so if that was you, you'd better go home." And be finished with it.

Yep, to comply with the law, that's what they should have done. Unless they witnessed the "public lewdness" themselves.

And then refusing to show your ID to an investigating officer was probably not a good idea.

There's these things called laws. Police officers have to actually follow them. In CA, you are not required to show ID.

In fact, your response to a request for ID can be "Fuck you, facist pig" and they can not legally do anything to you for it. Key word, of course, being "legally".

If they can't take you in for refusing to show an ID, then a civil suit should ensue.

Depends on whether or not it's worth the money. Lawyers aren't cheap. If it's going to cost $250k to sue, and the expected penalty is $50k, there will not be a lawsuit even though it is legally justified.

[randome]

36. Agree with everything you said. But you're "simply" stating facts.

A cop arrives on the scene, gives these two a pass and leaves. An hour later, a domestic scuffle ensues and someone ends up dead.

The cop just ended his career. Everything you said is true, true, true. But things always look different at ground level. These are all human beings and cops don't consult a manual when they go out on a call. Purely from their standpoint, they want to make sure they don't commit some sin of omission. Or leniency, if you will.

Just speculating, of course.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

40. Breaking the law is a lot more problematic for police

than complying with the law and something bad happening later.

If there's no evidence of a "domestic scuffle" when the cop shows up, there's nothing the cop can do. As a result, if there's no evidence it isn't a "black mark" for the cop if someone ends up dead.

OTOH, these cops are now in deep shit for false arrest, since they did it to someone famous. And by falsely arresting someone famous, they might actually get punished for it.

These are all human beings and cops don't consult a manual when they go out on a call.

That's because they're supposed to be familiar with some basic legal concepts. Such as when they can actually demand ID.

[Louisiana1976]

53. I hope the cops who are now in "deep shit for false arrest" are punished for it. They violated the

woman's rights by cuffing her since she didn't have to provide ID when the cops asked for it.

[LisaL]

106. No, they didn't.

"PEREIRA: I know that we asked a couple of our legal analysts, because we wanted to understand what the law is in California. Because many of us wonder, do police have the right to ask you for ID? In California the police, if they have reasonable suspicion, they are permitted to detain an individual for a reasonable amount of time in order to ascertain the person's identity. You also heard on the video there, the police officer even saying look, if you just give me your ID, 15 minutes ago I could have been gone. Do you regret just not handing him your ID now or do you still feel strongly like I didn't have to?"


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1409/15/nday.06.html

[geek tragedy]

24. Legit call?

Seems more likely they were working the prostitution theory, something they wouldn't be doing if it was two white people. I mean, really, squad car goes out to investigate an anonymous complaint of public lewdness and interrogates two fully clothed people?

[randome]

27. Were there other cars around? Maybe they had reason to think the call related to these two.

I'm really not trying to defend anyone, just pointing out an alternate explanation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

30. Even so, no crime in progress/in evidence.

He couldn't even write a ticket for a $100 fine.

[randome]

34. I think the cops were not smart.

But like the husband, I would have pulled out my ID and been done with it. You don't deal with 'not smart' people by making a minor incident into some sort of grand civil rights display.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[geek tragedy]

37. Having never been racially profiled by cops,

I'm not going to second-guess African-Americans who take a stand against such practices.

[randome]

38. I hear that.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[snooper2]

182. so you still haven't listened to the audio I take it

[snooper2]

20. I take it you haven't listed to the audio

if we are lucky we'll get some video from a traffic cam or something

If I saw to people getting it on in a car in a public place I would start rolling film-

[LisaL]

69. Then sell it to TMZ for big $$$.

LOL.

[jeff47]

19. And they didn't arrest/cite him because...........?

If it was indeed sex in public, why didn't they cite or arrest him? Why didn't they cite her for sex in public?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

57. Because 95% of cops aren't going to arrest a married straight couple for screwing around in a car

....unless they make it a habit. That's just how it is. They just shoo them away, which was what this cop was probably trying to do, while still following procedure and checking ID like he should do for any stop.

By the way, you know why most cops respond to making out/public sex complaints? To make sure the woman is not in danger. Also another good reason to check ID. If the woman had been kidnapped or reported as in danger by her relatives, and the cop didn't check the ID, can you imagine the shitstorm DU's resident anti-cop task force would be wallowing in?

[LisaL]

68. As far as I can tell, they aren't actually married.

She refers to him as her boyfriend.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

75. I've heard all sorts of different reports as to what the relationship is

Either way, a straight couple will get the benefit of the doubt and be allowed to go on their way, unless they legit suspect prostitution or a couple actively trying to get their jollies by putting on a show for the public.

A gay couple? Well, forget it.

[LisaL]

84. Cop was going to let her go after she showed her ID. Which he told her repeatedly.

I am not sure what her objection was to showing her ID.
Did she expect the cop should have known who she was already?
What difference does it make to a cop that she has a publicist?

[jeff47]

100. How dare she expect the cop to follow the law.

CA law does not allow the cop to ask for ID. So it really doesn't matter why she didn't want to show it. The cop broke the law by arresting her when she didn't show ID.

[LisaL]

104. Police did follow the law.

Police had a right to ask for an ID since there was 911 call reporting lewd acts in the car.

[jeff47]

112. Nope.

No complaining witness to ID her, and the cops did not see the lewd act themselves. Thus no right to ask for ID.

[LisaL]

116. Per TMZ, there were witnesses.

So, why did you get this idea that there were none?

[jeff47]

140. There were people who talked to TMZ. However, the cops showed up and put on the cuffs

without talking to any witnesses.

[jeff47]

102. Utterly wrong.

They just shoo them away, which was what this cop was probably trying to do, while still following procedure and checking ID like he should do for any stop.

CA law does not allow the cop to check ID. So no, it is not procedure.

The cop made a false arrest. Because the person is famous, he's gonna be in some deep shit for it.

By the way, you know why most cops respond to making out/public sex complaints? To make sure the woman is not in danger. Also another good reason to check ID.

Then you better get to work changing CA law so they can do so.

Alternatively, you could not come up with lame-ass excuses to move us towards police shouting "Papers, please!!"

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

109. We've already been through

CA law doesn't allow him to randomly stop someone and ask for ID. He was called to a complaint and had probable cause based on witness description who was involved. The more that comes out about it, the more this cop would have had a problem with "just letting them go" if the witnesses who called were standing right there.

Then you better get to work changing CA law so they can do so.

Alternatively, you could not come up with lame-ass excuses to move us towards police shouting "Papers, please!!"

And you snipped the rest of what I said because you know my "lame-ass" excuse of what would happen is 100% fucking correct. I'm guessing you'd lead the brigade.

[jeff47]

113. The cop had no complaining witness, and did not see the lewd acts himself.

Thus he had no probable cause to ask for ID.

And you snipped the rest of what I said because you know my "lame-ass" excuse of what would happen is 100% fucking correct.

No, it was a lame-ass excuse trying to justify forcing everyone to carry ID 100% of the time based on fearmongering. First about kidnapped women, then claiming the cops would be blamed when the cops followed the law.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

115. You're writing that with a straight face?

If a cop let a guy drive off with a woman who was endangered missing without checking their ID, DU WOULD SIMPLY SAY "OH WELL THE COP DID HIS JOB AND FOLLOWED THE LAW, SUCKS BUT THOSE ARE THE BREAKS" not "FUCKING LAZY ASS FUCKING PIG BAD COP NO DONUT WHAT ARE MY TAX DOLLARS PAYING FOR?????".

Seriously?

[jeff47]

141. Yes, seriously.

Some of us would prefer to not live in a police state.

[joeglow3]

152. You think that is what a police state is like?

[jeff47]

154. Demanding people carry ID at all times and show it to the police on demand

is one of the big steps towards it.

If the woman mouths "Help me!", the cops now have probable cause. If the woman looks injured or distressed, the cops have probable cause. If the woman is just sitting there, or is making out with the guy, the cops do not have probable cause.

[joeglow3]

177. What if police are called to a school because of a creepy man in a trenchcoat flashing kids?

If they show up, there are no witnesses, but a creepy looking man in a trenchcoat, can they do anything?

[cali]

145. CA law allows cops to check idea if they have probable cause

the phone calls constitute probable cause. and I'd bet anything that you are wrong; the cop will not be in "deep shit'.

[jeff47]

147. No, the phone calls do not. The calls do not identify the suspect.

The cop has no way to know if that is the couple that the caller was complaining about.

The cops did not see any lewd acts, and did not have a complaining witness to identify the couple. So there was no probable cause.

[ksoze]

148. Did we hear the 911 calls or just speculating?

How do we know what the caller said or identified in that call which was relayed to the patrol cop. Did they ID a type of car, color of car, etc?

[jeff47]

153. Because ID the type of car, color, etc isn't enough.

The cops either need to witness a crime themselves, or they need someone standing there saying "That's them, officer!!" in order to make an arrest.

Saying "they're in a blue Honda at this intersection" isn't enough, because there's lots of blue Hondas. The cop has no idea if the car with the offenders has pulled away - it's not like they responded quickly.

It's enough to walk up to the car and ask "How's it going?". It's enough to say "We've had complaints about lewd acts. If you guys happen to be the people doing it, please move on".

It is not enough to ask for ID under CA law, nor for an arrest.

[ksoze]

157. A description that matches car & suspects is detainable

If the police have reasonable suspicion, they can detain an individual to confirm the person’s identity. That suspicion was a call for indecent exposure which matched the car and suspects who were right where they caller said.

[jeff47]

160. Again, description of the car is not reasonable suspicion.

because there's lots of similar cars, and the cops have no idea if the old one pulled away and a new one took it's place.

Again, it is enough for the police to investigate, but it is not enough to arrest. And in order to check ID in CA, you either have to be doing something like operating a motor vehicle, or you have to be arrested.

The cops can, of course, ask for ID but the couple did not have to comply and the cops could not force them to comply.

The couple was in the back seat, so no dice on the "motor vehicle" part of the rule. So now they need sufficient cause to arrest, or they can't demand ID. They had nowhere near sufficient cause for arrest.

The cops had plenty to talk to the couple, and even ask the couple to move along (though they probably could not enforce that request).

[ksoze]

167. We disagree on what is reasonable suspicion

A call about a possible crime in a silver Mercedes with a description of the couple which upon arrival by police matches exactly both cases seems like reasonable suspicion, which is enough to detain for a reasonable time. Not to arrest, but to establish facts since a crime was reported. Once that was done, there was no arrest.

[jeff47]

169. And since they need an arrest to demand ID.....

see where the problem is yet?

[ksoze]

172. Incorrect again

If the police have reasonable suspicion, they are permitted to detain an individual for a reasonable amount of time in order to ascertain the person’s identity.

[jeff47]

203. Which is called "arrest".

Yes, police and their fans use the word "detain" to make it not sound as bad, but if you are not free to leave, you are under arrest.

[ksoze]

205. No, it's actually not - there is a difference legally

Detention and arrest are different, each with different rights. It's also the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

[jeff47]

206. If you are not free to leave, you are under arrest. Doesn't matter if people call it "detention".

As soon as you can not legally leave, you are under arrest. Period. Does not matter if people call it "detained" instead.

If you are pulled over for speeding, you are under arrest. You can not leave legally. You are then handed a citation and released from the officer's custody.

It's also the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

No, those are utterly different than a euphemism for arrest and arrest.

There are plenty of people who like to pretend there is a difference in order to make the police seem nicer, but the threshold for being under arrest is met when someone is "detained".

Feel free to enumerate this massive difference in rights between being 'detained' and being arrested.

[ksoze]

207. In your mind yes, legally there is a difference

read up on it.

[tonedevil]

210. What reasonable suspicion?

They apparently didn't even have a crime. They should have established there was a crime before interrogating suspects.

[ksoze]

211. Legally there is a definition

Reasonable suspicion means that there were objectively reasonable circumstances to suspect that the detained individual was involved in, or was about to be involved in a crime.

Suspects matching the callers description as well as the vehicle likely warrant investigation, which could involve detention for a short period.

[snooper2]

183. 911, Operator, yes, There is a late model blue civic with a black spoiler on 47th and Elm Street

911- yes, what is the issue with it, was there an accident?

caller- No, well, there is a couple in the car and the passenger door is open and it looks like they are fucking. I just saw a mom cover the eyes of her son as they walked by.

911- We'll have a patrol officer check it out-

caller- Thanks

-----------------

Dispatch, any units, we have a report of a couple humping each other in a blue civic with a black spoiler on 47th and Elm Street. Anybody in the area please respond.

----------------

Cop in Car number 133- Arrives at scene, Oh, guess what, he just happens to find a blue civic with a black spoiler on the corner of 47th and Elm street with a couple in it. WHAT ARE THE FUCKING ODDS




Don't get your lessons on the law from YouTube lesson #172

[jeff47]

202. Again, not sufficient.

How do you know it's the same couple? People get in and out of cars. And civics with mismatched spoilers are ridiculously common in LA. It's very surprising when they're painted the same color.

The proper procedure is to go get the caller and have them positively identify the couple. Then the cops can arrest, and then they can demand ID.

[LisaL]

222. Per the police, witness gave them a license plate number.

Are you suggesting that two people allegedly had sex in the car, then two people matching the same description got into that same car, while the original two left?
That's ludicrous.

[LisaL]

70. He was cooperative. They asked him for ID, he gave it to them.

She refused.

[jeff47]

103. Doesn't matter that she refused. CA law does not allow the cops to ask for ID.

The fact that he let them break the law does not mean they get to falsely arrest her for demanding they follow the law.

[LisaL]

105. That's not true.

He was responding to a complaint. That gives him a right to ask for an ID.

[jeff47]

114. He would have to have evidence that she was the suspect

And he had no complaining witness to ID her, and did not see the lewd acts himself. Thus he had no probable cause to ask for ID.

[LisaL]

117. Where exactly did you get this idea?

Per TMZ, there were witnesses.

[jeff47]

139. There were people who talked to TMZ. There were no witnesses talking to the cop. (nt)

[Gormy Cuss]

195. And one is allowed to refuse in CA.

You can't be detained or arrested on that basis alone. So why exactly does it matter that he showed ID?

[IdaBriggs]

22. Disagree. If they were engaging in sex in public / people were seeing the show,

Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2014, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

they should/would have BOTH been arrested regardless of whether someone showed Id or not.

I also do not find them refusing to "whole heartedly deny" a ridiculous accusation proof of guilt. Other questions I would find equally appalling:

"Were you doing crack when you were stopped?" "Were you beating your partner when you were stopped?" "Were you dancing the dance of the seven veils while chanting odes to the Dark Lord when you were stopped?" Etc.

Unless a complaining witness was there to point at them, or the police officer witnessed it, it sounds like an excuse "after the fact" to justify putting handcuffs on someone who was NOT engaging in criminal behavior (according to what is being reported -- remember, the police have no record of the incident).

And yes, I do think people are "entitled" to be out in public engaging in lawful conduct (like walking hand-in-hand, or even kissing) without being stopped by the police and required to show identification.

I'm kind of liberal that way.

On Edit: Embarrassing Misuse of Grammar - doh!

[Tikki]

39. I sure agree with you...Sometimes I hear a person scoff at a young couple hugging

or kissing, even passionately, where they can be seen by others.
I always smile at the couple and tell the critic to mind their own business...
there is something so promising about young love.

Isn't it sad that a couple who isn't young has to be treated as perverted if they
get passionate in a car.

Who knows what was going on, but first reports say it appeared the woman
was sitting on the man's lap. How much more discrete can you get?

Someone smacks their kid in the grocery store...we walk by.
Some couple shout it out in the parking lot...we scurry by. Someone uses cruel or
profane words where others hear this...We shake our heads.

Tikki

[logosoco]

77. "Where you dancing the dance of the seven veils while chanting odes to the Dark Lord when you were s

I hope the next time I get pulled over this line does not come to my mind because I will start laughing and really raise the suspicion of the cop!

[IdaBriggs]

81. Thank you - I am kicking myself for using "where" instead of "were" --

Because originally I was going in a different direction. I am going to edit for grammar.

But so glad my sense of humor is appreciated!

[The Traveler]

41. My problems with this are varied

Recently, we have been treated to the story of a young man who was gunned down in a Walmart while talking on a cell phone and holding a BB gun. I read that he was shot in the back. The police came to that store because some jerk called 911 and reported a man with a gun making threatening gestures. Apparently, the 911 caller is now changing elements of his story.

The police entered this seen operating under the presumption that the 911 caller was both accurate and honest with his observations. That can be a very dangerous assumption ... as it was for the young customer in this example.

The system is supposed to operate under presumption of innocence. The only actual evidence we have at this time is this couple was engaging in PDA ... but not actual intercourse. A young black man with a BB gun forms a context in someone's mind, and they fill in the blanks and call 911. A young mixed race couple osculates for a few minutes, and a context is formed in someone's mind. That person calls the cops.

Given all that has gone down, I don't think we can't overly blame the young lady involved in this situation for reacting as she did. "Entitled"???? Aren't we all entitled to certain rights? Remember ... the cops did not see them ENGAGE in unlawful activity ... they just got a report that they did. A report without evidence is just rumor, and I question that it constitutes probable cause.

And LAPD is not famous for its sensitive handling of race related matters or its meticulous and precise use of ammunition in all situations.

What we have here are people who are encountering (in a very unfriendly way) the authorities for engaging in normal living behaviors. One got shot for it. The other got handcuffed. The common denominator seems to be race. This is not acceptable in my view.

Trav

[Generic Other]

82. And they will continue to do this until we fight back

We need to all go drama queen on their asses because that is the very thing they do not want. They want our silent compliance, our blind obedience. And they threaten to hurt us if we do not give it. But we live under the rule of law, and that is not legal. I am surprised how many on this thread don't see this. We should not let cops get away with being thugs, authoritarians or unprofessional.

In the past, I rarely carried ID when I was in public. My meager belongings fit in my pocket, I had no car, and no pressing need to identify myself. There is no law that can force me to carry ID or to produce it on demand if I don't have it.

[The Traveler]

135. I have to say

Some of the responses on this thread leave me shaking my head.

I just see a whole lot of assumptions in these comments ... assumptions that the original report was accurate. Assumptions that an unverified report warrants a police challenge that is so confrontational. Assumptions that one is required to respond to a demand for "Papers, please" ... though in truth that has become somewhat legally sticky in various ways and places. Perhaps it is the tacit ACCEPTANCE of that regression that concerns me the most.

But for me, the most salient (and undisputed) aspect of this incident is that a woman of color got handcuffed as a consequence of indulging in normal living activities, and I have seen too much of this sort of thing lately. You and I are in large agreement on the matter, it seems.

Trav

[kcr]

42. Pile on?

Because it's been such an overreaction all along? Because LAPD is normally known for being racially sensitive? I don't know if what you claim is true, but I'm not even inclined to give a whole lot of effort to find out if it is. Flame away!

[kiva]

44. Before I heard the audio I had read that

the LAPD mistook a black actress who was kissing her white boyfriend for a prostitute.

After listening to the tape, I now know that
1. the police were responding to a report of public sex
2. the actress said twice she and her boyfriend were 'making out', which by most definitions is more than kissing
3. the police did not accuse her of being a prostitute or soliciting, that was made up by either her or boyfriend

So now we have a couple making out/having sex in public, a complaint called in, and an entitled young woman saying they are questioning her because she is black and boyfriend is white (because there are no other interracial couples in California) and insisting that the cops talk to daddy. Yeah, a different story.

[uponit7771]

45. If they were having sex why weren't they arrested for doing so? Kissin a black person is lewd to som

... and they continued logic of they were arrested for having sex when none of the facts show that.

She was arrested for not showing ID... that's it

Not else

[kcr]

46. By no definition I've ever heard is making out the same as having sex

I knew that it wouldn't take long before the explaining and accusations of overreaction would start. And I was right.

[kiva]

48. And saying that the police

thought she was a prostitute and were questioning her because she was black is not an overraction? Given what the audio tapes says, I suspect her publicist thought that story would play better.

You can argue that kissing and making out are the same thing, but do you really think someone would have called the police to report two people kissing?

[kcr]

49. No. It is not an overreaction.

Yes. I really think someone would have called the police to report two people kissing.

[kiva]

61. Why?

There is no proof that someone is randomly calling the LAPD to report people kissing in public. And since there are thousands (tens of thousands?) of interracial couples in LA, why would someone pick out this particular couple to call in a phony complaint on? Frankly, if the report is false I'd wonder where her publicist was when the call was made.

[kcr]

76. Racism does happen to individuals

It doesn't matter that there happens to be thousands of others like them.

[kiva]

78. I have a hard time believing

that a racist who decided to phone in a false report just happened to choose an actress, bringing in a slew of celebrity gossip sites including TMZ. Too much of a coincidence, but just my opinion.

[kcr]

96. And I have no problem believing it

And don't get why it's so much of a coincidence. The only way that makes sense is if racism is rare. People are entitled to opinions but they aren't entitled to facts.

[kiva]

97. "but they aren't entitled to facts"

Agreed.

[joeglow3]

155. You should heed your own advice.

[kcr]

200. What advice would that be? n/t

[joeglow3]

214. Look at the facts BEFORE coming to a conclusion.

[kwassa]

50. Someone upset by interracial relationships and PDA could have called in this report.

The real guilty party in all this might be the person who made the call.

[trumad]

47. No proof they were having sex.

And kissing is making out and making out is kissing.

I didn't know there were variations of kissing. Is there a kiss meter. Does a tongue ring up a 10? How about a neck kiss...is something entirely different?

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. The witnesses said they were having sex

In public with the car door open. The witnesses said it . The police followed up.

[NickB79]

60. And if the cops don't witness the actual act

Or have the witness there with them to file a report testifying as to what he/she saw, the police have exactly JACK SHIT to do once they arrive.

The fact that they let both of them go shows THERE WAS NO SEX OBSERVED!

If I call the police to say "I observed Evergreen Emerald shitting on the sidewalk", and the cops show up while you're sitting on a bench fully clothed with no pile of shit in sight, they can't do a damn thing legally except ask you "Have you seen anyone around here shitting on the sidewalk?"

The whole thing is bullshit to the Nth degree.

[Evergreen Emerald]

63. Not true. They can investigate. If police could only investigate crimes they witnessed

The world would be in a world of hurt.

[NickB79]

93. Yes, they can investigate

Like I said, they could ask you "Have you seen anyone around here shitting on the sidewalk?"

That's an investigation.

What does NOT constitute an investigation is ILLEGALLY asking someone for their ID, and then ILLEGALLY handcuffing the person when that person refuses to comply with an illegal order.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

111. They can investigate and ask for ID and send them on their way

And do the little dance for the witnesses watching. But I guess in Hollywood, we've all gotta do a little act and "call the publicist"

[Mercy_Queen]

71. If you report someone threatened to kill you and then left the scene..

Should the police do nothing, or should they investigate?

In most jurisdictions of which I am familiar, police are prohibited from making a warrant less arrest for misdemeanor crimes that were committed outside of the officer's presence. There are several exceptions (domestic violence, shoplifting, etc) and each state has it's own particular restrictions.

That said, if the police get a call such as in this case, it is more than legal for them to stop and identify the suspects. It would even be appropriate for the police to issue a criminal citation based upon the witness statements. It may even be appropriate to make a physical arrest for the sex in public if it rose to a felony level (some states have a felony enhancement for sex acts witnessed by a minor, or in specific locations).

To suggest that the police do not have the authority to demand a suspect identify himself or herself, when reasonable suspicion exists that person may have been engaged in criminal activity, is simply at odds with the reality of current criminal law.

The cops can't stop you for no reason and demand you identify yourself. But they damn sure can compel you to identify yourself under almost all lawful investigative stops.

[jeff47]

168. It is legal for them to talk to the couple, and ask them to move along.

It's even legal to ask for ID, but the couple does not have to provide it.

To suggest that the police do not have the authority to demand a suspect identify himself or herself, when reasonable suspicion exists that person may have been engaged in criminal activity, is simply at odds with the reality of current criminal law.

They lacked sufficient probable cause. In CA, you have to be doing something like operating a motor vehicle or be arrested for the police to demand ID. They were in the back seat, and with no complaining witness there was nowhere near enough for an arrest.

[Mercy_Queen]

196. Your understand of the CA requirement is simply incorrect.

In this situation the officers can demand that the person identify themself. Failing to do so could rise to the level if am offense in and of itself.

[stevenleser]

122. Eyewitness testimony is among the least reliable evidence.

Most of the wrongly convicted folks the innocence project gets out of jail were put there by eyewitness testimony. DNA evidence then exonerates them.

Who knows what the witnesses saw if anything.

[cali]

146. In their interview on CNN they sure didn't deny it n/t

[LisaL]

67. Given that nowdays almost everything is videotaped, it

wouldn't surprise me if somebody got on video whatever it is they were doing.

[tblue37]

51. When I was young, "making out" just meant good old fashioned "necking," NOT sexual intercourse. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

55. This whole case is why most cops would prefer to take a nap behind the Sav-A-Lot

[hunter]

58. Never call the cops about trivial things. Never.

The cops will at best ignore your call, maybe ask you to fill out a report on their website.

At worst they'll come and make the situation much, much worse for everyone... possibly for you too.

Couple making out in a car is trivial -- don't call the cops. Yell, "Get a room!" if it makes you feel better.

Aqualung masturbating in front of the elementary school eyeing little girls with bad intent -- call the cops.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqualung_%28song%29

[cali]

74. I completely agree.

[KT2000]

127. what is trivial is in the eye of beholder

If a couple was parked in front of my house having sex with the door open I would not consider that trivial. Who behaves like that knowing they are in full view of other people? Idiots or prostitution.

It could be taken as a possible sex for money situation.
Prostitution has moved into some residential areas in Seattle. Cars and campers park on the street in family neighborhoods and conduct their business. There are other behaviors that go along with that such as defecating on the parking strip, leaving needles around etc. Not trivial if it happens to your neighborhood.

[hunter]

180. I don't know if it's my teaching experience or if I'm turning into a grumpy old man yelling...

... "Get off my lawn!" but we live in a spot that's attractive to couples, taggers, minor vandals, and graffiti "artists."

In my constant quest to be popular with neighbors I confront people directly. Sometimes the troublemakers ARE my neighbors.

The most irritating thing people do is drop their used condoms out of their cars onto the street. I haven't seen used needles in all the years we've lived here, maybe because our community has an aggressive needle exchange program.

The police here simply don't respond to most things. They'll ask you to fill out a report on their website or, if you can't do that, to do it in person at the police station. Our police station is a fascinating place. The desk is behind bullet proof glass. You sign in and wait like at the Department of Motor Vehicles but the people are generally far more interesting and talkative.

[NaturalHigh]

59. If that's the case, yes, it would change my view quite a bit.

[gwheezie]

79. I think the cops make on the spot decisions

And he could have just told them to move along. You don't have to react to everything. If they weren't on the lewd act when the cop rolled up he couldn't arrest them anyway. Just tell them look someone called in you guys were having sex out here. Go somewhere else.
In my misspent youth I has a similar experience. They tell you to get going.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. they were having..... SEX????????

Fuck the police, call in the MILITARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Vattel]

88. Just to clarify the law on this:

Under California law, if a cop has reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime, the cop can demand ID and detain someone until ID is provided. Notice that the cop doesn't need probable cause, just reasonable suspicion. That is a standard that would be met in this case if a citizen called in and reported public lewdness.

I hate the fact that SCOTUS has allowed the reasonable suspicion standard to infect the fourth amendment in various ways. Any detention should require probable cause IMHO. But starting with the Warren Court and Terry v Ohio, our fourth amendment rights have been whittled away.

[LisaL]

89. Per law, cop didn't do anything wrong here.

In fact he sounds very professional.
I am not sure what her objection to showing ID was, considering her boyfriend had no such objection.

[Vattel]

91. That seems to be the case. Not that I like the way the 4th amendment has been interpreted.

But given those bad interpretations by SCOTUS, the cop was within his rights to detain (assuming the facts are as they have been represented).

[whistler162]

94. Sounds like she is getting the publicity

she set out to get!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

120. Someone asked "Why was the door left open" while they screwed?

I'm starting to figure out why.

[whistler162]

137. I wonder if they will trace the 911 caller...

my gut reaction right now is to wonder if it is her agent, publicist, or a friend.

[Calista241]

98. The cop was responding to a report.

He apparently correctly deduced that the call was in regards to Danielle Watts and her bf. During the course of his investigation, she became combative and tried to walk away.

If a cop is investigating a possible crime, and you're the target of that investigation, then you are being detained. Being detained means you are not yet under arrest, the cop does not have to read you your rights, and it also means you are not free to leave the scene.

Cops deal with a lot of bullshit. For instance in this case, the cop was responding to a report of lewd acts. He COULD have arrested them. He COULD have fucked her shit up and put her in handcuffs when she walked off (also known as fleeing the scene). Instead, both of them got to walk. Maybe the cop felt like cutting them a break. Maybe he didn't feel what they did deserved a charge. Maybe he just felt like being nice.

There are real problems with cops and their treatment of the citizens of this country. IMO, this sounds like an actress trying to gin up a few headlines and become more relevant in Hollywood.

[ecstatic]

101. Uh huh. And Michael Brown was charging, Trayvon Martin was stealing, yada yada

[Number23]

219. THREAD WINNER.

You're not surprised this is coming from alleged liberals are you?

[Purveyor]

126. Who in the hell are 'Daniele Watts and Brian Lucas'? Seriously, I recognized neither

of their names...

[WinkyDink]

128. I admit to re-thinking my stance on the police action.

[BillZBubb]

132. Lots of people defending the cops here. That is sad.

When they arrived on the scene, there was no crime in progress. There was no evidence of a crime having been committed (and a call is not evidence), but they went into the usual authoritarian mode and demanded ID. The woman, not allowing herself to be bullied, refused. AND GOOD FOR HER!

The cops were wrong on this and no spin makes it right. The authoritarians amongst us have no problem with it however. Sad.

[whistler162]

136. Either you want the police to follow proper

procedure or you, as you post, don't want them to follow proper procedure. Make your mind up.

[cali]

142. first of all, there doesn't have to be a crime in progress for police to investigate

a call isn't evidence but it is probable cause. I'm hardly an authoritarian and your little name calling crap, won't intimidate me.

You want to fuck in public? go ahead but be aware that someone just might call the police.

[Trajan]

156. Name Calling Crap ....

"The Authoritarians amongst us"?

THAT is name calling?

Ridiculous ....

You want to embrace an authoritarian approach for police officers in the public sphere, you get to wear the moniker "authoritarian" ... and it isn't "name calling"

Like it or not ...

[cali]

209. lol. I can't help but laugh at you.

have fun with your outrage, my dear friend.

[ksoze]

144. The anti-police thing here is getting weird

Posts showing hidden handcuff keys to use to escape detainment, suggestions to not comply with legal requests by police for ID....I do not think this make things better with how we are policed.

[TorchTheWitch]

161. it got way past that years ago n/t

[closeupready]

133. Completely agree. That's what my other thread was about, by the way.

Entitled narcissistic fourth tier nobodies who think we all want to watch them get nasty. Um, no, we don't.

[dilby]

159. When the cop stated that if she just produced her license it would have been over 15 minutes ago.

Tells me everything I need to know, since no arrest was made there was no need for her to produce an ID for the cop. The cop was just being a jerk and although it's not a racial issue it definitely falls under our civil liberties.

[tularetom]

163. What is their definition of "sex"?

Tongue wrestling? Hand under the shirt? Dry humping? Hand job? Blow job? Or is it limited to full on hide the salami?

We all say we don't want to see any of this but when it happens you can bet everybody will gawk at it. And it seems to me it is something a cop would want to put a stop to just to prevent the gathering of an audience. Showing or failing to show an ID, cuffing, detaining or arresting, all are judgment calls but in the final analysis it appears to be a case of severe overreaction by one of the participants.

[cali]

187. old fashioned fucking.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

179. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I think it's disrespectful to ask a woman to have public sex with you.

.

[cali]

188. Maybe she initiated it.

[OnlinePoker]

193. Why do you automatically think he asked her? n/t

[liberalhistorian]

184. Except that, to still far too many

people, "lewd acts" include something as simple as an interracial couple kissing or showing affection in public.

[cali]

189. except it wasn't. it was fucking.

[liberalhistorian]

216. But we don't

know that for sure yet.

[cali]

218. they didn't deny it in the CNN interview

[liberalhistorian]

223. Not denying something

does not mean that it actually happened. We still don't have full and clear and actual proof yet that they were actually getting it on in public. And there are more than enough racist asshats who would consider any PDA at all between interracial couples to be "lewd".

I don't understand why you're so determined on this point.

[TorchTheWitch]

194. no it doesn't

Someone called the police about a couple they claim was having sex in public and for some reason mentioned the races of the two people whether because they have an issue with a black person and a white person as a couple or in order to identify them so that police found the right two people when responding to the call. How the police then responded was fine and seen on video that one half of that couple took themselves.

The officer responded to the call because he HAS to. Doesn't matter if he personally thinks it's frivolous or not, and police respond to more ridiculous complaints all the damn time. Even if the couple was doing nothing at all and the caller was just a jerk with issues the police still have to respond and check out the situation in order to determine that. That's what this officer did, and he did it politely despite Watts talking over him, claiming he was being racist, refusing to cooperate by not showing her ID or otherwise identifying herself and trying to walk away while being detained. The officer has to respond and has to identify the people involved that were complained of in the call. By law he CAN ask for ID when there's been a complaint and the subjects detained. He's required to determine if the person detained is the person they claim to be, and if they don't make any claim as to who they are to determine who they are.

Watts acted like a jackass talking over the officer and refusing to show her ID or identify herself by some other means. She was handcuffed because she tried to leave while lawfully detained. Yes, it sucks if someone makes a complaint about you that's exaggerated or even a flat out lie. The police still have to detain the subjects of the complaint and figure out what the truth is if they can. He didn't assume she was a prostitute nor assume they were having sex. His issue was her refusal to show her ID while lawfully detained or otherwise prove who she was. The officer tried to explain this to her but she just yammered over him which he took with good grace. He asked questions of them both to ascertain what the situation was and found that there wasn't one or wasn't one that he had the ability to determine and said that if she had just identified herself he would have been gone some number of minutes ago. He asked if Watts was ok with the man she was with because officers have to find out the welfare of the woman in case they are being held against their will, and it's a damn good thing that they DO ask after the woman's welfare. If there weren't so many situations where men have accosted women on the street or held them against their will then this wouldn't be something that officers would do. They do it for the welfare of women, and nobody should have any problem with that.

The officer was polite and despite her venting her spleen at him and talking over him he took it on the chin. She was handcuffed because she tried to leave when she was lawfully detained. Once he found out who she was after her long tirade he let her go.

If they were having sex or not is immaterial. The officer couldn't ascertain that which is why he didn't arrest either of them for public lewdness. Any racism was on the part of whoever it was that called with the complaint if identifying their races was because of racism and not to identify the subjects of the complaint, and if they were behaving lewdly in public whether actually having sex or not had every right to call the police. Watts claims that someone confronted them for whatever they were doing and neither her nor her boyfriend denied they were behaving lewdly nor that they were having sex. All she's said is that her and her boyfriend laughed off the person's complaint. The boyfriend hasn't said anything about what they were doing. If they were having sex, well shame on them. Whatever they were doing was certainly enough for someone to complain to them personally as well as call the police. Maybe they had a legitimate complaint and maybe not. Doesn't matter since the officer couldn't determine that once he detained them and didn't arrest them for public lewdness which he likely would have done if he saw anything that showed that they were or he saw it himself. Either he just didn't see it by the time he got there or it just didn't happen. Doesn't make any difference at all to how he responded.

It was Watts that brought up racism to the police which the officer disputed as he never said anything to her or her boyfriend about race. She just decided on her own that they were being detained because of her being black. Whoever made the complaint call may have had a racist issue, but the officer clearly didn't since he never brought it up and she had no idea why she was being detained other than the officer telling her that they had a call complaining of her and her boyfriend engaging in public lewdness. That's it.

Whoopie. They both got their unknown names in the news. Probably all they were looking to get in the first place. Too bad their own video "evidence" shows them to be full of it. Whether or not they were actually having sex doesn't make a shit's bit of difference in how either of them were treated by the police or why. Even if they were doing nothing at all and the person who called to complain to the police was just totally full of it it makes no difference in how they were treated or why.

Watts was eventually handcuffed because she tried to leave while still detained. And at that point she still hadn't identified herself though not why she was handcuffed but why she was still detained.

[cali]

224. Evidently, there are now photos and more details

Django Unchained actress Danielle Watts may have undersold what she was up to when she said the LAPD harassed and hurt her because she was making out with her white boyfriend. Pictures acquired by TMZ show Watts straddling her boyfriend in the car, with their hands holding themselves up using the roof. According to an eyewitness, Daniele had her shirt up with her breasts uncovered and was grinding on top of him. A person from a nearby office had gone down and asked them to stop because everybody could see them. According to other eyewitnesses, she eventually went to get a tissue and wipe him down before tossing it on the grass. The police only came after someone made an indecent exposure complaint.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2014/09/17/django-actress-seen-humping-in-car.html

[maximillian1974]

226. somewhat appropriate kick. agreed with your analysis from the beginning.

[cali]

225. somewhat smug kick

[NaturalHigh]

227. Well, it looks like the narrative has now been changed.