Althouse: "Daniele Watts, who played 'CoCo' in and currently stars as Martin Lawrence's daughter on the FX show 'Partners,' says she was wrongfully arrested on September 11th after being mistaken for a prostitute!"

September 14, 2014

"Daniele Watts, who played 'CoCo' in and currently stars as Martin Lawrence's daughter on the FX show 'Partners,' says she was wrongfully arrested on September 11th after being mistaken for a prostitute!"

"How is this possible? She was dressed in 'short shorts,' a t-shirt and sneakers, which is the same outfit plenty of people wear to live out their day. And she was spotted sharing a PDA moment with a white man -- HER HUSBAND."

186 comments:

Michael K said...: It is funny how Democrat controlled cities and states are so hostile to blacks. Los Angeles is becoming a suburb of Ciudad Juarez.; 9/14/14, 11:10 AM
MayBee said...: I want to know how much PDA they were showing.; 9/14/14, 11:28 AM
Fernandinande said...: "How is this possible?"

"When the police asked for the couple’s ID’s, Lucas complied but

Watts that she wasn’t required to hand her ID over."

Just get a buddy place "a call about lewdness", then refuse to show ID and instant publicity, complete with victims!

Shocking.; 9/14/14, 11:28 AM
David said...: "NO POLICE OFFICER OR GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS MORE POWERFUL THAN ME. WE ARE EQUALS. I KNOW THAT I WILL ALWAYS BE FREE BECAUSE THAT IS THE NATURE OF MY SPIRIT."

Yes and no. I'm glad she feels that way but equality of power and equality in spirit are not the same. The cops have power that the average citizen does not. That is why they should be held to a high standard. That is also why I would never refuse a cop's demand for an ID. I know I am free and equal. (I also know nobody is going to assume I am a hooker.) But I also know that, on the street in a confrontation, our power is not equal.

In the long run, in this particular incident, her power is greater, because she is able to use her refusal to comply and her celebrity to illustrate a important point. "Your Results May Vary."; 9/14/14, 11:28 AM
Anonymous said...: A. From the pix, anyone can clearly see she does not resemble a prostitute.

B. Even if a person were a prostitute, shouldn't they have to do something more than PDA in public? Was she accepting money or drugs? Giving her husband a blow job on the street corner? If not, how can this be justified in any form?

C. From the reports I've read so far, it doesn't seem they bothered to handcuff or harass the guy. Since in this case it is her husband, it underscores the unfairness of that policy. If you were going through this, it'd be a little easier if you and your husband were also going through it and could stand beside you. He seems to be taking the pictures. Maybe he produced his ID, maybe not. It doesn't say.; 9/14/14, 11:31 AM
MadisonMan said...: All the bonafide prostitutes in the area were happy for the diversion.; 9/14/14, 11:31 AM
MadisonMan said...: @SOJO, in another article on this that I read, the husband was quoted as saying he produced his ID. He's the one who took the pictures, I believe.; 9/14/14, 11:33 AM
traditionalguy said...: A casting couch survivor says she doesn't do that anymore. Didn't she see Pretty Woman? Hollywood is where you should follow your dreams.; 9/14/14, 11:34 AM
Robert Cook said...: It's becoming apparent that being functionally intelligent is a disqualification for employment as a police officer.

It is a shame most of us will provide the police with our identification merely to avoid the hassle of saying "no," but we do not have to show our identification. Our fearful compliance is our admission that we know our police are lawless and out of control--and our acceptance of that reality.; 9/14/14, 11:37 AM
jr565 said...: This is crap. Her and her husband were making out getting lewd in a car. One of the shop owners came out and said to stop putting on a show. then the cops were called about a public display of lewdness.
For all cops know, she WAS a prostitute. You know what would have allayed that suspicion? Cooperation with cops. Instead, she, for all intents and purposes fled the scene.
Its not unreasonable to assume that if there are people making out in a car and one of them refuses to show ID that they may not be married.
And that's not an excuse for public lewdness anyway.

YET again, the person who refuses to cooperate is the one that instigates an incident with cops and then complains about their treatment. JUST SHOW YOUR DAMN ID!; 9/14/14, 11:39 AM
Gerrard787 said...: Good for her.; 9/14/14, 11:39 AM
MadisonMan said...: Just show your ID! Just let the Cops enter your house and search! Just let the Cops search your car when they pull you over!

What's the worst that could happen?; 9/14/14, 11:41 AM
jr565 said...: B. Even if a person were a prostitute, shouldn't they have to do something more than PDA in public? Was she accepting money or drugs? Giving her husband a blow job on the street corner? If not, how can this be justified in any form?

Cops responded to a complaint about public lewdness. She admits to making out in the car to the point where someone in an office building came out and told them to stop putting on a show. So for all I know she WAS doing more than just making out. Regardless, that's why cops are called on the scene. They have to determine all of those facts. The very first point of contact, she's already not cooperating and fleeing the scene. Cops even told her not to do that.

C. From the reports I've read so far, it doesn't seem they bothered to handcuff or harass the guy."

Yeah, BECAUSE HE SHOWED HIS ID AND COOPERATED. He, unlike his wife, didn't feel he was too good to have to show his ID. If she had simply showed ID cops would have determined they were a married couple almost immediately and would not have arrested her. Though they might have told them they had complaints about a couple getting busy in a car. So please make out somewhere else.
It's not wrong for cops to respond to complainnts. When they do, if you want to allay suspicion, Since cops don't actually know everything when they are called on the scene just show your ID and cooperate.; 9/14/14, 11:44 AM
Wince said...: The person calling the cops should have known from "Pretty Woman" that prostitutes don't kiss.

I'm sensing she saw a publicity opportunity here. Didn't I read that Martin Lawrence and Kelsey Grammer show has been universally panned and is headed for the chopping block?; 9/14/14, 11:44 AM
jr565 said...: Madison Man wrote
Just show your ID! Just let the Cops enter your house and search! Just let the Cops search your car when they pull you over!

What's the worst that could happen?

Cops were not wrong to ask for ID because they received a complaint and are supposed to investigate said complaints. Its not an unreasonable search.; 9/14/14, 11:46 AM
Fernandinande said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/14, 11:51 AM
Fernandinande said...: MadisonMan said...
Just show your ID!
...
What's the worst that could happen?

In this case, no publicity. No Special People as victims.

I'm convinced it was a stunt, an actress acting.

"In this moment there is a still small voice whispering to me. It says: You are love. You are free. You are pure."

You are hilarious.; 9/14/14, 11:55 AM
Biff said...: The linked article doesn't describe the "PDA," but the Buzzfeed article on the incident quotes Watts as follows:

“I sat on his lap in the front seat of the car and we start making out,” Watts said.

I remember when "PDA" meant holding hands, and maybe a quick smooch. It might -- just might -- be the case that the incident had more to do with the couple's behavior than with race.

Great PR for an actress with a few good credits but not a lot of public recognition, though.; 9/14/14, 11:57 AM
jr565 said...: This reminds me of the Gates incident early in Obama's presidency.
Gates breaks into his own house because he lost his keys or something. A neighbor sees Gates and another man breaking into Gates's house, and not realizing it was Gates calls the cops.
The cop gets a call about a break in and goes to investigate.
Instead of simply cooperating with the officer, showing his ID and saying "I'm such an idiot, officer. I had to break into my house because I lost my keys" he instead gets outraged that the cop is asking for his ID.
Let's get it straight. It's not normal behavior to break into your own house. If someone sees it happening they are going to assume you are a robber. And if cops get a call about a robbery they are going to investigate AND assume the person behind the door may in fact not live there. ESPECIALLY if they then refuse to cooperate and show ID.
The ONLY person in that incident who behaved innapropriately was Gates. Not the cop, and not the neighbor.
Gates, frankly should have been happy that his neighbor was neighborly enough to report a crime in progress and that a cop came to his house to investigate. Since of course, the other charge is that if its a crime where the black guy is the victim cops don't give a crap.
So too with this incident. She is the one who is under suspicion. Cops get a call and come out to investigate. If she's not a prostitute and has a reasonable excuse for her behavior, despite the call to the contrary, then cooperate with cops and give them that information.; 9/14/14, 11:59 AM
MadisonMan said...: She admits to making out in the car to the point where someone in an office building came out and told them to stop putting on a show.

Yes, live your life so the stuck-up prigs and biddies out there aren't offended.

Here's an idea to complainers: If you see something you don't want to see: STOP WATCHING.

Now, if the two knew this was a high-prostitution area (Did they? Is it?), kudos to them for using it to get publicity. Maybe the complainer is on their payroll.; 9/14/14, 12:00 PM
William said...: A couple of whites got stomped at the mall by a group of blacks. Police investigated and said that it was not racially motivated because a black security guard also got stomped........I'm betting that this incident will receive at least ten times the coverage of the mall incident. Why? Whites are infinitely perfectable and should spend their days contemplating their flaws in order to overcome them. Blacks, on the other hand, are impulsive and violent, and there's not thing much you can do about it.; 9/14/14, 12:01 PM
Biff said...: SOJO said...A. From the pix, anyone can clearly see she does not resemble a prostitute.

Exactly what is the basis for your expertise in identifying prostitutes? What do prostitutes look like?

The world is more complex than tv show stereotypes.; 9/14/14, 12:04 PM
retired said...: Looking at the officer involved, glad that the more diverse police force hired using more inclusive criteria have cut down on the racial profiling that is endemic in whatever city this is.; 9/14/14, 12:08 PM
retired said...: OTOH she refused to provide ID which is foolish unless she intended to make a scene. Then who knows what they were doing and how much more of a fuss she put up after she refused to show ID.; 9/14/14, 12:17 PM
Sam L. said...: I have no idea who she is, or him, or of FX shows.; 9/14/14, 12:25 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Usually, when LAPD gets out of the car, SOMEBODY gets charged with SOMETHING if only to cover their asses. Sounds like someone on the scene realized they dicked up.; 9/14/14, 12:26 PM
Robert Cook said...: @retired:

If someone asked for i.d. by a police officer declines to show it and the officer cannot cite the law the person has broken or find probable cause for arrest, the officer should let the person go without further discussion.; 9/14/14, 12:26 PM
richard mcenroe said...: I used to live, work and hold political rallies down there in that neighborhood.

There are NO shops where she is shown standing. That is the parking structure for CBS Radford behind her and across the street there are residential condos and some production office rental spaces. Unless it was a resident home during the day in that area, who placed the complaining call?; 9/14/14, 12:29 PM
alan markus said...: Yes, live your life so the stuck-up prigs and biddies out there aren't offended.

Doubt that was the motivation for them being reported. Years ago Milwaukee police had to crack down on daytime prostitution because of quality of life issues - customers stopped patronizing stores because of getting approached by prostitutes and pimps when they pulled over to park in front of the stores, so the store owners pushed for aggressive enforcement. No prigs and biddies were involved in that - it was mostly a capitalistic thing.

By the way, do I get some kind of blog commenter award for using the word "Crack" in a thread that has to do with sex and racial issues?; 9/14/14, 12:30 PM
Wilbur said...: Sam L., that makes two of us.

Nor do I ever expect to encounter her name or visage again.; 9/14/14, 12:37 PM
MisterBuddwing said...: If a cop ordered me to produce my ID, I'd pull it out and hand it over like a good little sheep.

But that's just me.; 9/14/14, 12:38 PM
jr565 said...: Cook wrote:
If someone asked for i.d. by a police officer declines to show it and the officer cannot cite the law the person has broken or find probable cause for arrest, the officer should let the person go without further discussion.

So we have laws against lewd behavior in public, no? If cops are called because there is a complaint about lewd behavior in public why is that not probable cause? What are cops supposed to do when they get a complaint and respond to it?; 9/14/14, 12:39 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Michael K,

"It is funny how Democrat controlled cities and states are so hostile to blacks."

Yeah, white people are EVERYWHERE,...; 9/14/14, 12:40 PM
jr565 said...: Richard McEnroe wrote:
Usually, when LAPD gets out of the car, SOMEBODY gets charged with SOMETHING if only to cover their asses. Sounds like someone on the scene realized they dicked up."

HOw did they dick up? They were called because of a complaint and they responded. the person who was the suspect in the complaint didn't cooperate and show ID, and then walked away. Cops are not mind readers who know who the person who refuses to show ID is. And even if she wasn't a prostitute it doesn't mean she couldn't have been engaged in lewd behavior in public.; 9/14/14, 12:42 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Sam L.,

"I have no idea who she is, or him, or of FX shows."

Bet you know everybody on SEINFELD, though, by name,...; 9/14/14, 12:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Why in this day and age are we even having to "hand" the police an ID anyways? We are able to positively identify cars as they zip down the toll road, we should use that same technology to identify citizens.; 9/14/14, 12:44 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: BTW - I'd like to state that I know everybody on SEINFELD and on black shows, too.

Because, unlike racists who avoid seeing black entertainments, I'm an American.

I pity you,...; 9/14/14, 12:56 PM
m stone said...: madisonfella said:

"We are able to positively identify cars as they zip down the toll road, we should use that same technology to identify citizens."

At this point, police can only identify my dog with the microchip (if you can get the scanner close enough before he bites you).

Facial recognition is coming. Hopefully that will please you and a lot of other privacy-minded people.; 9/14/14, 1:01 PM
n.n said...: Was her husband mistaken for a "john"?

How many white, yellow, red, whatever women or prince-s were arrested for suspicion of prostitution?; 9/14/14, 1:04 PM
jr565 said...: madisonfella wrote:
We are able to positively identify cars as they zip down the toll road, we should use that same technology to identify citizens.

because cars have ID's on them. License plates. It's the equivalent therefore of a car showing its ID.If you were driving without one, the cops would certainly pull you over.; 9/14/14, 1:14 PM
richard mcenroe said...: Cops say they responded to a call. So there had to be a 911 record. They exited the vehicle, which they are required to call in, so there had to be a radio log. They checked the husband's ID, which had to leave a record.

But the LAPD says there is no record, which has to be a lie. So yes, someone dicked up.; 9/14/14, 1:16 PM
jr565 said...: n.n. wrote:
Was her husband mistaken for a "john"?

How many white, yellow, red, whatever women or prince-s were arrested for suspicion of prostitution?

You don't have to be a prostitute OR a John to be arrested for lewd behavior in public. You can be married and still be guilty of lewd behavior if done in public. The money exchanging hands is certainly a crime, but so would be the f*cking in public. Regardless of your relationship with the person you are having sex with.; 9/14/14, 1:16 PM
richard mcenroe said...: What we have here is a police stop with NO records so there is no evidentiary reason to assume there was a citizen complaint in the first place.; 9/14/14, 1:21 PM
Gerrard787 said...: In this instance, she showed a healthy (and safe) disrespect for authority.

Too much subservience to the police is never good.; 9/14/14, 1:30 PM
Paul said...: False arrest. Sue 'em.

Then get a high powered lawyer and drag it out endlessly. Make it personal and a vendetta.

It is California and the government is short of money.; 9/14/14, 1:35 PM
jr565 said...: Madison Man wrote:
Yes, live your life so the stuck-up prigs and biddies out there aren't offended.

Tell that to the next person who gets flashed by a flasher in a raincoat who complains about the guy jerking off in front of them.; 9/14/14, 1:46 PM
jr565 said...: Go by the link on Instapundit which has a little bit less of the Free to be you and me clap trap of Danielle Watts and actual facts of the case.

From the other link:
“I sat on his lap in the front seat of the car and we start making out,” Watts said.

Soon thereafter, a man from a nearby office came out and asked Watts and Lucas to “stop putting on a show.” Watts stressed to BuzzFeed News that she and Lucas were fully clothed and only kissing, but said they stopped anyway. She got out of the car and eventually called her dad to ask about family."

So, they were hot and heavy enough for someone to walk out of the office and tell them to stop putting on the show. This seems to be Watt's account. So we know that there is such a person who came up to her car.
I would stipulate that if you are sitting on someones lap in a car, you could be having sex with them. Even if fully clothed. And further, most people aren't going to leave their office, come up to your car and tell you to stop putting on a show if you arent' putting on a show. Which means if they weren't engaged in actual intercourse it was hot and heavy enough to look that way to someone in an office who calls to complain to cops.; 9/14/14, 1:55 PM
Robert Cook said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/14, 1:57 PM
jr565 said...: "While police were handcuffing Watts, they were also asking Lucas what kind of relationship the couple had.

According to Lucas, the police kept asking, “do you really know her?” He described their questions as being filled with “innuendo.” When asked what that meant, he said the questions seemed to imply that Watts was a prostitute and he was a client. Lucas said the police never explicitly said that was what they thought, but that was how he felt."

Well, if you dont' produce ID, then cops don't know what your relationship is, do they? See how showing your ID would solve a lot of this confusion? ANd note they are assuming that cops thought she was a prostitute.All this is based on the assumptions of what the cops were feeling and/or assuming.
But that's the whole point. Cops don't know you are married, or NOT a prostitute. All they have is that there is a complaint of public lewdness. and when they come up to someone who may or may not be guilty they don't produce ID and then WALK AWAY despite being told not to. Why does she assume that such actions would make cops assume she wasnt' involved in lewd conduct?; 9/14/14, 2:01 PM
jr565 said...: This is the other link about the incident:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-lapd-handcuffed-and-detain-a-django-unchained-actress?bftw=main#42yrl8z

NOt the assumption that the cops handcuffed and detained her "For kissing her white partner". inserting racial animus into the equation. Where is there any evidence that that's why cops handcuffed her.
And note, they didn't handcuff him. Why? Because unlike her he showed ID and didn't walk away from the scene.
THAT'S why she was cuffed and detained. Leaving the scene. When the 2nd group of cops detained her they brought her back to the initial scene and not the station house.
WHen people comment on these types of interactions they often mistake the reason why cops would pull someone over or ask for ID versus the reason they end up in handcuffs. And they are usually completely different. If she hadn't essentially fled the scene cops wouldnt' have handcuffed her.
For someone who suffers panic attacks it's probably wise to not act in ways that will trigger panic attacks.Her husband, not having left the scene wasn't detained with handcuffs. See how doing one thing causes cops to act a certain way and doing another thing causes cops to act another way?; 9/14/14, 2:15 PM
n.n said...: jr565:

My point was about equal protection. Not specifically about lewd behavior or "being mistaken for a prostitute". It is not about her perception, or actual behavior, but if her treatment was unique or otherwise unusual. Althouse tagged this post with "racial profiling", not merely "profiling", which is an assertion, or perhaps presumption, of motive.; 9/14/14, 2:19 PM
jr565 said...: "My point was about equal protection. Not specifically about lewd behavior or "being mistaken for a prostitute". It is not about her perception, or actual behavior, but if her treatment was unique or otherwise unusual. Althouse tagged this post with "racial profiling", not merely "profiling", which is an assertion, or perhaps presumption, of motive."
Its hard to call it racial profiling if cops are responding to an actual specific complaint.; 9/14/14, 2:24 PM
Revenant said...: Judging from the picture, calling those "short shorts" is wildly inaccurate. "Baggy shorts", maybe.; 9/14/14, 2:25 PM
Revenant said...: Well, if you dont' produce ID, then cops don't know what your relationship is, do they?

If police "don't know what your relationship is", they should go ahead and fuck right off.; 9/14/14, 2:29 PM
Spiros Pappas said...: This is about super wealthy people getting called out for being slobs and making out in public. And a nobody Mexican cop has the audacity, the audacity!!!; 9/14/14, 2:29 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: It's hard to imagine the response here being different if the cops had killed her.

Racism rules,...; 9/14/14, 2:29 PM
jr565 said...: The husbands account:
"Today, Daniele Watts & I were accosted by police officers after showing our affection publicly.

From the questions that he asked me as D was already on her phone with her dad, I could tell that whoever called on us (including the officers), saw a tatted RAWKer white boy and a hot bootie shorted black girl and thought we were a HO (prostitute) & a TRICK (client).
This is something that happened to her and her father when she was 16. What an assumption to make!!!

Because of my past experience with the law, I gave him my ID knowing we did nothing wrong and when they asked D for hers, she refused to give it because they had no right to do so."

One ended up handcuffed and one didn't.
I also note how he doesn't mention how his wife decided to walk away from the scene and was then brought back to the scene by two separate cops. Leaving out that detail leaves out a key fact. Namely that she wasn't arrested or detained even because of the lewd display of affection.That is simply why the cops approached them in the first place.
She thinks she did nothing wrong. Cops don't know the details until they come on the scene. All the have is a complaint. She could be a prostitute. She could not be. She could be married but engaged in lewd conduct or the person making the complaint could be lying or simply erroneous in their assumptions.
I don't really know what those who are mad at cops for detaining her think cops sh0uld have done when faced with such details.; 9/14/14, 2:33 PM
jr565 said...: Revenant wrote:
If police "don't know what your relationship is", they should go ahead and fuck right off.

Not if they are responding to a complaint about public lewdness.; 9/14/14, 2:33 PM
acm said...: The husband called those booty shorts? Those aren't even short.

If the cops are investigating a complaint of lewd behavior, but by the time they get there, the supposedly lewd folks are not behaving lewdly at all, why would they arrest anyone? Why not just say "It looks like you two made some of the neighbors uncomfortable, let's keep it PG or take it inside, mmmkay?" If the complaint is "lewd behavior" why does it matter if they are married or not? If they are being lewd when you get there, arrest. If they're not, don't. How hard is that?; 9/14/14, 2:35 PM
jr565 said...: Complaint:"Officer there's a man dressed in an overcoat and he's flashing little kids on the corner"
Officer, after coming to the scene and finding the guy in the overcoat who may or may not have flashed the kids "Sir, may I see your ID"
flasher/potential flasher: "Nah, go fuck yourself. I'm going to ignore your request and walk away since I didn't do anything wrong"
Officer: "well as long as you say you did nothing wrong I guess I can ignore the complaint"
Bullshit.; 9/14/14, 2:38 PM
jr565 said...: acm wrote:
If the cops are investigating a complaint of lewd behavior, but by the time they get there, the supposedly lewd folks are not behaving lewdly at all, why would they arrest anyone? Why not just say "It looks like you two made some of the neighbors uncomfortable, let's keep it PG or take it inside, mmmkay?"

When cops get a call about a complaint and when they arrive to "investigate" the offending behavior may already have occurred. That doesn't mean that the person who engaged in the behavior gets a get out of jail free card. And we don't know that cops wouldn't have in fact let the couple go with that exact warning. Except that she decided to instead not cooperate and walk away. If you want cops to "investigate" what sort of info do you expect them to gather?; 9/14/14, 2:41 PM
acm said...: For the lewd behavior of making out in a car, I honestly don't expect much investigation. For a complaint of flashing, I expect a little more.

If there's going to be any investigation, though, I expect there to be a report. Any incident that merits putting handcuffs on a person merits a report. Not having a report leads me to view the cops' actions with suspicion.; 9/14/14, 2:47 PM
jr565 said...: "Saturday, BuzzFeed News spoke with the Los Angeles Police Department, which patrols the Studio City neighborhood where the incident happened. When given the address and approximate time of the incident, police were unable to find any records of it. A spokesperson said that records are produced for arrests, so it wasn’t out of the ordinary that an incident involving only an on-scene detention would lack documentation. However, without documents, the LAPD could not comment on the incident."

I would think that cops would document any incident, even ones that don't involve arrests, for their own benefit. but as they say, since they only document arrests as opposed to detentions, not having a written report would not necessarily be out of the ordinary.
And I'm not sure if people would want to have cops document all incidents that dont' involve arrests. If they are going to document an incident involving a detention, they'd need to get your name to document who they are detaining, no?
So, suppose the cops came up two people who may or may not have been pulled over for lewd conduct. If the cop decides to not in fact arrest them, do the people who were pulled over want their names to be recorded for posterity for crimes they are not in fact charged with?; 9/14/14, 2:56 PM
acm said...: Jr, no cops shouldn't record every incident. But they absolutely should record every incident that involves handcuffs or an injury. That little cut on her wrist would've merited a report if it had occured on a public school playground.

And no, cops wouldn't need her name to file a report---there are reports all the time where people are listed by their physical description if they have left the scene or refused to cooperate. Also, her name =\= her id.; 9/14/14, 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Terrible Reading Comprehension Guy says:

So Martin Laurence has sex with his daughter in a car in a public place and we're supposed to let it go? Is that because he is black? This should have nothing to do with race: this is about having sex with your daughter in a car.

A black man having sex with his daughter in a car should get the same response as a white man having sex with his daughter in a car. That is, the white man hypothetically sleeping with his own daughter, not his sleeping with Martin Laurence's daughter to whom he is not related, to clarify.; 9/14/14, 3:08 PM
rcommal said...: Well, if you dont' produce ID, then cops don't know what your relationship is, do they? See how showing your ID would solve a lot of this confusion?

Huh? Drivers licenses don't note one's marital status, much less to whom one is married.; 9/14/14, 3:12 PM
FedkaTheConvict said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/14, 3:15 PM
FedkaTheConvict said...: Does California have a Stop and Identify law on its books? I don't think so since their last statute was invalidated by the Supreme Court. So she doesn't have to identify herself unless she is under arrest. Since she wasn't initially under arrest she was free to go about her business without having to provide ID.; 9/14/14, 3:17 PM
Darrell said...: Showing her ID would have ended the encounter. I assume it would have matched what she said and agreed with her husband's ID--at least for the address. Even if it didn't, the cop would have just jotted down her name--and maybe the name of the guy she was with. If, in the future, he stopped her with some other "husband" then she'd have additional questions to answer. Residents may have complained to police about being hassled by prostitutes--or drug dealers, pick pockets, etc.--and they were just being pro-active. That's the only way to keep safe residential areas safe. She would not have been arrested in any case--unless the guy she was with said she was a prostitute and incriminated himself as well.; 9/14/14, 3:19 PM
jr565 said...: "Does California have a Stop and Identify law on its books? I don't think so since their last statute was invalidated by the Supreme Court. So she doesn't have to identify herself unless she is under arrest. Since she wasn't initially under arrest she was free to go about her business without having to provide ID."
Cops can detain you without arresting you.; 9/14/14, 3:24 PM
n.n said...: jr565:

That too is my point. Investigations of lewd behavior or alleged prostitution are not evidence of racial profiling. Decent people respond in the same way to behaviors which are better suited for the bedroom or closet. This is where assertions or presumptions of motive reveal individual prejudice or a lesser bias.

Incidentally, the means by which civil rights corporations prosecuted their business exposed their ulterior motives in just this way. Their selective interest in civil rights destroyed any credibility they may have once enjoyed. The doctrines of collective and inherited sin trap the faithful adhering to this degenerate religion. Reconciling the paradox is enough to drive an otherwise normal person insane.; 9/14/14, 3:27 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Darrell ,

"Showing her ID would have ended the encounter."

Man, you guys are CLUELESS to your own country's history and make-up.

The police started off as plantation overseers and slave catchers, determined to strike against blacks attaining freedom. They have over 300 years in that disgusting role. They have NEVER done anything to reform that image. They are here to protect white supremacy and nothing more.

Blacks have spent more time dealing with them, as that, than in being free. To think we're going to cooperate with such a gang - in the midst of mass incarceration we know is bullshit - is silly, insane, and racist:

Go on, Daniel, trust the lions."

"Fuck you" is, was, and should be the answer.; 9/14/14, 3:33 PM
Biff said...: acm said...they absolutely should record every incident that involves handcuffs or an injury. That little cut on her wrist would've merited a report if it had occured on a public school playground.

That says more about the sorry, bureaucratized, CYA state of our schools than anything it says about the police.; 9/14/14, 3:38 PM
Darrell said...: I've been asked for an ID dozens of times--by white, black, and hispanic cops. Why? Maybe it was late. Maybe it was early. Or something had just happened. I showed my ID. It matched my words. The cops told me to have a nice day. It was over. If I had been an asshole and refused, it would have taken a lot longer than the minute or two it did take.; 9/14/14, 3:38 PM
jr565 said...: Crack Emcee wrote:
Blacks have spent more time dealing with them, as that, than in being free. To think we're going to cooperate with such a gang - in the midst of mass incarceration we know is bullshit - is silly, insane, and racist:

If you don't cooperate though, don't see why cops shouldn't assume the worst. And this explains a lot of the problems affecting the black community. And why she ends up in handcuffs and her husband doesn't.You attribute it to race, I attribute it to behavior when dealing with cops.; 9/14/14, 3:40 PM
Joe said...: Just to keep this straight: kissing in public is now lewd behavior, cops responding to a complaint don't have to file any reports and citizens should kiss cops collective asses.

Fuck you jr565, I prefer to live in a free country.; 9/14/14, 3:47 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: jr565,

"If you don't cooperate WITH SLAVE CATCHERS though,..."

Dude, you never make me stop laughing,...; 9/14/14, 3:53 PM
MadisonMan said...: Tell that to the next person who gets flashed by a flasher in a raincoat who complains about the guy jerking off in front of them.

Because obviously the two things are equivalent. (eyeroll); 9/14/14, 3:54 PM
jr565 said...: two of my cousins were always involved with cops. Because my cousins were f*ck ups who didn't know how to deal with cops without getting arrested by one. It had nothing to do with race, and everything to do with behavior.
I had lost touch with one of them for 20 years. I happened to google his name just to see if I could see what he was up to. And I found a mug shot of him from a year ago where he was arrested for drunk and disorderly and fighting with cops. Some things never change.

Some people simply do not know how to deal with cops without getting arrested/detained.; 9/14/14, 3:55 PM
Joe said...: don't see why cops shouldn't assume the worst.

Because cops should have a modicum of common sense. Your continual refusal to see that the cops acted like complete dicks and very likely violated the law completely escapes you. Instead, you double down.

And, as an FYI, in many, if not most, jurisdictions, the police are required to file reports on their daily activities, including any stops they make and, especially, responses to 911 calls. I seriously doubt Los Angeles is any different.; 9/14/14, 3:56 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Just to keep this straight: kissing in public is now lewd behavior, cops responding to a complaint don't have to file any reports and citizens should kiss cops collective asses.

You're assuming that that's all they did. The complainer said they were putting on a show. She admits to sitting on his lap and kissing him. How do we know she didn't have panties off and he wasn't doing her in the car? Simply because she says so?
I don't know one way or the other.All I know is there was a complaint and cops came to investigate the complaint.
You can have sex with people without removing all your clothes, and I know plenty of people who've had sex with their significant others in public places because it was a turn on.; 9/14/14, 3:58 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote;
Because cops should have a modicum of common sense. Your continual refusal to see that the cops acted like complete dicks and very likely violated the law completely escapes you. Instead, you double down.

Define common sense when it comes to investigating a complaint, even a minor one? Should they assume that those who the complaint is against couldn't possibly be guilty of the complaint and take lack of cooperation as a sign of innocence? Or should they take all stops on a case by case basis and determine the veracity of the complaint?
If the person who the complaint is against decides not to cooperate and in fact walk away, don't see why cops should assume innocence.; 9/14/14, 4:05 PM
rcocean said...: Free publicity for a young actress. How unexpected.

BTW, years ago Hugh Grant was found with a "young actress" and had to go to jail. Even after he showed ID.; 9/14/14, 4:05 PM
Revenant said...: Not if they are responding to a complaint about public lewdness.

You don't need to know the relationship between two people to determine if they are being lewd in public.; 9/14/14, 4:06 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: jr565,

"How do we know she didn't have panties off and he wasn't doing her in the car?"

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

I LOVE THIS GUY!!!!

HE'S GOT THE MIND OF A RACIST, THROUGH-AND-THROUGH.

NO CRIME? HE'LL MAKE ONE UP. HOW DO WE KNOW?

jr, I thought you couldn't top your defense of the KKK (I haven't forgotten) but, really, this is a classic.

Love you, man,...; 9/14/14, 4:06 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Because cops should have a modicum of common sense. Your continual refusal to see that the cops acted like complete dicks and very likely violated the law completely escapes you. Instead, you double down.

So, a cop pulls someone over for a routine traffic stop, say a broken tail light. And rather than cooperate and provide ID the guy decides to not provide ID, and be an asshole. Cops common sense should say what?
Or lets say a cop gets a call that someone is weaving in and out of traffic. Should they ask for ID and give them a breathalyzer? or simply assume they couldn't possibly be drunk because the say they aren't drunk?; 9/14/14, 4:08 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Joe,

"Because cops should have a modicum of common sense."

While I'm applauding your every post, I must warn you:

That approach won't win you any friends with this crowd.

If it would, they'd have some common sense in their answers. Instead, we get comparisons with groups that haven't suffered the same traps whites have laid for blacks here - not even close - but they see a perfect correlation.

No, my friend, appeals to common sense will get you nowhere here.

Call the "whites" and "racists" like I do:

That's all they respond to,...; 9/14/14, 4:11 PM
jr565 said...: Revenant wrote;
You don't need to know the relationship between two people to determine if they are being lewd in public.

And similarly you don't need to be a prostitute and john to have sex in public. If the husband is providing ID saying he is married to the woman who may or may not have been having sex with him in public, cops might want to know if he's in fact telling the truth. Otherwise it would be excuse any John could use if he was caught while screwing a prostitute.; 9/14/14, 4:11 PM
jr565 said...: Revenant wrote;
You don't need to know the relationship between two people to determine if they are being lewd in public.

And similarly you don't need to be a prostitute and john to have sex in public. If the husband is providing ID saying he is married to the woman who may or may not have been having sex with him in public, cops might want to know if he's in fact telling the truth. Otherwise it would be excuse any John could use if he was caught while screwing a prostitute.; 9/14/14, 4:11 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: They're like vampires:

Show 'em the cross,...; 9/14/14, 4:12 PM
jr565 said...: Crack wrote:
HE'S GOT THE MIND OF A RACIST, THROUGH-AND-THROUGH.

NO CRIME? HE'LL MAKE ONE UP. HOW DO WE KNOW?

bull. I didn't say she WAS guilty of a crime. I said how do we know she wasn't? Simply because she said all she was doing was kissing her husband, as opposed to screwing her husband? Why should we believe her story over the complaintants. Husbands and wives can't tell a bogus story to cops?
And how is it racist? I'd say the same thing if it was two white folks getting caught potentially having sex in public. I don't know if it's true or not true. And neither do the cops when they arrive on the scene. They are merely responding to a complaint.; 9/14/14, 4:14 PM
rcommal said...: I think it safe to say that 911 centers keep records of calls. If there was a complaint call from someone in the public on a non-emergency line, I would think there is some sort of log or record attached to that, as well. (If not, there should be.) Thus my eyebrow's up at the notion of "no" record, even if the officer in question didn't file a report--which, of course, he should have. Do we think this incident is made up of whole cloth?

Also, it's possible to be romantic partners without being married. Not being married doesn't, in and of itself, imply prostitute and john status.; 9/14/14, 4:17 PM
timkb4cq said...: In Florida you must identify yourself to a Police officer upon request, but you do not have to show an ID unless you are driving.
The article doesn't make it clear whether or not she told the officer who she was or just walked off after asking if she was free to go.
Having the second set of police bring her back after she asked and wasn't told she was being detained was out of line either way, but more understandable if she hadn't at least verbally identified herself.; 9/14/14, 4:32 PM
Joe said...: jr565, you using situations where the person is being clearly sited for an offense? If that isn't strawman argument, I don't know what is.

However, even in your hypothetical, the police officer would explain why the person was pulled over and why an ID and car registration was required to be shown. What doesn't happen is for the officer to start slapping on handcuffs.

You are being completely disingenuous, constantly shifting the argument and using extreme examples (like your idiot cousins) to justify the police action in this situation.

Let's make it simple. The police drive up to a "scene" where one person is standing on a sidewalk talking on the phone and another is in the car. Common sense dictates that NOTHING IS HAPPENING.

The procedure is then to fully inform the alleged offenders why they are there and ascertain what is going on. The first action isn't to start cuffing people. If you honestly belief that, you are delusional.

(BTW, carrying an ID is required in most [all?} states while driving a vehicle. I should also point out that California does not have a stop-and-identify law. In general, police may detain someone only when they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking, or has taken, place. Reasonable is a way of saying that police are required to use common sense.

Thus if someone is weaving in and out of traffic, the officer has a reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has taken place.); 9/14/14, 4:32 PM
jr565 said...: rcommal wrote:
Also, it's possible to be romantic partners without being married. Not being married doesn't, in and of itself, imply prostitute and john status.

whether you're married or not wouldn't protect you from a charge of lewd conduct. And so whether cops thought she was a prostitute or not ultimately wouldn't matter. did the complaintants complaint have any merit? that's what cops are called in to determine. And if so they might issue a summons or a citation or possibly arrest. And if not they'll let go and do nothing about.; 9/14/14, 4:32 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: jr565,

"I didn't say she WAS guilty of a crime. I said how do we know she wasn't?"

Because - last I heard - in this country we're "innocent until PROVEN guilty" - not "we get to speculate and act accordingly".

Let me guess - next, she'll be a "thug".; 9/14/14, 4:32 PM
David said...: jr565 said.. .

Define common sense when it comes to investigating a complaint, even a minor one?

How about this? Approach all citizens with respect. Give them the opportunity to vent a bit if they are bring argumentative unless there is some danger. Do not approach people with the assumption that they are criminals. Make it clear that you want to give them every opportunity to explain the situation. Be polite. Be willing to back off a step or two if it will calm a situation.

There was no obvious offense in this situation. The cops arrived to find a woman talking on a cell phone. Unless they BELIEVED that she was a hooker and he was a john, there was nothing going on that merited police intervention. Perhaps just tell them what the complaint was, ask them to be a little more circumspect and leave? Might that be a reasonable approach?; 9/14/14, 4:33 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote;
However, even in your hypothetical, the police officer would explain why the person was pulled over and why an ID and car registration was required to be shown. What doesn't happen is for the officer to start slapping on handcuffs.

You are being completely disingenuous, constantly shifting the argument and using extreme examples (like your idiot cousins) to justify the police action in this situation.

Let's make it simple. The police drive up to a "scene" where one person is standing on a sidewalk talking on the phone and another is in the car. Common sense dictates that NOTHING IS HAPPENING.

Just because nothing is happening this second doesn't mean nothing was happening when cops were called. If I am peeing in public and someone calls the cops about my peeing in public I will probably finish peeing before the cops come on the scene. It doesn't mean that I didn't do it or that cops don't have to respond to the complaint.
And cops didn't just slap the hand cuffs on her. She told cops she didn't need to provide ID and then walked away, despite the cops telling her it wasn't a good idea to leave the scene. A second group of cops slapped the handcuffs on her and brought her back to the scene. Don't leave the scene when cops are trying to conduct an investigation, fool. Especially if you are the one they may or may not be arresting.
If anyone's being disingenuous here it's you.; 9/14/14, 4:36 PM
jr565 said...: David wrote:
There was no obvious offense in this situation. The cops arrived to find a woman talking on a cell phone. Unless they BELIEVED that she was a hooker and he was a john, there was nothing going on that merited police intervention. Perhaps just tell them what the complaint was, ask them to be a little more circumspect and leave? Might that be a reasonable approach?

Not necessarily. Because cops are responding to a complaint and need to determine whether the complaint is valid. Her husband acted properly with the cops. he provided ID and they didn't not slap on the handcuffs. She wandered off and refused to cooperate.
Cops owe it to the person making the complaint to investigate the veracity of the complaint.otherwise they are choosing the persons' version of the story who may have actually been involved in the offending behavior over the complaitant simply because they refuse to cooperate.
There's two sides to all stories and cops aren't supposed to take the side of the person they are investigating. Especially when they dont' cooperate.; 9/14/14, 4:41 PM
jr565 said...: "Unless they BELIEVED that she was a hooker and he was a john, there was nothing going on that merited police intervention. "
So only hookers and johns can't have sex in public? That will be good to know next time I want to have sex with the missus in public. Lewd conduct only applies to whores? since when?; 9/14/14, 4:45 PM
FullMoon said...: zDepends on the area. If she was on "the stroll", she looks like a pro. In a decent area, she looks normal.

Crack will confirm, a lady like that on McCarthur Blvd. gonna get a roll up from racist po-leece.

On the other hand, a pro just gonna hand over her ID and be done with it 'cause nothing gonna happen anyway.; 9/14/14, 5:00 PM
jr565 said...: Cops don't know you when they pull up to investigate a complaint. And they don't know the complainant. All they know is someone said something happened at so and so. And they then have to go out and invesetigate.
Now she may be a prostitute and she may be married, and she may have screwed her husband in the car or the complainant may have exaggerated. I don't know, you don't know, the cops don't know.
YOu can be sure that you are completely innocent and the complainant can be sure you are completely guilty, but cops called to the scene have to wheigh both stories before making a determination as to whether the complaint is warranted or baseless. for those faulting the cops, on what basis should they approach the incident? should trhey give the complainants story more weight or the person they are approaching? Should they take the assertion that they aren't prostitutes and are in fact married at face value merely because the person they approached said so? What if one person says they are married and the other person refuses to provide ID and walks away? How do cops KNOW that the second person is in fact telling the truth when they decide to walk away rather than deal with cops who are there to ascertain whether someone was having sex in the parking lot? Does she have priors? Is she married? How the hell would cops know? Unless they get the information?; 9/14/14, 5:10 PM
Joe said...: "Cops owe it to the person making the complaint to investigate the veracity of the complaint"

Complete bullshit.

The police officer's duty is to determine whether a law was violated. They are required BY LAW to make a judgement whether there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place with the implicit assumption that the accused is innocent.

If there are no witnesses and no other evidence, there is no crime. The charge of lewd behavior requires that someone be offended, that the perpetrators knew they could be seen and that, in this case, there was touching of genitals for sexual excitement.

If there is a witness, the police don't have to weight both stories if the witness's claims don't constitute a crime. It ends right there.

How the hell would cops know? Unless they get the information?

By talking to witnesses. Period.

In California you are not required to give any information to the police and are, in fact, allowed to walk away at any time. The police are not allowed to detain you simply because you exercise your right to remain silent and to proceed about your business.

Granted, Daniele's response should have been "I don't have to show you my ID. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" Which would force the officer to make a definitive statement one way or the other.

Likewise, the police should have stated WHY they were there and asked Daniele and her husband what happened. The officer should then contact the witness and ask what they saw. (Which is why I believe there was no 911 call since dispatch wouldn't have bothered if the report was "Two people are kissing in a car." I believe the officers acted on their own and out of a racial motive and are now trying to cover they asses.)

Your notion that anyone accused of a crime is obligated to speak with police and failure to do so should result in detention, arrest and the assumption of guilt is obscene and contrary to our constitution.

The only real questions now are; for how much will the LAPD settle and will the officers in question be fired?; 9/14/14, 5:19 PM
jr565 said...: David wrote:
How about this? Approach all citizens with respect. Give them the opportunity to vent a bit if they are bring argumentative unless there is some danger. Do not approach people with the assumption that they are criminals. Make it clear that you want to give them every opportunity to explain the situation. Be polite. Be willing to back off a step or two if it will calm a situation.

She didn't explain the situation to cops did she? She said "I was talking to my father on my cell phone. I knew that I had done nothing wrong, that I wasn’t harming anyone, so I walked away."
Just beacsue she knows she did nothing wrong doesn't mean that cops are going to know she did something wrong. How many people acknowledge that they in fact DID do something when approached by cops? very few. And so we are left with cops having to glean her innocence simply because she says so and knows it in her heart. and because of that she can't even be bothered to be on the scene while they investigate whether in fact she is really full of crap.; 9/14/14, 5:20 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
The police officer's duty is to determine whether a law was violated. They are required BY LAW to make a judgement whether there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken place with the implicit assumption that the accused is innocent.

presumption of innocence is for when you go to court not when cops investigate a crime. You're right they are there to determine whether a crime was commited but that doesn't mean they assume the person they are looking into is more truthful than the person making the complaint. They simply respond to a complaint then get the information from those they are confronting. And if they need to then arrest, they do so, and if not they let the person go. Like they did her husband.; 9/14/14, 5:23 PM
FullMoon said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/14, 5:24 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
By talking to witnesses. Period.

In California you are not required to give any information to the police and are, in fact, allowed to walk away at any time. The police are not allowed to detain you simply because you exercise your right to remain silent and to proceed about your business.

YOu call the cops because you say I shit in your yard. You saw me shit in your yard. cops pull up on me and I say to myself "I know in my heart I didnt' shit in Joe's yard therefore I don't need to cooperate with the cops and show them ID. And in fact I'm just going to leave the scene". Cops don't know me from Adam. I MAY have shit in your yard or you may be lying about me shitting in your yard. but at the present moment I am not shitting in your yard.
How do you want the cops to handle it? Should they assume that I didn't shit in your yard because I know in my heart that I am innocent even though I provide no evidence either way and just walk away while they are still trying to determine whether I did in fact shit in your yard?; 9/14/14, 5:28 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
If there are no witnesses and no other evidence, there is no crime. The charge of lewd behavior requires that someone be offended, that the perpetrators knew they could be seen and that, in this case, there was touching of genitals for sexual excitement.

If there is a witness, the police don't have to weight both stories if the witness's claims don't constitute a crime. It ends right there.
But supposedly there was a witness. The witness came out of the office building and went right up to the car and said to stop putting on a show.
We don't know for certain that this is the same person who called the cops. But it strains credibility that she herself would acknowledge this fact, but that cops would come upon the scene randomly checking for people who were engaged in lewd behavior in public and not have it be based on that call. The odds that the cops would pull up for that exact reason and at that time right after someone came to their car and told them to stop and it not be based on that call would be astronomical.
Or maybe there was the guy who came up to the car, and then ANOTHER person called the cops. Because they REALLY were putting on a show. But cops were notified. It strains credulity that they were there if they weren't. As such, the rest of your point is garbage.; 9/14/14, 5:36 PM
jr565 said...: And lewd conduct in public IS a crime. It's not murder certainly but people can be arrested for it. So you have a witness, and crime. cops are called to the scene. On what basis are you saying its a good idea not to cooperate with the cops when the complaint is about YOU?; 9/14/14, 5:38 PM
Joe said...: jr565, you don't get it. We don't live in a fascist country, even if it sometimes seems that way.

Using your hypothetical, the police must talk to the person making the complaint and take their statement. They would also see if there was any shit in the yard. Since this is a civil matter, they'd leave.

Should they assume that I didn't shit in your yard...

Yes, it's called being innocent until proven guilty and the burden of that lies with the police and the state.

"...even though I provide no evidence either way and just walk away while they are still trying to determine whether I did in fact shit in your yard?"

Yes, that is the law.

If the police have reasonable suspicion that I am, in fact, guilty, then they would state that they are detaining me and/or would place me under arrest (and hope like hell they find the evidence they need.)

As the accused, I have no obligation whatsoever to help the police in any way. NONE.

Please, get this through your damn thick head. Proving guilt is the burden of the state. The assumption of innocence does not simply apply in court, but throughout the entire process (where the hell did you get this idiot notion? Seriously. Why the hell do you think the phrase "reasonable suspicion" is used? It doesn't just mean "I think he did it", but "I am confident I will prevail in court." Just for the hell of it: "Warrantless arrests are presumptively unreasonable, Katz v. U.S. 389 U.S. 347 (1967).")

The accused are not obligated to prove their innocence at any time and most lawyers advise that you, in fact, say nothing beyond "Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?"

(More from a very good response on Yahoo questions:

"To invoke the protections of the Constitutions there must first be the seizure of a person. The courts have made it clear that “mere inquiry” of a citizen by a peace officer is not a seizure, Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983). Both temporary detention -or Terry stops- and arrest constitute seizures, U.S. v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). A seizure requires some use of force by the officer to detain the individual. It is important to note that the courts have clearly held that this use of force does not have to be physical –although that fact is often determinative. Force can be by a show of authority by the officer. Again the reasonableness standard controls. A person is seized if a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have felt they were not free to leave, U.S. v. Mendenhal, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)."); 9/14/14, 5:43 PM
jr565 said...: She says she didn't engage in lewd behavior in public. A witness says she did. Who are the cops to believe? Well lets start with the people who may be involved. Oh, one of them refuses to cooperate and in fact decides to just walk away? And the other says he is married to her but she refuses to show ID to corroborate? Is that because she's not married to him? Is she a prostitute? Does she have priors? Is there something else going on?
How do the cops know one way or the other? They have to figure it out. Maybe it's lewd conduct by a married couple. Maybe its a prostitute and her John, maybe there was no lewd conduct at all. But if the person you have questions about isnt' forthcoming and refuses to provide ID, and walks away, I don't see why that would or should work in her favor.; 9/14/14, 5:44 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Using your hypothetical, the police must talk to the person making the complaint and take their statement. They would also see if there was any shit in the yard. Since this is a civil matter, they'd leave.

I know in my heart I didn't shit in your yard, therefore I don't feel like giving a statement. and I'm leaving now thanks. If there's shit in your yard, maybe YOU shit in your own yard.; 9/14/14, 5:45 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
If the police have reasonable suspicion that I am, in fact, guilty, then they would state that they are detaining me and/or would place me under arrest (and hope like hell they find the evidence they need.)

As the accused, I have no obligation whatsoever to help the police in any way. NONE.

Please, get this through your damn thick head. Proving guilt is the burden of the state. The assumption of innocence does not simply apply in court, but throughout the entire process

That's what cops are there for. To determine whether someone should be cited or arrested for a crime. cops don't assume that the person they are charging with a crime is innocent.
If YOU are in fact innocent of said crime and cops are there to determine whether they are going to charge you, not cooperating may not in fact work to your advantage. Because, why are you not cooperating? And if they detain you it may not even be because you are guilty of the crime they were going to charge you with. It may be because while they were trying to ascertain whether you were guilty and would be arrested or not arrested you decided to flee the scene.; 9/14/14, 5:50 PM
Joe said...: But supposedly there was a witness.

Supposedly?

Sorry, dude, but unless that witness gives a statement and is willing to appear in court, it doesn't matter.

The witness came out of the office building and went right up to the car and said to stop putting on a show.

Lewd public conduct (a misdemeanor) has a meaning. It must be sexual in nature involving touching and/or display of genitals for sexual reasons. Moreover, the state would have to prove that the alleged guilty party believed that that there was a reasonable expectation of being seen and causing offense to any witnesses.

Heavily making out does not constitute lewd behavior.

On what basis are you saying its a good idea not to cooperate with the cops when the complaint is about YOU?

On the basis that I have the constitutional right to remain silent. (Contrary to what you may believe, that right does not start once a Miranda warning has been issued. It always exists. In this case, if the police has reason to believe a crime had taken place, they should have arrested the individuals and given a Miranda warning so anything said wouldn't be thrown out in court.); 9/14/14, 5:53 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Should they assume that I didn't shit in your yard...

Yes, it's called being innocent until proven guilty and the burden of that lies with the police and the state.

During the investigation phase, the authorities need only establish a sufficient cause to arrest, and sustain a charge.; 9/14/14, 5:57 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Supposedly?

Sorry, dude, but unless that witness gives a statement and is willing to appear in court, it doesn't matter.

We are talking about a witness calling the cops to investigate a crime. How is that witness going to appear in court if the person has yet to even be arrested?; 9/14/14, 5:58 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Lewd public conduct (a misdemeanor) has a meaning. It must be sexual in nature involving touching and/or display of genitals for sexual reasons. Moreover, the state would have to prove that the alleged guilty party believed that that there was a reasonable expectation of being seen and causing offense to any witnesses.

the state would have to prove? Again, we are not in a court room yet. We are at the stage where the cops are getting a call about a lewd act that may have occurred in a parking lot.; 9/14/14, 6:01 PM
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...: Look, if you're inside an office building, I can't imagine how much PDA you could even see inside a car in the parking lot. I smell BS over the whole story.

That said, the assumption that the black woman was a prostitute because she was snogging a white man and refused to provide ID does rather confirm various stereotypes of the police force.; 9/14/14, 6:04 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Lewd public conduct (a misdemeanor) has a meaning. It must be sexual in nature involving touching and/or display of genitals for sexual reasons. Moreover, the state would have to prove that the alleged guilty party believed that that there was a reasonable expectation of being seen and causing offense to any witnesses.

So if a man is in a car and unzips his fly and takes out his penis and a woman removes her panties but keeps her dress on, so you can't see their genitals you can't say they engaged in a lewd act even though you can tell they are having sex?; 9/14/14, 6:05 PM
Joe said...: During the investigation phase, the authorities need only establish a sufficient cause to arrest, and sustain a charge.

We are at the stage where the cops are getting a call about a lewd act that may have occurred in a parking lot.

The assumption of innocence goes through the entire legal process.

It may be because while they were trying to ascertain whether you were guilty and would be arrested or not arrested you decided to flee the scene.

The police are not "trying to ascertain whether you were guilty", they are trying to determine whether there was reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place and whether they have sufficient evidence to both justify an arrest and not getting reprimanded for wasting the district attorney's and court's time.

You are not obligated to sit around while the police decide whether to arrest you or not. If they detain you, they better damn well have a really good reason to do so.

If a crime had taken place and you leave the scene, the district attorney will issue a warrant for that crime and, likely, leaving the scene of a crime.

Do you know anything about the law? Do you even understand your constitutional rights? While it may be a good idea to keep your mouth shut and politely wait until the police finish their business, it is not a legal obligation and asserting your constitutional rights cannot be used as a determination of guilt.; 9/14/14, 6:05 PM
jr565 said...: Michelle wrote;
That said, the assumption that the black woman was a prostitute because she was snogging a white man and refused to provide ID does rather confirm various stereotypes of the police force.
You are assuming that they are assuming she was a prostitute BECAUSE she was snogging a white man and refused to provide ID. as opposed to her being a prostitute because she refused to show ID. And because someone complained that two people were fucking in a car in the parking lot.; 9/14/14, 6:08 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
The police are not "trying to ascertain whether you were guilty", they are trying to determine whether there was reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place and whether they have sufficient evidence to both justify an arrest and not getting reprimanded for wasting the district attorney's and court's time.

So, they get a complaint about two people having sex in a car. and one of the people who may have been having sex in the the car refuses to show ID and walks away. Don't see why that would lead to an assumption that there was no cause to presume she did in fact have sex in the car.; 9/14/14, 6:10 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote;
You are not obligated to sit around while the police decide whether to arrest you or not. If they detain you, they better damn well have a really good reason to do so.

If a crime had taken place and you leave the scene, the district attorney will issue a warrant for that crime and, likely, leaving the scene of a crime.

Cops can detain you while they are determining whether to arrest you.; 9/14/14, 6:11 PM
jr565 said...: Leaving the scene while they are still determining whether to arrest you for a crime is a reason to detain you.; 9/14/14, 6:12 PM
Joe said...: So if a man is in a car and unzips his fly and takes out his penis and a woman removes her panties but keeps her dress on, so you can't see their genitals you can't say they engaged in a lewd act even though you can tell they are having sex?

Yes, likely, you have no case.

Fact is, you can't tell they are having sex; you assume they are. Unless they are moving in such an obvious way that any person would reasonably believe they were having sex or you saw the woman remove her panties and the man take out his penis.

However, that wasn't happening, was it? Two people were kissing. Do you presume that any time you see people kissing, they are also fucking?

It doesn't matter anyway. Even if they were fucking their brains out naked, they still have NO obligation whatsoever to assist in the police investigation and are free to leave.

You really need to get a better understanding of your rights.; 9/14/14, 6:13 PM
Joe said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/14/14, 6:14 PM
jr565 said...: Cops can detain you as long as it would REASONABLY take to complete their investigation. You not providing ID and walking away from the scene would only add to the amount of time it would take for cops to determine that they don't in fact need to arrest you.; 9/14/14, 6:15 PM
FedkaTheConvict said...: I don't know what part of California does not have a Stop and Identify law is so difficult to understand. She was under no obligation to provide them with her ID unless they advised her she was under arrest.
What may occur in other states is not relevant to California law.; 9/14/14, 6:15 PM
FedkaTheConvict said...: >>So, they get a complaint about two people having sex in a car. and one of the people who may have been having sex in the the car refuses to show ID and walks away.<<

Unless you heard the 911 call you don't have any reason to assume they were having sex. So did you hear the call?; 9/14/14, 6:17 PM
jr565 said...: Contact, detaining, Arrest:
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_being_detained_by_a_police_officer

"You may be questioned, but you have the right to refuse to answer, and the right to walk away from a Contact. An example of a Contact: A police officer walking his beat sees you and does not recognize you from the area. He may be curious as to why you are present, especially if it is a time of day when no one is usually about. However, you have done nothing to arouse his suspicion, so to satisfy his curiosity, he may Contact you and ask you some questions. A Detention is a non-consensual temporary denial of liberty. A police officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that

1. you are about to commit a crime
2. you are in the act of committing a crime, or

3. you have committed a crime
in order to Detain you. The officer has the authority to temporarily deny you the ability to leave while he investigates his suspicion. You may still refuse to answer any questions, but you have no right to leave. The officer must use a reasonable amount of time to investigate his suspicions until the detention elevates to the level of "probable cause" to arrest you. If the officer fails to determine there is probable cause for an Arrest, he must release you in a reasonable amount of time. The courts have determined that what is a reasonable amount of time is relative to the criminal activity being investigated. If you attempt to leave a detention without the permission of the police officer, you may be subject to Arrest. During a Detention, absent certain circumstances, a police officer may not move you to another location or the Detention becomes a de facto Arrest. "

In this particular case, the police officer was called to investigate suspicious behavior. And then the person he was investigating essentially fled the scene.; 9/14/14, 6:21 PM
ken in tx said...: Different reports referred to them as being married and others called them partners. I suppose this is some new social code we are supposed to learn. Calling married people partners makes them equal to those who want to be married but are not allowed to at present. I don't really care, but this marriage equality stuff is not going to end well for the participants.

I grew up in a common-law state. A lot of people who thought they were just shacking up found out they had to get a real court-room divorce to break up. It's all fun and games until the law gets involved.; 9/14/14, 6:29 PM
jr565 said...: Fedka wrote:
Unless you heard the 911 call you don't have any reason to assume they were having sex. So did you hear the call?

This is not about me, this is about the cops. I don't know one way or the other whether they did or didn't have sex. the point is according to HER account prior to the cops coming someone came up to the car and said to stop putting on a show. And she admits being on her husbands lap and kissing him. Which may have looked, to an outside observer like they were engaged in intercourse.
I am neither saying they are telling the truth or the witness is. both could be true.
The cops are then supposedly called and respond to a call about lewd behavior in public. This logically makes sense since it would be very coincidental that someone would tell them to stop putting on a show and a few moments later cops would pull up talking about how they had a complaint about lewd behavior in public if in fact they weren't notified about it.
So, no I didn't hear the call. Did you hear the call? How can you argue the opposite?
The point is if there was a call, cops have to investigate it. And it may well be that the people they are investigating did engage in lewd conuct or did not. Either could be true. Cops don't know yet when arriving on the scene.
Which is why people who are not in fact guilty of anything should cooperate with cops who are there for valid reasons (because they received a complaint).; 9/14/14, 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Ha!

Suckers. She is playing this up for all it's worth. If I were black living in America, I'd refuse to show my ID too. I'd get my 15 seconds of fame and all the attention I'd every wanted (Especially if I were a woman actress).

And for those who think the cops are always wrong, this plays right into their hands too.

And for the racists out there, this is perfect. Payday for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, because you know the LAPD is going to pay through the nose, even if they were right. Because optics or whatever.

Thank God I moved out of California.; 9/14/14, 6:31 PM
Joe said...: In this particular case, the police officer was called to investigate suspicious behavior. And then the person he was investigating essentially fled the scene.

No, she walked away from him; she did not leave the scene. Her husband gave his side of the story. When she was asked for her ID, she refused to give it, whereupon she was cuffed. There was no just cause to involuntarily detain her. They violated her civil rights and the LAPD is going to pay dearly for it if she decided to pursue it.

(I will correct myself and say that yes, the police can detain you for a reasonable cause for a reasonable amount of time [meaning very short] however, they can't just cuff you and toss you in a police car. What they do is ask you to remain. [When stopped in your car, note that the office usually tells you immediately why you were stopped. If he did not, you would have a case of illegal seizure of a person.]

As I said early, when stopped by a police officer, the wisest response is to simply ask, "Am I free to go?" If not, you are involuntarily detained. If you choose to stay, you are voluntarily detained. Daniele had not left the scene and thus the latter applied.); 9/14/14, 6:39 PM
jr565 said...: To detain a suspect A police officer must have "reasonable suspicion" that you have committed a crime. How is assuming she may have been enaged in lewd conduct in public not reasonable? There is already the assumption that a crime may have been commited since there is a complaint about a crime. NOTE, this doesn't mean that the cop will arrest or detain. Merely investigate. If you are not cooperative when cops are investigating a crime cops can infer that you are not cooperating because you have something to hide or are in fact guilty. Its not unreasonable to assume that as a cop. And so people who have no reason to get arrested by cops if they simply allowed them to completely their investigations are often detained and/or arrested for things like resisting, when cops would at MOST have given them a ticket or a let them go without a warning if they had simply cooperated.
What happened to this ladies husband? Nothing. Because he cooperated. Suggesting that somehow its unreasonable for cops to investigate complaints is what's unreasonable.; 9/14/14, 6:42 PM
jr565 said...: "No, she walked away from him; she did not leave the scene. Her husband gave his side of the story. When she was asked for her ID, she refused to give it, whereupon she was cuffed. There was no just cause to involuntarily detain her. " that's not what happened as per the link I cited. What happened was she walked away. A second group of cops then drove up to her put her in cuffs and brought her back to the first crime scene.; 9/14/14, 6:43 PM
Joe said...: ...but you have no right to leave.

Yes you do unless told otherwise. Until that point, it is a casual encounter and you have every right to leave.

In my town, the police department used to stop teenagers walking down a sidewalk and threaten them with arrest if they didn't show ID, kept walking or whatever else popped into their heads. The new police chief put an end to this and fired the offenders--he is a very staunch supporter of civil rights and really does live up to his beliefs. (He's even openly defended his subordinates rights to speak out against the new police building he and the city council are trying to bond for.); 9/14/14, 6:48 PM
RazorSharpSundries said...: I've been asked by police to show i.d. because I matched the description of a suspect. I didn't act like a fool. I showed them my i.d. and was checked out and went merrily on my way. This was only 3 years ago in LaCrosse, Wi., when I was in the prime crime breaking age of 45. She was a fool.; 9/14/14, 6:49 PM
jr565 said...: "As the police arrived, Watts was standing on the sidewalk and still on the phone while Lucas was nearby. When the police asked for the couple’s ID’s, Lucas complied but Watts that she wasn’t required to hand her ID over. She told BuzzFeed News she then announced that she was walking away. The police said nothing, she recalled, so she left and walked about a block and a half down the street.

“I didn’t have the stomach for someone on a power trip when I knew I hadn’t done anything wrong,” she explained.

Lucas said that as Watts walked away one of the officers “said something like, ‘I wouldn’t leave if I was her.’” However, Lucas also said that no one told Watts not to walk away.

Moments later, a second police car arrived and the officers took Watts into custody.
“So then I’m still talking to my dad,” Watts said, “and a squad car pulls up and shouts at me, ‘put your hands on the wall.” Watts complied, and the police handcuffed her, loaded her in the back of the car and drove her back to the initial scene. Watts said she suffers from panic attacks from past trauma, and she started hyperventilating."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-lapd-handcuffed-and-detain-a-django-unchained-actress?bftw=main#42yrl8z; 9/14/14, 6:49 PM
jr565 said...: Joe if you think its your right to leave when cops are still determining whether they are going to arrest you, do so. If they then detain and/or arrest you please don't cry to us about it. Shouldn't have walked away. What you are describing is the text book example of how to get cops to detain you. If you did nothing wrong in the first place, what would the outcome have been if you had simply turned over your ID and and or not walked a block away. What would have happened was what happened to her husband. HE wasn't put into cuffs and thrown into a squad car. Because he was not an idiot.; 9/14/14, 6:54 PM
jr565 said...: If your community thinks the cops are out to get you, why would you think it was a good idea to counsel lack of cooperation? if you are doing nothing wrong? Since its a cops job to investigate a crime he may hold you in suspicion while he is investigating it. But if you cooperate and did nothing wrong it usually means the cop rules you out as a suspect. So, if you don't want to be wrongfully arrested, it usually is sound policy to not do things that would make cops arrest or detain you.
Whatever you say your rights are. Don't act stupid. She acted stupid. And so got herself detained. Her husband didnt' act stupid, so got to film her being detained.; 9/14/14, 7:03 PM
Joe said...: Jesus, dude, read your own post. The police DID NOT detain her and made no attempt to do so until later.

Moreover, "drive back" could mean any distance. How far could she have gone?

The police deny any record of this incident, which includes an alleged 911 call, which means the police simply lied about why they proceeded with their action. Moreover, any such action would require a written report.

If the police approach me and I ask "Am I detained" and I am not, I am leaving. If they say nothing and I leave and they then detain me, I'm winning a lawsuit.

And no, I'm not showing them my ID (unless I'm actually in my car.) And if they then detain me, I win a lawsuit.; 9/14/14, 7:04 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Joe,

I mentioned that one day jr565 gave me a note-perfect defense of the KKK.

Unintentionally, of course,....; 9/14/14, 7:07 PM
jr565 said...: Everyone has a right to plead the fifth. Why would you do so though if you had nothing to hide? Wouln't it be stupid to plead the fifth if you are not in fact guilty of anything? If you plead the fifth people are going to assume you DO. Just ask Lois Lerner.; 9/14/14, 7:09 PM
jr565 said...: Joe wrote:
Jesus, dude, read your own post. The police DID NOT detain her and made no attempt to do so until later.

Moreover, "drive back" could mean any distance. How far could she have gone?
My link already answered those questions. She was a block and a half away. when the second group of cops came they put her in cuffs and brought her back to the first group of cops.; 9/14/14, 7:10 PM
jr565 said...: Crack wrote:
Joe,

I mentioned that one day jr565 gave me a note-perfect defense of the KKK.

Unintentionally, of course,....

id love to hear your reasoning. Fact is its dems insistence on making everything about race that is like the KKKs mind set.
I don't even see how race has a place in this case at all. My advice would be the same of the person was an Eskimo.
It was reasonable for cops to investigate a complaint regardless of her ultimate guilt or innocence. They didn't in fact arrest her. Had she not done what she did would cops have still put her in handcuffs? We can never know since that's not what happened, but I doubt it.; 9/14/14, 7:24 PM
jr565 said...: Chris rock can say it because he's black:
http://youtu.be/igQDvYOt_iA
But there's a large kernel of truth behind the comedy. It applies to all races.; 9/14/14, 8:01 PM
acm said...: To be completely fair, there might not be a 911 call.

It might be a non emergency number call. I hope so. But in that case, the police should've interviewed the complainant first and there should be a record of it. If there is no record of it (which would be a simple "Joe Citizen called us at 9:30 AM this day and reported a black female and white male engaging in lewd conduct in a parked Caddilace Escalade at 123 Blah Street, we arrived at 9:40 and he pointed out the offending parties") then I'm going to assume the police were out of line and profiled them on a hunch.; 9/14/14, 8:12 PM
MadisonMan said...: Everyone has a right to plead the fifth. Why would you do so though if you had nothing to hide?

Show me the person, and I will find the crime.

(paraphrased); 9/14/14, 8:38 PM
David said...: Joe, JR is a hopeless case. Unpersuadable.; 9/14/14, 8:40 PM
google is evil said...: I got one word for this idiot... ASSHOLE! I would love to shove the hypocrisy down his throat until it comes out his ass. The cavalier attitude and how viciously he has treated former President Bush only demonstrates what a cold calculating moron he is.; 9/14/14, 10:02 PM
Uncle Pavian said...: Sounds like the kind of thing a publicist might think up.; 9/14/14, 10:55 PM
Uncle Pavian said...: Sounds like the kind of thing a publicist might think up.; 9/14/14, 10:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Will sentient robots be intrinsically white?; 9/14/14, 11:06 PM
Jason said...: It seems those Ward Churchill was onto something when he mentioned "little Eichmanns."

Only they aren't people he thought they were. They are little protofascists like JR.; 9/14/14, 11:42 PM
Drago said...: betamax3000 said...
Will sentient robots be intrinsically white?

Well, yes, if we wish to avoid cannibalism on a national scale as well as large scale enforced enslavement, executions of homosexuals, mandatory clitorectomies, prescribing virgin rape for the curing of AIDS, thinking that having additional people walking around can tip over islands and various other "requirements" of cultures that are "superior" to ours.

In no way is my above comment meant to denigrate the culture of our Asian brothers and sisters who are superior to whites in collective average IQ.; 9/14/14, 11:44 PM
Drago said...: David said...
Joe, JR is a hopeless case. Unpersuadable.

Is JR "hopeless" because he is "unpersuadeable" or is he "hopeless" because he cannot be persuaded to your viewpoint?

If someone else shared your viewpoint and was "unpersuadeable" from that viewpoint would that person be "hopeless" or would that person be the cats meow?

I'm just asking.; 9/14/14, 11:46 PM
Drago said...: MadisonMan: "Show me the person, and I will find the crime."

I find myself agreeing with MadisonMan more and more often.

I attribute it to my mellowing with age seasoned with increasing experience and wisdom as well as my rugged scandinavian features.

Though I draw the line at lutefisk.; 9/14/14, 11:49 PM
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this son of New York said...: If only there were some political philosophy that espoused live and let live, instead of insisting on telling people whether they can own guns or what doctor they can go to...; 9/15/14, 5:38 AM
Brando said...: There shouldn't even be laws against prostitution--let's assume the officers were right, and this was a hooker and customer--who are they hurting, exactly? What rational basis is there for locking anyone up simply because there was an exchange of money for sexual services?

Consider that there are a lot of relationships where someone stays with a partner mostly or entirely because the partner lavishes gifts on them. Shouldn't these also be illegal, if prostitution is so horrible?

As for profiling, I haven't seen the photo of how this woman is dressed, but "short shorts and sneakers" doesn't sound like prostitute garb any more than anything else. Young women these days wear very revealing outfits, and sometimes even the hookers are dressed more conservatively. So if this story happened the way it was described, I'd be hard pressed to see why the police went after this woman. Are interracial couples that don't involve prostitution in L.A. so rare that a cop should assume this was a hooker and customer?

But all this profiling and intrusive policing could be avoided if we didn't have such idiotic vice laws. What a waste of police resources.; 9/15/14, 7:21 AM
Martha said...: "Witnesses from the nearby Directors Guild office building allegedly told the police they were watching her and her boyfriend have sex in the passenger seat with the door open."

Oops!

In the audio, Sgt. Parker can be heard telling Watts that the police were responding to calls from a nearby office.
She says: 'I bet there's at least one person up there who's a racist. I bet you. I bet you're a little bit racist.'

So Daniele Watts was having sex with a man not her husband in broad daylight and she accuses the people who called the police and the police of being racist when they object to having to watch her lewd behavior.

Daniele Watts is behaving stupidly.; 9/15/14, 7:24 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: So Joe, in effect the police may not investigate the report of a crime? How could the police have got to the bottom of this?; 9/15/14, 7:46 AM
MayBee said...: The tape is cray-cray. I understand her not wanting to give her id, but she really does sound absurd.

She's pulling the Reese WItherspoon "I have a publicist" card in the new video being released, with the added bonus of accusing the cops of being racist.

Anyway, she's getting a lot of publicity out of kind of throwing a fit, so that will be good for her career.; 9/15/14, 7:53 AM
MayBee said...: She should have been wearing better shorts, though.; 9/15/14, 7:53 AM
MayBee said...: This couple is on CNN right now and they are duds. Too bad for them, they almost had a moment.; 9/15/14, 7:56 AM
Unknown said...: I see a lot of confusion about arrest, charge, and guilty. The police are not required to assume innocence, and it's pretty asinine to say they are. The prosecution is not required to assume innocence, ditto. If police and prosecution were required to assume innocence they would never arrest or try someone.

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to police or prosecution, it applies to the court. Guilt is a legal determination by a court.; 9/15/14, 8:14 AM
chickelit said...: "Innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to police or prosecution, it applies to the court. Guilt is a legal determination by a court.

Thanks for reiterating that, Unknown. And the hyper-ninny fools who argue the opposite just went down a couple notches in my eyes.; 9/15/14, 8:28 AM
MayBee said...: The Daily Mail transcibes some of the tape:

After refusing to give her name, Watts demands to know Sgt. Parker’s first name, before adding: ‘I think I’d like to identify you to my publicist. What’s your first name?’
She continues: 'I guess we all have our destinies... I serve freedom and love. You guys serve detainment. That's cool.
'I hope you feel free... I hope when you're f***ing your spouses you really feel alive. That you feel thankful, full of gratitude for the freedom that you have, that you share with the people of this country.'

Daily Mail

It sounds like she was on something, doesn't it?

Anyway, CNN reminded her and their listeners that the ACLU recommends you give your ID to the police when they ask for it.; 9/15/14, 8:35 AM
William said...: What's the difference between pride and arrogance? A proud person asks for that which they deserve; an arrogant person demands that to which they are not entitled. Any possibility that this woman is an arrogant movie star?......The cop is way further down on the status chain than she is. She's the one pulling rank.; 9/15/14, 8:57 AM
ndspinelli said...: I see Crack, the useful arsonist, has been hired to plant incendiary devices. "How low can you go?"; 9/15/14, 9:05 AM
chickelit said...: 'I hope you feel free... I hope when you're f***ing your spouses you really feel alive. That you feel thankful, full of gratitude for the freedom that you have, that you share with the people of this country.'

Sounds like arrogance to me. For some reason, she sounds a lot like Crack.; 9/15/14, 9:36 AM
Scott M said...: She was in the movie Django Unchained. Staring in that POS is enough reason to lock someone up.; 9/15/14, 9:52 AM
Herb said...: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756165/Django-Unchained-actress-claimed-harassed-LAPD-making-boyfriend-car-actually-having-sex-witnesses-claim-police-audio-claims-went-racism-rant.html

looks like witnesses say it wasnt just PDA they were doing the deed in their car with the door open.; 9/15/14, 10:36 AM
Dan Hossley said...: She was having sex in her car, according to onlookers and she was arrested for refusing to show ID to a police officer.

It has nothing to do with race. It is all about stupidity.; 9/15/14, 10:46 AM
President-Mom-Jeans said...: JR685 you are a copsucking pussy.

Fuck you and the worthless whore who birthed you.; 9/15/14, 11:12 AM
Shanna said...: I haven't seen the photo of how this woman is dressed, but "short shorts and sneakers" doesn't sound like prostitute garb any more than anything else.

I initially thought she would be at least wearing some really short shorts and maybe high heels, but she's not. She's wearing a (hideous) pair of normal length shorts and some really cute tennis shoes. She looks nothing like a hooker.

This sounds like one of those situations that would have been really easily defused if she hadn't basically pissed the cops off by walking off and paying them no mind, but that doesn't mean they have a right to detain her because she pissed them off.

She may or may not have been 'lewd' in public, but even if so the police probably should have just said 'don't do that' and they could have gone merrily on their way.; 9/15/14, 12:03 PM
Shanna said...: looks like witnesses say it wasnt just PDA they were doing the deed in their car with the door open.

Well, that makes her behavior a little bit more ridiculous.; 9/15/14, 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...: "JR685 you are a copsucking pussy.

Fuck you and the worthless whore who birthed you."

Maybe he is a horrible person, but in this case, he's right.

Don't have sex in your car in public if you don't want the police to come and ask you for your ID.

And don't do drugs.; 9/15/14, 12:32 PM
Herb said...: looks like everyone who was peddling this story has pulled it after more of the facts came out.; 9/15/14, 1:11 PM
Brando said...: Yeah, depending on which version of the event is true (was she actually having sex in public? Or just "PDA"?) you could really go either way with this. Of course once the cops confront you it's never a good idea to escalate. It's amazing how many people get trouble they don't need simply because they forget this.

Simple rules for dealing with cops:

1) Remember at all times that your first priority is to make sure they have no reason to fear you. You know you're unarmed or otherwise nonviolent, but they have no way of knowing that--this may be your first or second encounter with the cops this year, but they have to deal with random people almost every day and know they have a decent chance of confronting a dangerous character. Making it clear you're not one of them can save you a lot of trouble, or even your life.

2) To that end, hands where they can see them, no sudden movements, and speak clearly and calmly.

3) If the cop is acting unlawfully or abusively, make sure your resistance towards them cannot be seen as a threat. If you have to disobey an order from them, explain clearly why you're doing so, and remain calm as you do it.

4) Avoid rudeness. Most cops are acting professionally when dealing with you, but if you make them dislike you they may decide to make your life a lot harder than they had to and you may legally have no leg to stand on (if you get taken to the station for processing on a loitering or public drunkeness charge, they may drop the charges but you still had an unpleasant evening). You have nothing to gain by being nasty.

All of this is common sense, but the news is littered with cases of people from all walks of life doing incredibly stupid stuff when dealing with the cops, and suffering for it.; 9/15/14, 1:23 PM
Drago said...: Herb said...
looks like everyone who was peddling this story has pulled it after more of the facts came out.

Facts are a racist societal construct and have no place in "modern" communications and/or interpersonal relations.; 9/15/14, 1:40 PM
Unknown said...: We'll get a clearer picture of what caused this episode, as soon as Harvey Levin and his troops at TMZ, are able to free up the 911 call, which triggered the matter...by the way, Harvey Levin and TMZ are knocking the pants off all other media these days, beating everyone to the punch on stories the whole country is talking about..Nice Job...; 9/15/14, 2:07 PM
Unknown said...: Brando's "Simple rules for dealing with cops" sound like an uncontroversial (IMHO) version of "the talk."; 9/15/14, 2:56 PM
Brando said...: I'd also recommend that Chris Rock video posted a while back.; 9/15/14, 3:10 PM
chickelit said...: Scott M said...

She was in the movie Django Unchained. Staring in that POS is enough reason to lock someone up.

I agree it was a POS movie. There were a couple good characters, e.g., the dentist. Otherwise, it was unwatchable & utterly gratuitous revenge porn. Tarantino should start making comedies about blunt-knife beheadings in order to stay in character.; 9/15/14, 7:04 PM
chickelit said...: President-Mom-Jeans blurted...
JR685 you are a copsucking pussy.

Fuck you and the worthless whore who birthed you.

Just because you disliked some of the same people I dislike doesn't give you license. For years now I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you. And now...well, being a Christian man, I can't say it.; 9/15/14, 8:29 PM