"You can take me down to the court office and I can make a scene about it. You know that I have a publicist and I work as an actress," said the actress.
"I’m mildly interested, I’m mildly interested that you have a publicist...Thank you for bringing up the race card. I never hear that," said the cop.
"Daddy, Daddy, I can’t believe it — all the things that are happening with the cops right now. I can’t even make out with my boyfriend in front of my f–king studio without getting the cops called on me. I don’t have to give him my ID because it’s my right to sit on the f–king street corner and make out with my boyfriend! That’s my right!" Said the actress to her father, via phone.
"Keep yelling, it really helps, it really helps. I’d already be gone [if you'd show an ID], just so you know, I’d be gone,” said the cop.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
To live freely in writing...
Encourage Althouse by doing your Amazon shopping...
... going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
पोस्ट्स
Blog Archive
-
►
2024
(2916)
- 12/22 (19)
- 12/15 (48)
- 12/08 (64)
- 12/01 (58)
- 11/24 (57)
- 11/17 (58)
- 11/10 (52)
- 11/03 (62)
- 10/27 (62)
- 10/20 (49)
- 10/13 (49)
- 10/06 (59)
- 09/29 (58)
- 09/22 (62)
- 09/15 (52)
- 09/08 (58)
- 09/01 (56)
- 08/25 (51)
- 08/18 (57)
- 08/11 (54)
- 08/04 (64)
- 07/28 (60)
- 07/21 (75)
- 07/14 (69)
- 07/07 (63)
- 06/30 (49)
- 06/23 (68)
- 06/16 (58)
- 06/09 (61)
- 06/02 (59)
- 05/26 (56)
- 05/19 (54)
- 05/12 (53)
- 05/05 (56)
- 04/28 (65)
- 04/21 (57)
- 04/14 (68)
- 04/07 (56)
- 03/31 (55)
- 03/24 (56)
- 03/17 (59)
- 03/10 (52)
- 03/03 (63)
- 02/25 (59)
- 02/18 (45)
- 02/11 (60)
- 02/04 (56)
- 01/28 (50)
- 01/21 (64)
- 01/14 (62)
- 01/07 (59)
-
►
2023
(3115)
- 12/31 (58)
- 12/24 (43)
- 12/17 (55)
- 12/10 (66)
- 12/03 (57)
- 11/26 (56)
- 11/19 (44)
- 11/12 (55)
- 11/05 (69)
- 10/29 (63)
- 10/22 (54)
- 10/15 (62)
- 10/08 (69)
- 10/01 (70)
- 09/24 (55)
- 09/17 (49)
- 09/10 (62)
- 09/03 (54)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (45)
- 08/13 (50)
- 08/06 (54)
- 07/30 (62)
- 07/23 (50)
- 07/16 (49)
- 07/09 (59)
- 07/02 (61)
- 06/25 (63)
- 06/18 (53)
- 06/11 (63)
- 06/04 (67)
- 05/28 (53)
- 05/21 (60)
- 05/14 (66)
- 05/07 (66)
- 04/30 (67)
- 04/23 (54)
- 04/16 (55)
- 04/09 (64)
- 04/02 (63)
- 03/26 (64)
- 03/19 (76)
- 03/12 (60)
- 03/05 (52)
- 02/26 (63)
- 02/19 (49)
- 02/12 (66)
- 02/05 (63)
- 01/29 (60)
- 01/22 (57)
- 01/15 (60)
- 01/08 (66)
- 01/01 (60)
-
►
2022
(3553)
- 12/25 (55)
- 12/18 (56)
- 12/11 (73)
- 12/04 (71)
- 11/27 (76)
- 11/20 (76)
- 11/13 (80)
- 11/06 (71)
- 10/30 (72)
- 10/23 (60)
- 10/16 (61)
- 10/09 (63)
- 10/02 (70)
- 09/25 (56)
- 09/18 (62)
- 09/11 (64)
- 09/04 (76)
- 08/28 (75)
- 08/21 (63)
- 08/14 (71)
- 08/07 (76)
- 07/31 (74)
- 07/24 (71)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (67)
- 07/03 (70)
- 06/26 (73)
- 06/19 (79)
- 06/12 (74)
- 06/05 (87)
- 05/29 (54)
- 05/22 (66)
- 05/15 (72)
- 05/08 (76)
- 05/01 (62)
- 04/24 (62)
- 04/17 (70)
- 04/10 (69)
- 04/03 (82)
- 03/27 (67)
- 03/20 (64)
- 03/13 (64)
- 03/06 (79)
- 02/27 (64)
- 02/20 (66)
- 02/13 (68)
- 02/06 (59)
- 01/30 (70)
- 01/23 (58)
- 01/16 (61)
- 01/09 (64)
- 01/02 (68)
-
►
2021
(3054)
- 12/26 (55)
- 12/19 (52)
- 12/12 (53)
- 12/05 (51)
- 11/28 (44)
- 11/21 (62)
- 11/14 (54)
- 11/07 (54)
- 10/31 (65)
- 10/24 (73)
- 10/17 (61)
- 10/10 (62)
- 10/03 (64)
- 09/26 (59)
- 09/19 (48)
- 09/12 (53)
- 09/05 (60)
- 08/29 (76)
- 08/22 (67)
- 08/15 (66)
- 08/08 (53)
- 08/01 (55)
- 07/25 (56)
- 07/18 (58)
- 07/11 (59)
- 07/04 (52)
- 06/27 (57)
- 06/20 (57)
- 06/13 (65)
- 06/06 (64)
- 05/30 (50)
- 05/23 (64)
- 05/16 (56)
- 05/09 (65)
- 05/02 (63)
- 04/25 (62)
- 04/18 (56)
- 04/11 (64)
- 04/04 (71)
- 03/28 (68)
- 03/21 (57)
- 03/14 (66)
- 03/07 (60)
- 02/28 (53)
- 02/21 (56)
- 02/14 (40)
- 02/07 (62)
- 01/31 (53)
- 01/24 (61)
- 01/17 (56)
- 01/10 (58)
- 01/03 (58)
-
►
2020
(3644)
- 12/27 (49)
- 12/20 (40)
- 12/13 (56)
- 12/06 (61)
- 11/29 (57)
- 11/22 (59)
- 11/15 (57)
- 11/08 (71)
- 11/01 (76)
- 10/25 (68)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (64)
- 10/04 (70)
- 09/27 (71)
- 09/20 (64)
- 09/13 (61)
- 09/06 (70)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (78)
- 08/16 (71)
- 08/09 (50)
- 08/02 (76)
- 07/26 (62)
- 07/19 (70)
- 07/12 (64)
- 07/05 (74)
- 06/28 (84)
- 06/21 (88)
- 06/14 (73)
- 06/07 (91)
- 05/31 (99)
- 05/24 (82)
- 05/17 (76)
- 05/10 (93)
- 05/03 (78)
- 04/26 (72)
- 04/19 (63)
- 04/12 (71)
- 04/05 (74)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (64)
- 03/15 (83)
- 03/08 (75)
- 03/01 (78)
- 02/23 (70)
- 02/16 (69)
- 02/09 (67)
- 02/02 (81)
- 01/26 (68)
- 01/19 (61)
- 01/12 (63)
- 01/05 (62)
-
►
2019
(3453)
- 12/29 (81)
- 12/22 (51)
- 12/15 (74)
- 12/08 (73)
- 12/01 (66)
- 11/24 (74)
- 11/17 (77)
- 11/10 (68)
- 11/03 (69)
- 10/27 (83)
- 10/20 (83)
- 10/13 (92)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (49)
- 09/22 (60)
- 09/15 (68)
- 09/08 (67)
- 09/01 (54)
- 08/25 (64)
- 08/18 (61)
- 08/11 (56)
- 08/04 (57)
- 07/28 (53)
- 07/21 (68)
- 07/14 (61)
- 07/07 (60)
- 06/30 (65)
- 06/23 (67)
- 06/16 (54)
- 06/09 (42)
- 06/02 (64)
- 05/26 (62)
- 05/19 (60)
- 05/12 (64)
- 05/05 (77)
- 04/28 (78)
- 04/21 (43)
- 04/14 (58)
- 04/07 (67)
- 03/31 (75)
- 03/24 (65)
- 03/17 (68)
- 03/10 (70)
- 03/03 (71)
- 02/24 (62)
- 02/17 (88)
- 02/10 (72)
- 02/03 (55)
- 01/27 (68)
- 01/20 (72)
- 01/13 (76)
- 01/06 (76)
-
►
2018
(3410)
- 12/30 (59)
- 12/23 (45)
- 12/16 (76)
- 12/09 (83)
- 12/02 (69)
- 11/25 (68)
- 11/18 (61)
- 11/11 (61)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (76)
- 10/21 (71)
- 10/14 (53)
- 10/07 (53)
- 09/30 (61)
- 09/23 (61)
- 09/16 (63)
- 09/09 (57)
- 09/02 (55)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (63)
- 08/12 (59)
- 08/05 (69)
- 07/29 (64)
- 07/22 (60)
- 07/15 (69)
- 07/08 (67)
- 07/01 (67)
- 06/24 (62)
- 06/17 (68)
- 06/10 (65)
- 06/03 (65)
- 05/27 (54)
- 05/20 (63)
- 05/13 (53)
- 05/06 (78)
- 04/29 (74)
- 04/22 (68)
- 04/15 (71)
- 04/08 (53)
- 04/01 (76)
- 03/25 (64)
- 03/18 (78)
- 03/11 (67)
- 03/04 (71)
- 02/25 (66)
- 02/18 (70)
- 02/11 (64)
- 02/04 (68)
- 01/28 (80)
- 01/21 (73)
- 01/14 (65)
- 01/07 (82)
-
►
2017
(3818)
- 12/31 (85)
- 12/24 (66)
- 12/17 (75)
- 12/10 (74)
- 12/03 (77)
- 11/26 (75)
- 11/19 (58)
- 11/12 (70)
- 11/05 (75)
- 10/29 (67)
- 10/22 (76)
- 10/15 (72)
- 10/08 (70)
- 10/01 (63)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (63)
- 09/10 (65)
- 09/03 (66)
- 08/27 (69)
- 08/20 (59)
- 08/13 (66)
- 08/06 (73)
- 07/30 (89)
- 07/23 (79)
- 07/16 (81)
- 07/09 (75)
- 07/02 (64)
- 06/25 (83)
- 06/18 (70)
- 06/11 (67)
- 06/04 (74)
- 05/28 (75)
- 05/21 (77)
- 05/14 (81)
- 05/07 (89)
- 04/30 (83)
- 04/23 (80)
- 04/16 (71)
- 04/09 (78)
- 04/02 (74)
- 03/26 (83)
- 03/19 (74)
- 03/12 (77)
- 03/05 (60)
- 02/26 (49)
- 02/19 (72)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (88)
- 01/29 (91)
- 01/22 (82)
- 01/15 (47)
- 01/08 (60)
- 01/01 (48)
-
►
2016
(3557)
- 12/25 (61)
- 12/18 (62)
- 12/11 (59)
- 12/04 (60)
- 11/27 (74)
- 11/20 (68)
- 11/13 (79)
- 11/06 (62)
- 10/30 (88)
- 10/23 (75)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (58)
- 10/02 (72)
- 09/25 (70)
- 09/18 (70)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (64)
- 08/28 (53)
- 08/21 (62)
- 08/14 (70)
- 08/07 (67)
- 07/31 (68)
- 07/24 (57)
- 07/17 (71)
- 07/10 (53)
- 07/03 (53)
- 06/26 (80)
- 06/19 (81)
- 06/12 (73)
- 06/05 (65)
- 05/29 (74)
- 05/22 (67)
- 05/15 (70)
- 05/08 (89)
- 05/01 (79)
- 04/24 (67)
- 04/17 (59)
- 04/10 (61)
- 04/03 (52)
- 03/27 (68)
- 03/20 (76)
- 03/13 (68)
- 03/06 (81)
- 02/28 (65)
- 02/21 (69)
- 02/14 (70)
- 02/07 (75)
- 01/31 (68)
- 01/24 (59)
- 01/17 (69)
- 01/10 (80)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2015
(3788)
- 12/27 (71)
- 12/20 (68)
- 12/13 (81)
- 12/06 (70)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (58)
- 11/15 (76)
- 11/08 (84)
- 11/01 (73)
- 10/25 (74)
- 10/18 (65)
- 10/11 (75)
- 10/04 (87)
- 09/27 (59)
- 09/20 (71)
- 09/13 (55)
- 09/06 (63)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (70)
- 08/16 (70)
- 08/09 (65)
- 08/02 (65)
- 07/26 (55)
- 07/19 (66)
- 07/12 (69)
- 07/05 (62)
- 06/28 (83)
- 06/21 (79)
- 06/14 (69)
- 06/07 (81)
- 05/31 (84)
- 05/24 (78)
- 05/17 (90)
- 05/10 (85)
- 05/03 (86)
- 04/26 (77)
- 04/19 (78)
- 04/12 (63)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (73)
- 03/15 (63)
- 03/08 (79)
- 03/01 (66)
- 02/22 (82)
- 02/15 (78)
- 02/08 (67)
- 02/01 (84)
- 01/25 (79)
- 01/18 (63)
- 01/11 (87)
- 01/04 (70)
-
▼
2014
(3825)
- 12/28 (62)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (78)
- 12/07 (97)
- 11/30 (84)
- 11/23 (82)
- 11/16 (70)
- 11/09 (71)
- 11/02 (91)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (71)
- 10/12 (86)
- 10/05 (61)
- 09/28 (58)
- 09/21 (67)
- 09/14 (56)
- 09/07 (70)
- 08/31 (64)
- 08/24 (63)
- 08/17 (51)
- 08/10 (79)
- 08/03 (71)
- 07/27 (75)
- 07/20 (81)
- 07/13 (75)
- 07/06 (67)
- 06/29 (41)
- 06/22 (80)
- 06/15 (78)
- 06/08 (91)
- 06/01 (59)
- 05/25 (58)
- 05/18 (90)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (72)
- 04/27 (72)
- 04/20 (73)
- 04/13 (82)
- 04/06 (81)
- 03/30 (77)
- 03/23 (66)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (77)
- 03/02 (90)
- 02/23 (73)
- 02/16 (91)
- 02/09 (77)
- 02/02 (91)
- 01/26 (86)
- 01/19 (81)
- 01/12 (90)
- 01/05 (67)
-
►
2013
(5117)
- 12/29 (83)
- 12/22 (82)
- 12/15 (51)
- 12/08 (95)
- 12/01 (87)
- 11/24 (79)
- 11/17 (71)
- 11/10 (94)
- 11/03 (86)
- 10/27 (73)
- 10/20 (88)
- 10/13 (79)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (65)
- 09/22 (78)
- 09/15 (81)
- 09/08 (77)
- 09/01 (79)
- 08/25 (79)
- 08/18 (96)
- 08/11 (64)
- 08/04 (82)
- 07/28 (84)
- 07/21 (110)
- 07/14 (112)
- 07/07 (91)
- 06/30 (101)
- 06/23 (101)
- 06/16 (106)
- 06/09 (133)
- 06/02 (111)
- 05/26 (86)
- 05/19 (126)
- 05/12 (125)
- 05/05 (133)
- 04/28 (103)
- 04/21 (126)
- 04/14 (98)
- 04/07 (100)
- 03/31 (110)
- 03/24 (121)
- 03/17 (120)
- 03/10 (102)
- 03/03 (98)
- 02/24 (129)
- 02/17 (104)
- 02/10 (116)
- 02/03 (135)
- 01/27 (125)
- 01/20 (125)
- 01/13 (123)
- 01/06 (129)
-
►
2012
(4971)
- 12/30 (88)
- 12/23 (103)
- 12/16 (129)
- 12/09 (120)
- 12/02 (126)
- 11/25 (98)
- 11/18 (62)
- 11/11 (87)
- 11/04 (111)
- 10/28 (98)
- 10/21 (105)
- 10/14 (101)
- 10/07 (94)
- 09/30 (90)
- 09/23 (83)
- 09/16 (93)
- 09/09 (114)
- 09/02 (93)
- 08/26 (91)
- 08/19 (103)
- 08/12 (68)
- 08/05 (74)
- 07/29 (108)
- 07/22 (117)
- 07/15 (93)
- 07/08 (88)
- 07/01 (85)
- 06/24 (76)
- 06/17 (92)
- 06/10 (126)
- 06/03 (96)
- 05/27 (100)
- 05/20 (124)
- 05/13 (99)
- 05/06 (110)
- 04/29 (87)
- 04/22 (98)
- 04/15 (82)
- 04/08 (87)
- 04/01 (90)
- 03/25 (85)
- 03/18 (98)
- 03/11 (94)
- 03/04 (96)
- 02/26 (91)
- 02/19 (88)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (78)
- 01/29 (74)
- 01/22 (80)
- 01/15 (77)
- 01/08 (71)
- 01/01 (76)
-
►
2011
(4463)
- 12/25 (93)
- 12/18 (87)
- 12/11 (88)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (84)
- 11/20 (71)
- 11/13 (77)
- 11/06 (78)
- 10/30 (70)
- 10/23 (79)
- 10/16 (95)
- 10/09 (77)
- 10/02 (99)
- 09/25 (82)
- 09/18 (91)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (83)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (91)
- 08/14 (80)
- 08/07 (89)
- 07/31 (69)
- 07/24 (102)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (90)
- 07/03 (89)
- 06/26 (69)
- 06/19 (80)
- 06/12 (93)
- 06/05 (110)
- 05/29 (90)
- 05/22 (88)
- 05/15 (92)
- 05/08 (83)
- 05/01 (95)
- 04/24 (84)
- 04/17 (77)
- 04/10 (90)
- 04/03 (96)
- 03/27 (83)
- 03/20 (96)
- 03/13 (97)
- 03/06 (105)
- 02/27 (91)
- 02/20 (83)
- 02/13 (79)
- 02/06 (75)
- 01/30 (78)
- 01/23 (78)
- 01/16 (104)
- 01/09 (80)
- 01/02 (103)
-
►
2010
(3835)
- 12/26 (73)
- 12/19 (72)
- 12/12 (96)
- 12/05 (76)
- 11/28 (77)
- 11/21 (75)
- 11/14 (92)
- 11/07 (82)
- 10/31 (84)
- 10/24 (64)
- 10/17 (79)
- 10/10 (84)
- 10/03 (88)
- 09/26 (77)
- 09/19 (69)
- 09/12 (73)
- 09/05 (62)
- 08/29 (67)
- 08/22 (65)
- 08/15 (82)
- 08/08 (67)
- 08/01 (83)
- 07/25 (67)
- 07/18 (76)
- 07/11 (73)
- 07/04 (60)
- 06/27 (86)
- 06/20 (66)
- 06/13 (57)
- 06/06 (53)
- 05/30 (79)
- 05/23 (88)
- 05/16 (85)
- 05/09 (81)
- 05/02 (81)
- 04/25 (71)
- 04/18 (61)
- 04/11 (80)
- 04/04 (62)
- 03/28 (64)
- 03/21 (66)
- 03/14 (49)
- 03/07 (71)
- 02/28 (76)
- 02/21 (66)
- 02/14 (82)
- 02/07 (61)
- 01/31 (79)
- 01/24 (87)
- 01/17 (80)
- 01/10 (72)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2009
(3716)
- 12/27 (58)
- 12/20 (53)
- 12/13 (84)
- 12/06 (77)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (50)
- 11/15 (83)
- 11/08 (78)
- 11/01 (74)
- 10/25 (85)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (63)
- 10/04 (91)
- 09/27 (86)
- 09/20 (82)
- 09/13 (60)
- 09/06 (64)
- 08/30 (81)
- 08/23 (82)
- 08/16 (72)
- 08/09 (70)
- 08/02 (45)
- 07/26 (76)
- 07/19 (71)
- 07/12 (42)
- 07/05 (57)
- 06/28 (105)
- 06/21 (86)
- 06/14 (71)
- 06/07 (83)
- 05/31 (83)
- 05/24 (57)
- 05/17 (74)
- 05/10 (83)
- 05/03 (57)
- 04/26 (70)
- 04/19 (67)
- 04/12 (82)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (62)
- 03/22 (67)
- 03/15 (68)
- 03/08 (50)
- 03/01 (60)
- 02/22 (53)
- 02/15 (55)
- 02/08 (68)
- 02/01 (89)
- 01/25 (81)
- 01/18 (83)
- 01/11 (91)
- 01/04 (77)
-
►
2008
(3407)
- 12/28 (75)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (63)
- 12/07 (78)
- 11/30 (87)
- 11/23 (68)
- 11/16 (75)
- 11/09 (85)
- 11/02 (81)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (86)
- 10/12 (70)
- 10/05 (66)
- 09/28 (76)
- 09/21 (84)
- 09/14 (75)
- 09/07 (73)
- 08/31 (81)
- 08/24 (75)
- 08/17 (73)
- 08/10 (73)
- 08/03 (56)
- 07/27 (57)
- 07/20 (55)
- 07/13 (42)
- 07/06 (47)
- 06/29 (58)
- 06/22 (62)
- 06/15 (53)
- 06/08 (65)
- 06/01 (53)
- 05/25 (45)
- 05/18 (62)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (69)
- 04/27 (69)
- 04/20 (68)
- 04/13 (64)
- 04/06 (63)
- 03/30 (49)
- 03/23 (54)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (72)
- 03/02 (70)
- 02/24 (61)
- 02/17 (62)
- 02/10 (68)
- 02/03 (60)
- 01/27 (58)
- 01/20 (51)
- 01/13 (49)
- 01/06 (69)
-
►
2007
(2915)
- 12/30 (67)
- 12/23 (50)
- 12/16 (51)
- 12/09 (51)
- 12/02 (50)
- 11/25 (51)
- 11/18 (57)
- 11/11 (64)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (57)
- 10/21 (55)
- 10/14 (57)
- 10/07 (52)
- 09/30 (60)
- 09/23 (66)
- 09/16 (39)
- 09/09 (61)
- 09/02 (65)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (55)
- 08/12 (58)
- 08/05 (59)
- 07/29 (53)
- 07/22 (58)
- 07/15 (51)
- 07/08 (63)
- 07/01 (66)
- 06/24 (54)
- 06/17 (45)
- 06/10 (55)
- 06/03 (69)
- 05/27 (60)
- 05/20 (68)
- 05/13 (72)
- 05/06 (56)
- 04/29 (49)
- 04/22 (52)
- 04/15 (52)
- 04/08 (50)
- 04/01 (41)
- 03/25 (50)
- 03/18 (50)
- 03/11 (62)
- 03/04 (54)
- 02/25 (47)
- 02/18 (53)
- 02/11 (50)
- 02/04 (61)
- 01/28 (65)
- 01/21 (50)
- 01/14 (51)
- 01/07 (61)
-
►
2006
(2745)
- 12/31 (53)
- 12/24 (55)
- 12/17 (54)
- 12/10 (65)
- 12/03 (82)
- 11/26 (50)
- 11/19 (54)
- 11/12 (58)
- 11/05 (65)
- 10/29 (56)
- 10/22 (64)
- 10/15 (63)
- 10/08 (55)
- 10/01 (60)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (43)
- 09/10 (36)
- 09/03 (56)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (47)
- 08/13 (54)
- 08/06 (51)
- 07/30 (47)
- 07/23 (45)
- 07/16 (42)
- 07/09 (60)
- 07/02 (46)
- 06/25 (52)
- 06/18 (50)
- 06/11 (55)
- 06/04 (54)
- 05/28 (41)
- 05/21 (54)
- 05/14 (47)
- 05/07 (63)
- 04/30 (52)
- 04/23 (40)
- 04/16 (38)
- 04/09 (54)
- 04/02 (48)
- 03/26 (52)
- 03/19 (45)
- 03/12 (47)
- 03/05 (49)
- 02/26 (46)
- 02/19 (50)
- 02/12 (43)
- 02/05 (47)
- 01/29 (56)
- 01/22 (45)
- 01/15 (44)
- 01/08 (44)
- 01/01 (55)
-
►
2005
(2920)
- 12/25 (56)
- 12/18 (49)
- 12/11 (67)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (62)
- 11/20 (65)
- 11/13 (67)
- 11/06 (68)
- 10/30 (64)
- 10/23 (64)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (61)
- 10/02 (75)
- 09/25 (59)
- 09/18 (58)
- 09/11 (54)
- 09/04 (57)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (58)
- 08/14 (67)
- 08/07 (61)
- 07/31 (54)
- 07/24 (62)
- 07/17 (70)
- 07/10 (59)
- 07/03 (65)
- 06/26 (78)
- 06/19 (53)
- 06/12 (54)
- 06/05 (44)
- 05/29 (51)
- 05/22 (53)
- 05/15 (34)
- 05/08 (38)
- 05/01 (61)
- 04/24 (55)
- 04/17 (55)
- 04/10 (63)
- 04/03 (61)
- 03/27 (51)
- 03/20 (42)
- 03/13 (57)
- 03/06 (45)
- 02/27 (48)
- 02/20 (44)
- 02/13 (36)
- 02/06 (50)
- 01/30 (50)
- 01/23 (37)
- 01/16 (29)
- 01/09 (41)
- 01/02 (45)
-
►
2004
(2035)
- 12/26 (48)
- 12/19 (41)
- 12/12 (46)
- 12/05 (47)
- 11/28 (53)
- 11/21 (45)
- 11/14 (46)
- 11/07 (60)
- 10/31 (48)
- 10/24 (45)
- 10/17 (60)
- 10/10 (37)
- 10/03 (42)
- 09/26 (37)
- 09/19 (46)
- 09/12 (30)
- 09/05 (40)
- 08/29 (43)
- 08/22 (39)
- 08/15 (27)
- 08/08 (36)
- 08/01 (32)
- 07/25 (43)
- 07/18 (28)
- 07/11 (35)
- 07/04 (34)
- 06/27 (31)
- 06/20 (35)
- 06/13 (35)
- 06/06 (21)
- 05/30 (32)
- 05/23 (40)
- 05/16 (35)
- 05/09 (46)
- 05/02 (52)
- 04/25 (52)
- 04/18 (45)
- 04/11 (36)
- 04/04 (37)
- 03/28 (31)
- 03/21 (40)
- 03/14 (33)
- 03/07 (36)
- 02/29 (41)
- 02/22 (31)
- 02/15 (33)
- 02/08 (43)
- 02/01 (33)
- 01/25 (43)
- 01/18 (56)
- 01/11 (30)
२२४ टिप्पण्या:
224 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»He'd leave her alone if only she'd agree to give up her fundamental rights.
So the cop is saying he had nothing to charge her with. Just that she wouldn't show him an ID.
She should have just told him she was an illegal immigrant - that would have got rid of him.
Alleged audio of incident:
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/django-unchaineds-daniele-watts-detained-police-audio-explicit-2014159
Hey Tim, which fundamental right are you talking about?
The right to cop an attitude when presented with a reasonable request?
My recollection, and it's been a while since I've checked, is that the Supreme Court has held it is constitutionally permissible to request that individuals identify themselves to officers upon request. Such requests do not, in and of themselves, implicate the 5th Amendment.
She could have just remained silent. That's her unquestionable right. Instead she, "feel[s] that part of [her] role as a public figure is to raise awareness and be strong enough to say and do the things that maybe people who don’t have the advantages that [she has] or aren’t strong enough … to do[.]
She was allegedly engaged in lewd conduct in public. They didn't storm into her home.
We'd all be better off without the faux outrage.
This is so reminiscent of Reese Witherspoon's moronic outburst.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/reese-witherspoon-video_n_3204919.html
Nobody has ever hesrd of her before now. As we see, she is a crappy actress.
OK, OK. It's not about her race. It's about her appearance. She was dressed up in the wrong colors of skin. Therefore she needed proof she was not trespassing on an area reserved for the right types.
Nothing faux about it, Jake. Cite the case please.
People are under no obligation to carry ID or show it on request. It is fundamental to the meaning of a free society that law abiding citizens have a right to be free of police harassment.
You might think "papers, please!" Is the sort of command Americans should be just fine with. Fortunately, you are in the minority.
"Do you know how many times I've been called, the cops have been called, because we're black and he's white?"
My best guess would be zero.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)
It has always served me well to "yessir" the cops to death, even when they were overstepping. A routine stop and request for identification, even when unjustified, does not usually present a good opportunity to advance social justice.
And she wasn't being harassed. He didn't just roll up. He responded to a call.
She played the race card and the Ron Burgundy card (I'm kind of a big deal).
The constitution speaks in terms of unreasonable searches and seizures. It doesn't seem to me, based on the totality of these circumstances, there was anything unreasonable at all.
The article indicates that the cop told her there had been a phone call complaining of lewd conduct in the car. This is an added fact not present in the artier accounts i saw.
Assuming that to be true, as I understand the California law she is required to identify herself. That is because the phone call provides a "reasonable suspicion" that there has been a violation. In those circumstances, and only in those circumstances, can the police enforce a demand that a citizen identify herself.
That said, handcuffing her was still excessive and unnecessary. The cop appears to have been sarcastic in response to some of her statements but otherwise calm. Perhaps he is trained to cuff someone as soon as they refuse the ID, but I doubt it. She was no danger to flee, and was turning her back on him and walking away, not fleeing. I still say he could and should have been more persistent without the handcuffs, even though she was apparently mistaken in her evaluation of what her rights were under the circumstance.
But she also could have defused the situation by being more cooperative. Sassin' an officer is never a good idea, whether you are white or black.
Was the cop influenced by race? Was the person calling in to complain? Damned if I know, and you don't either. But both the cop and Ms. Watts had it in their power to make this event non confrontational and routine. Neither chose to.
Can't we all just get along? No, we can't. Not yet. Too much heavy baggage.
Furthering Jake's post mentioning Hiibel, it appears obvious the officers had a reasonable suspicion and cause to question her. Whether they eventually decide to press charges or not, she may be required to minimally identify herself if they have a reasonable suspicion of crime. If not, it would make it difficult for the police to arrest anyone.
Jake said...
She played the race card and the Ron Burgundy card (I'm kind of a big deal).
And for this she should have been handcuffed and humiliated?
Do you suppose that's how they do it in Bel-Air?
This was a two way transaction. She was not the only one would could have made it go more smoothly.
TMZ is reporting that they were having sex in the passenger seat with the door open.
AA pulls quotes out of context to make African American Actress appear hysterical, confrontational, mentally ill and unreasonable while portraying racist white/hispanic cop as personable, reasonable, and level headed.
Prof proffers proof of racism.
"Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004)"
Which involves a Nevada statute. There is no similar California law.
And for this she should have been handcuffed and humiliated?
No, because she was uncooperative and tried to leave the scene of an investigation. Since he had the lawful authority to stop her she can't just leave.
A phone call, especially one routed through a dispatcher, does not alone provide "a reasonable suspicion" of a crime. The officer has the right and duty to ascertain whether there is sufficient corroboration of the details of the call before he may detain anyone in response to it. After the person is legally detained, the officer may require the person to identify themselves.
Anthony said...
TMZ is reporting that they were having sex in the passenger seat with the door open.
There you go. Assume an unproven fact that will make your argument look better.
Which involves a Nevada statute. There is no similar California law.
Ok. You pulled that off Yahoo
(https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711011931AAbmgHG)
Still, I give the benefit of the doubt to the officer after listening to the audio. He was doing his job and she wanted special treatment. I have no sympathy for celebrities. See my Reese Witherspoon link above. Equally as ridiculous.
'Django' Actress
Cops: After Car Sex
She Pulls Race, Fame Card (POLICE AUDIO)
http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/15/django-actress-daniele-watts-lapd-race-card-fame-audio/
Jake:
And for this she should have been handcuffed and humiliated?
No, because she was uncooperative and tried to leave the scene of an investigation.
I will grant you that she was uncooperative. But leaving the scene? Sounds more like she took a few steps away from the cop. He could have cut her more slack, but he was pissed because she was not cooperating.
Cops should not use force to enforce compliance except where there is a real necessity. There was none here that I can see. She wasn't going to get away.
There you go. Assume an unproven fact that will make your argument look better.
My last transmission had no argument. This is an argument: the police had reasonable suspicion that a crime, disorderly conduct or maybe solicitation of prostitution, was committed based on the statements of people who witnessed public sexual intercourse.
She wasn't going to get away.
Well, if they hadn't stopped her, since they didn't have her name, I think, yeah, she would have gotten away.
She's not as smart as Crack. Whites are "a psychotic people". Why isn't she dating a winner like Crack instead?
So was there a crime or wasn't there? If there was no crime, why should she have to show ID? If there was a crime, why would showing ID resolve it?
Ok. I listened to the full TMZ tapes.
Gotta revise my position.
The cops acted calmly and reasonably. Ms. Watts did not. Yeah, perhaps they could have avoided the handcuffs, but they were very clear with her why they were there, and what their rights and responsibilities were. A white girl would have gotten the cuffs too, seems to me. Cops have rights too. And responsibilities.
Ms. Watts is a young and emotional woman.
Her boyfriend is a total putz.
The police were called by a citizen. Does anyone think that if the officer had found a white woman that he wouldn't have insisted on ID? Or would he have just said, oh you silly white people, and walked away?
I had the cops called on me (by a cop) when my 8 year old daughter threw an egg at the cops son who constantly harassed my daughter. Long story, but two police cars came red lights and siren. I was so damn polite that they couldn't do anything other than tell me to keep my kid on my property from now on. I looked down at the egg...that was on MY property, laughed and said Yes sir! If I had acted like an idiot, which is what my neighbor counted on, they would have done more I have no doubt.
The boyfriend did seem like a putz. Glad you came around. Without the audio I'd be more with you with respect to your original position.
This is an illustrative example of why most police need to be fired.
The cop looks like Ponch.
Freeman, as I understand it, "reasonable suspicion" allows them to ask for the ID. The call that came in was the reasonable suspicion.
And she did actually leave the scene. As I understand it, another cop actually retrieved and cuffed her. (I think.)
The cops were trying to do their job. They had been sent to the scene based on a citizen complaint. They explained why they were there and why they were checking her ID. They were polite. She was upset. The boyfriend is history, if she has any sense.
"Nobody has ever hesrd of her before now."
This whole affair seems to be a career move. Maybe she filed the complaint on her cell phone. I was sympathetic but the more I hear, the less it sounds legit. Nobody who saw "Django" knows who she is.
Freeman, as I understand it, "reasonable suspicion" allows them to ask for the ID. The call that came in was the reasonable suspicion.
You're changing the subject. Yes, the police, under court precedent, have the right to demand people show their ID based on even the flimsiest of rationalizations.
What Freeman was asking is what the woman's ID had to do with the crime she was accused of. The answer is "nothing".
This whole affair seems to be a career move. Maybe she filed the complaint on her cell phone.
I've heard that theory a couple of times. What I'm confused about is why it would matter, even if it was true.
If the police behaved badly in this case -- and I think they did -- surely it isn't an extenuating circumstance that their bad behavior was easily predictable? If a person looking for attention can reliably predict that "anonymous phone call" plus "refusal to show ID" equals "arrest", the person's motives are the *least* worrisome part of that.
David you are not a coward, but a man man.
Sometimes, per Large Lebowski, men cry.
Sometimes, as facts change, their opinions change.
Godspeed.
That lady just made me wonder what Ray Rice had to put up with before his women almost poked his eyes out and he accidentally floored her.
'course the cop has a slight advantage knowing he is being recorded.
"..thank you for mentioning the race card, I never hear that" hahaha
Crime or no crime, Freeman, I don't really care. But I like this cop's attitude to an attitude:
“I’m mildly interested, I’m mildly interested that you have a publicist,” he said.
So, there is no evidence that the police acted from prejudice. There is no evidence that the police acted inappropriately or with excessive force. It seems that the actress and her boyfriend/husband were nonplussed that they were not afforded a special privilege.
All the people villifying the cops should now shut the f up over this. This was an entitled brat who decide to make it an issue, when all cops were doing was responding to a call
tim maguire wrote:
People are under no obligation to carry ID or show it on request. It is fundamental to the meaning of a free society that law abiding citizens have a right to be free of police harassment.
IT's not harrasment if a cop is responding to a call about whatever and asks the person there for her ID> Because that's why he is there. Because someone complained. You guys are really a bunch of babies.
Revenant wrote:
the police behaved badly in this case -- and I think they did -- surely it isn't an extenuating circumstance that their bad behavior was easily predictable? If a person looking for attention can reliably predict that "anonymous phone call" plus "refusal to show ID" equals "arrest", the person's motives are the *least* worrisome part of that.
So now that we've heard the audio how did the cops behave badly. They were dealing with a petualant child and maintained their cool. They didn't just approach her because she's black.
stop defending people who are behaving atrociously because you have a bug up your ass about showing your ID to cops.
"“I’m sorry, do you see the gentleman here in handcuffs?” said a supervisor identified as Sgt. Jim Parker, apparently referring to Watts’ un-handcuffed boyfriend. “No, he’s not.”
Parker also resorted to sarcasm, telling colleagues that neither Watts, 28, nor Lucas, 43, had any outstanding warrants — and thus were free to leave.
“Not wanted for murder, nothing?” Parker deadpanned. “Do you see what time it is? Fifteen minutes ago I would have been gone.”
Before the cuffs were removed, Watts went off on one more flag-draped, obscenity-laced rant at the officers.
“I bet you, you’re a little bit racist,” she said.
“Hey, this is your job, (dealing with) crazy bat-sh-t fu–kers like me every day of the week, right? That’s what you signed up for, I signed up for freedom. I thought America was land of the free and home of the brave, you know. I’m pretty f–king brave, but I don’t go around putting people in handcuffs.”
She added: “I serve freedom and love. You guys serve detainment. That’s cool, that’s cool, that’s fine.”
What. A. Brat. If this is the face of the person who refuses to show their ID I have all the sympathy for the cops.
I also like how he responded to her whimpering with withering sarcasm.
So she pulled the race card, celebrity card, freedom card, and who knows how many other cards. When, as the cop points out, if she had just cooperated he woudld have been gone already.
TMZ is reporting that they were having sex in the passenger seat with the door open.
Which would explain why the neighbor walked out of the office building and told them to stop putting on a show.
The only proof we have that she was ONLY making out and not having sex is her saying it. That's not proof.
Bravo to Vittorio Jano IV for linking to the records.
That recorded facts make her sound even uglier than the written words.
This is a hands down, she was wrong, folks.
Daddy, daddy, daddy!
From her own mouth:
Hey, this is your job, (dealing with) crazy bat-sh-t fu–kers like me every day of the week, right? That’s what you signed up for, I signed up for freedom. I thought America was land of the free and home of the brave, you know. I’m pretty f–king brave, but I don’t go around putting people in handcuffs.”
Well she is describing herself pretty accurately with that bat shit f*cker comment. So, the moral is, if you aren't a bat shit f*cker you will probably not be handcuffed.But if you are, you might be. You also might be show to be emotionally stunted, prone to hysteria and hyperbole and playing of the race card. The mere fact that she threatened to call her publicist should make all people lose respect for her cause. She's a brat, an entitled brat. And the media is tryign to turn this into yet another race based arrest. Fuck her and fuck them.
Freeman Hunt said...
So was there a crime or wasn't there? If there was no crime, why should she have to show ID? If there was a crime, why would showing ID resolve it?
There was an investigation of a reported lewd incident in public.
I recall that a few years ago, you cared about such things.
Jake, you're grossly mischaracterizing Hiibel; it says the 4th and 5th aren't implicated "if the statute first requires reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement."
So in the present case, especially since CA is not a stop-and-identify state, it's only the allegation that the couple were engaging in lewd acts in public that might justify the request for ID--not the mere fact of an officer issuing a request.
David said...
There you go. Assume an unproven fact that will make your argument look better.
Please go back to the earlier thread on this topic where commenter "Unknown" laid out just who is supposed to proceed with a presumption of innocence.
Do you need a link?
chikelit (to Freeman):
"I recall that a few years ago, you cared about such things. "
I think Freeman is wise enough to know standards are maybe different in SoCal then in the sane parts of teh country...
For the vast majority of four hundred years of oppression a black woman standing her ground to authority would've been beaten, whipped, raped or worse. Now white people say things are so much better: she is only publicly mocked for her words in standing up against harassment --well done, white people!
I'm wondering if her refusal to show ID is some sort of solidarity/publicity stunt for undocumented immigrants. Has she come out with a legally reasonable argument for what she did?
betamax3000 said...
For the vast majority of four hundred years of oppression a black woman standing her ground to authority would've been beaten, whipped, raped or worse. Now white people say things are so much better: she is only publicly mocked for her words in standing up against harassment --well done, white people!
Oh grow, betamax. Always with the Crack solidarity.
Go back to being Mr. Funny, 24-7 please.
And: It is turtles all the way down...
I meant "grow up," not "grow."
But everybody can grow too.
The cop in the recording was on KFI640 this afternoon. He stated he's a long time veteran and makes sure to always record all his stops because of the accusations that can be hurled.
He also stated he talked to other witnesses besides the person who came out and told the couple to "knock it off" and they were very explicit in saying that intercourse was taking place. One witness telling him that she even used a tissue to clean herself up and tossed it into the street.
However, since he did not witness this misdemeanor activity, he could not make any arrest unless the witnesses wanted to file a citizens arrest report. None did. Case closed.
"Daniele Watts had just left CBS studios in the San Fernando Valley around 2 PM Thursday. She says she was making out with her BF, but we've learned witnesses from the nearby Art Directors Guild office building told cops they were watching her and her BF have full-on sex in the passenger seat WITH THE DOOR OPEN!
The eyewitnesses said the guy was sitting in the seat, she was straddling him and it was for everyone to see. One eyewitness told cops they cleaned themselves up afterward with a tissue."
If true that is lewd behavior. Reasonable therefore for a cop to approach her and ask for her ID
Why are so many black people such assholes? This stupid bitch, that dumb fuck from the Minnesota mall, shithead Skippy Gates- just black assholes talking themselves into handcuffs. Anyone can do it, skin color or racial mix doesn't matter, just refuse to cooperate or obey reasonable requests, and be truculent, be defiant, be bellicose. If you wonder why so many more black people get arrested than white, here's one reason. Black assholes ask for it.
David wrote:
Anthony said...
"
There you go. Assume an unproven fact that will make your argument look better."
That she was just making out with her boyfriend is just as much an unproven fact. Which is why the cop was there in he first place.
Based on how she acted though I'm more inclined to believe the witnesses than her
A black actress who played a slave in one movie, only to find whites expect the plantation to extend behind the camera, too.
It is turtles all the way down...
It is turtles all the way down...
Yeah, I've using that saying for some time now -- mainly to describe atoms and planets.
A wise (but now long gone commenter) named "Jason the commenter" introduced it to me.
And you, beta? Did you learn it from Althouse just recently?
In any case, I think it's inapt here.
I would just like to express my gratitude that betamax is doing what he's doing, and not someone who might be less up to the task.
If it was Scarlett Johannson having sex in a car everyone would be joking about wanting to see the tape and it wouldn't harm her career one bit. If a black actress does the same the outrage machine kicks into high gear -- and we know the color of the hand on the lever of the outrage machine...
It is turtles all the way down...
Thank goodness her husband was white: I can only imagine the outcry if a black penis was involved, too...
It is turtles all the way down...
fivewheels said...
I would just like to express my gratitude that betamax is doing what he's doing, and not someone who might be less up to the task.
He's all yours, fivewheels. Enjoy the decline!
Kirk, under Hiibel, I would argue the Court has set the bar such that if there is reasonable suspicion a request can be made even in the absence of a statute authorizing the conduct. The authority of local police derives from the State. State power is plenary. There is no need for a statute to necessarily authorize or enumerate powers.
If a black actress does the same the outrage machine kicks into high gear
Dear, the only "outrage" here seems to be coming from the young woman herself.
Do get over yourself.
@betamax: You just can't joke around much about race the way Crack and Meade, and Althouse do. There have to be real bona fide examples to go on.
Quit relying on incidences like this one (and Ferguson) which are too easily believed but casually destroyed by facts (like an autopsy or a recording).
Find something real to all indignant over.
Now we'll have a bunch of white women all afraid that there are these black women roaming the streets wanting to sleep with their husbands in the mini-van -- and they aren't even prostitutes! This cannot stand!
It is turtles all the way down
Snapping turtles.
Jake,
A "request" can always be made; that's not the question. Rather it is whether the citizen is free to decline.
Goodness knows cops find all kinds of incriminating stuff as the result of voluntary searches that the searchee would have been quite free to refuse.
David wrote:
I will grant you that she was uncooperative. But leaving the scene? Sounds more like she took a few steps away from the cop. He could have cut her more slack, but he was pissed because she was not cooperating.
she wasn't a few feet away. She was a block and a half a way. A 2nd group of cops has to handcuff her and bring her back to the scene. That's why she was handcuffed.
Jake,
" The authority of local police derives from the State. State power is plenary."
I'm really starting to wonder about you--the implied syllogism you don't quite explicitly state there is even more disingenuous than your first.
Yes, states have plenary power but that does not translate into "police can do whatever they want". If that wasn't what you were trying to sneak into the discussion, that's good; but in that case I wonder what the heck you think those two sentences are doing, then.
My appreciation of humor generally runs the gamut from thee stooges to fart machines. Even I am sophisticated enough to know Beta was teasin; ol Crack.
It;s called parakeeting or something.
Pay better attention, young Lon. Your father would have caught the pantomime much earlier.
A society brimming with white women in their late thirties and forties all clinging desperately to turkey-baster science to eke just one baby from their meager atrophied eggs: the fear of the fertile black woman is painfully obvious...
It is turtles all the way down...
Betamax wrote:
If it was Scarlett Johannson having sex in a car everyone would be joking about wanting to see the tape and it wouldn't harm her career one bit. If a black actress does the same the outrage machine kicks into high gear -- and we know the color of the hand on the lever of the outrage machine..
what might hurt her career is this whole incident coming out. Especially when her little tirade goes live and she's shown pulling her "I'm a very important person with a publicist card"
The cop wouldn't have arrested her. We wouldn't even be hearing about this case BUT for,her having her little meltdown.
I liked the part where she tries to get the cop to talk to her daddy on the phone.
As for the ID, they run it to see if you are currently wanted for anything. So presumably if she'd had a string of complaints about having sex in the car in front of people, the police would know that as they make a decision what to do.
The real outrage in California are the road blocks they set up stop all cars and check for insurance/drinking/whatever else they want.
Kirk Parker wrote:
I think Freeman is wise enough to know standards are maybe different in SoCal then in the sane parts of teh country...
Such a general and sweeping statement. Do you live here too? What part of the country are you from so that I may insult it at the appropriate time.
Kirk, all I was suggesting is that the Police wouldn't necessarily need to rely on a statute authorizing them to request ID for Hiibel to apply. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. But, you're not the authority either.
Rather it is whether the citizen is free to decline.
She wasn't exactly attempting to exercise the right to remain silent in this case. Listen to the audio. This is hardly a case of a repressive police state.
No hint of a felony and TWO groups of police to deal with one black woman? Would they need the entire Fire Department and their ladder truck if they were to try to lynch her? White society, always growing weaker...
It is turtles all the way down...
Jake, they would certainly need to rely on a statute to arrest her if she refused their 'request', wouldn't they?
MayBee:
Wants and warrants. The woman and her boyfriend/husband exacerbated a routine stop and needlessly escalated it to a confrontation. The pair's belligerent behavior was sufficient cause to merit further investigation. Their unsubstantiated accusations of prejudice did not help establish their good faith actions. Fortunately, the police officers did not swallow the bait and controlled the situation.
Maybe the street sign saying 'BLACKS CAN'T PARK HERE' wasn't big enough...
It is turtles all the way down...
"The woman and her boyfriend/husband exacerbated a routine stop and needlessly escalated it to a confrontation"
I don't even blame the bf. He was quiet and sat there talking to the officer calmly. He must have bee thinking to himself "I can't beleive I'm with this crazy bitch. Bitch be crazy! If I forget to bring home the toothpaste she's going to go into her wacko mode and start foaming at the mouth. Damn! Why do all my gf's have to be such psychos?"
Jesus. You fucking little protofascists are missing the point all over the place. Yes, this actress was an annoying little shit. But the Constitution protects the rights of annoying little shits, too.
Was she formally detained? I haven't seen evidence of that. A cop detaining someone needs to say "I am detaining you." He can't tackle someone and then only after the fact decide that he's detaining someone.
She was not obligated to show ID in the slightest until a booking started. In my state, the police need to initiate an arrest before the citizen has any obligation whatsoever to show ID except in certain specific circumstances - and that's only because the ID is a matter of administration and booking and it is not supposed to be or intended to be an interrogation.
There was only one reason for the cop to want and ID at this point and one reason only: As Freeman wisely points out, if they had lewd conduct, the cop did not need an ID. If they had prostitution, the cop did not need an ID. They didn't have anything to charge them with. Nothing at all. And as soon as no one was willing to say what they saw, they didn't even have reasonable suspicion anymore.
The only reason the cop wanted an ID was to catch her for something else. He was wanting an outstanding warrant, or he wanted to smell pot as she was opening her purse, or have the opportunity to throw a baggie in her car as she was getting her purse.
You can't do that. Unless there is a stop and ID law in place in the state that passes Constitutional muster, and there isn't in California, citizens have no legal obligation to hand over ID prior to a formal detention or arrest. They have no obligation to answer questions of any kind. They have no obligation to be polite to a police officer. Indeed, it might be a dumb idea, depending on the circumstances, to roll over on your rights and hand ID to the officer.
Regardless, the constitution even protects idiots, jerks, and spoiled celebrities. If we have a Constitution that only protects people we like, then we don't have a meaningful constitution at all.
Shame on you handlicking shits.
I'm going to try the putting my dad on speaker phone if cops ever pull me over trick. That's will be great for a laugh.
""I’m mildly interested, I’m mildly interested that you have a publicist...Thank you for bringing up the race card. I never hear that," said the cop."
This guy should get an agent. He's a stitch. Then again, if his beat is Studio City, he probably has a SAG card.
Thank you for bringing up the race card. I never hear that," said the cop.
I smell a longtime Althouse follower/commenter...
"Was she formally detained? I haven't seen evidence of that. A cop detaining someone needs to say "I am detaining you." He can't tackle someone and then only after the fact decide that he's detaining someone. "
There is a whole section missing from when she walked away and when the separate set of cops handcuffed her. Did they say then they were detaining her? She tells the cop he's arresting her for bullshit and he tells her he sn't. He's detaining her.
Yes, I give the Devil the benefit of law. So it's not a big deal to give citizens the benefit of law, too. Even nasty, foul-mouthed dumb ones.
And damn all you little bootlickers that don't.
She got the benefit of the law. And she deserved the hand cuffs. The guy who said don't tase me bro deserved to be tased too.
Jason wrote So it's not a big deal to give citizens the benefit of law, too.
That goes for the people who made the complaint too.
Think about for a moment, Jason, because from what I read, you probably assume they were either liars, racists, prudes or some combination thereof.
@Jason: Oh and you you can stop with the faux Thomas More act.
I wonder if one of the people making the complaint took a video of them having sex in the car with the door open with their iPhone. And we'll see it shortly online. That would be awesome.
Betamax, you are a treasure.
For the humor challenged: beta is like the Onion. One laugh from the satire itself, and another from the indignant reactions that verge on self-parody.
Kirkparker wrote:
Yes, states have plenary power but that does not translate into "police can do whatever they want".
no one's saying cops could do ANYTHING they want. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do this.
I'm just sitting back and enjoying betamax3000 and FullMoon.
I think it was Rusty on another thread who wrote that betamax is a moderating influence.
I'd have to agree.
I'd also venture a guess and say he is not being paid near enough.
As William Joel once said, "...and put bread in my jar and say 'man what are you doin' here?'".
When one sees a butt ugly, middle aged guy having public sex with a young woman, there's a reasonable suspicion that they're not celebrating their silver wedding anniversary.....@Jason: I'm sure you're supportive of the cop who didn't ask Dahmer any intrusive questions when he caught him with a naked Asian boy in the middle of the street.
"Do you suppose that's how they do it in Bel-Air?" I know for a fact that up on Benedict Canyon one woman client of our security company called us at least once a week for years about the strange black man in her neighbor's driveway.
Her neighbor was Eddie Murphy.
She also wanted us to go down into the brush off Mulholland and shoot the coyotes there with our .38's before they ate someone's poodle. Or perhaps fenced it to Eddie Murphy.
The cop said he recorded all his stops (prudent).
LAPD said there was no record of this event.
Why did LAPD lie?
Race is BIG in Amerika.
You won't see a Black or Hispanic face in any of the vaunted and rich national parks and forests of this racist country.
We minorities want food, security and education for our kids. We don't give a damn about all those Yellowstone White Country Clubs frequented by Senior Citizens.
Sell them off to, G-d knows: Ted Turner, Disney or Buffett. Let them put in their cable cars and charge admission. Hell, we Amerikan minorities deserve better. We do get better treatment at Walmart, Google, Amazon, Sea World, Busch Gardens and Disney World.
Oh sigh! More theatre.
I'm no fan of abusive officers, but the animus shown the police by some Althouse commenters is a bit much.
The only reason she had to call her publicist was to berate him or her for not setting this confrontation up for her ahead of time.
where is the story about the fire fighter who lied about being profiled and threatened, only to have the cops' cameras show him for the liar he is?
You won't see a Black or Hispanic face in any of the vaunted and rich national parks and forests of this racist country.
That's bullshit and you know it. I spent the whole weekend camping at a State Park. Plenty of non-white families.
You should try getting out more.
"This is an illustrative example of why most police need to be fired."
Goodness people, please read C.S. Lewis The Abolition of Man.
This incident doesn't make the police look bad, it makes this actress look bad. If you compare police brutality to instances like this, you make police brutality more acceptable. You degrade society and lose your argument.
Try and be more reasonable in the future, otherwise, you'll be dismissed as a fool.
Jason wrote;
"Was she formally detained? I haven't seen evidence of that. A cop detaining someone needs to say "I am detaining you." He can't tackle someone and then only after the fact decide that he's detaining someone."
You have no idea what you're talking about. When did Althouse lure in children to try and make foolish arguments?
The moment you come into the airport where I work, you're detained and can't leave until we let you leave. The same goes for all international travelers. And guess what, never once do we say to anyone, "You're detained".
What a uneducated thing to write.
Droll cop is droll.
News flash: this wasn't in an airport, moron.
Really, do you want to have "how we do things at the airport" be the constitutional standard by how we assess things, child? I notice you haven't made reference to any law that requires her to show her ID. Because, idiot, you can't.
This is the time when she needed a friend to tell her that though she felt righteous, she was sounding batshit.
I'm sure I have sounded like this at times on the phone with the cable customer service.
Just because you have a legal right to act like a slut, that doesn't make you not a slut.
And by "slut" I mean a bad thing. I have to add that for some who don't understand.
"Publicist" is the key word. I will give her not one more moment of my attention.
No comment on the legal issues involved (I have mixed feelings) but as human beings I definitely side with the cop here.
I love his droll humor. The only response that could have been improved upon was his response to her line about the publicist. It would have been great if he'd said, "OK ma'am, why don't you call your publicist down here because I presume they will want you to show me your ID since I have no clue who you are."
Heaven forbid a black woman has a publicist. If more blacks had publicists over the last four hundred years maybe white people would actually have some awareness of the real world by now.
She also apparently has a right to be a bitch, and was exercising it with brio.
God bless America.
Meh. Behave politely to police. If you don't, don't complain that the police become sarcastic. Obviously, if he had pulled his gun on her, he should get in trouble, but I think he handled it about right.
We intentionally allow armed warriors to walk our streets, to protect us. It's stupid to antagonize them; they are armed. I was always taught to be polite to policemen, and to watch out for them.
Contempt of Cop has always been a arrestable offense that isn't on the books.
Jason must be a Labour supporter from Rotherham.
Or perhaps a Pakistani from Rotherham?
What Freeman was asking is what the woman's ID had to do with the crime she was accused of. The answer is "nothing".
Part of the problem in this case is that we have a set of laws on the book that criminalize consensual behavior between adults based on the status and relationship between them. Proving the relationship by providing ID would be an absolute defense against certain crimes.
Fundamentally, people will disagree about what situations constitute reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed. It's especially hard to make such a distinction when all facts on the ground aren't known.
Man: it takes the continual unending abuse of blacks by police for whites to even get an inkling that we live in a police state. If blacks are to be your canary in the coal mine you could at least toss them a cracker or two.
I love his droll humor.
Me too. His responses are pretty much the way I could imagine myself responding to her nonsense.
I don't know enough about California law to say whether she would have been legally allowed to walk away without talking to the cops and whether they were justified in handcuffing her. It does seem that she probably committed a crime, and eyewitness testimony was available, so I'm guessing it's quite possible they would have been justified in hauling her down to the station.
It's also quite clear the cops just wanted to check out the complaint, probably had no intention of actually arresting them unless she really had been a prostitute, and she completely overreacted.
And what is it with whites and ID? A black woman needs an ID for kissing a white man in public, a black man needs an ID to exercise his right to vote: besides height and weight and eye color on the ID maybe we could also list years spent under oppression -- means a hell of a lot more than a damn birth date...
It is turtles all the way down...
Freeman Hunt said...
"So was there a crime or wasn't there? If there was no crime, why should she have to show ID? If there was a crime, why would showing ID resolve it?
If there is some doubt about whether or not a crime took place, then if the Police have your ID, they know where to find you if charges get filed.
Gerry: New here, bro?
Jason the cop tells her she's detained when he explains to her that she' snot under arrest but being detained. That's one time she's told she's detained. But she could also have been told she was being detained when the other set of cops put her in handcuffs in the first place which is not on tape.
Here's the body camera tape.
She's pompous. And an idiot.
But it is SoCal.
Let me be more precise: at any point prior to the handcuffing, did the police officer give her a (lawful) order not to walk away?
Civil is wrote:
Part of the problem in this case is that we have a set of laws on the book that criminalize consensual behavior between adults based on the status and relationship between them. Proving the relationship by providing ID would be an absolute defense against certain crimes.
married couples aren't allowed to f*ck in public either. They don't get away from a public lewdness charge simply because they aren't A prostitute and john.
Freeman hunt wrote:
So was there a crime or wasn't there? If there was no crime, why should she have to show ID? If there was a crime, why would showing ID resolve it?
there wasn't a crime there was a complaint. Cops are there to determine if there was a crime or if they can let the people go because there wasn't. Step one, figure out who they are talking to. Do they have any priory. Are they a prostitute and her John or is this a married couple. Or a woman and her boyfriend. The ID doesn't answer all questions, it is merely the first step in the investigation.
Because no one was actually going to formally make a complaint the cop would probably let them go without an arrest and merely tell them they had a complaint. But she decided to leave the scene. Which is why she was in handcuffs and why a routine stop ended up taking fifteen minutes instead of four.
She should attend some tea party events to learn how she can exercise her civil rights and understand how much of her tax dollars are wasted.
Wow chick is stupid. Why not go to Lem's and leave beta alone?
Too stupid to understand what goes on, the idiot-bitch (or bitch-idiot as you like) is out of his element.
“Somebody called, which gives me the right to be here,” the unidentified Los Angeles police officer is heard saying to Watts. “So It gives me the right to identify you by law.”
FWIW, this is the cops interpretation of the law, stated calmly to her.
" What I'm confused about is why it would matter, even if it was true.
If the police behaved badly in this case "
It matters because it give her in incentive to resist a reasonable request. She WANTED this confrontation because she thinks it will help her career. What would you have the cop do ? Ignore the complaint ?
The chip was not on his shoulder.
White people keep going on about the problems with the black families and absent fathers today, and then -- when in trouble -- a black woman calls her own father for advice she is then ridiculed for it. For whites it seems both sides of the coin are Heads...
It is turtles all the way down...
White people keep going on about the problems with the black families and absent fathers today, and then -- when in trouble -- a black woman calls her own father for advice she is then ridiculed for it. For whites it seems both sides of the coin are Heads...
It is turtles all the way down...
Is getting a call enough to demand someone's ID or put them in cuffs? The cops didn't observe the lewd behavior. They weren't intending arrest them. What's the purpose of identifying a person if you don't have the intention to arrest them?
Good cop.
The cops didn't observe the lewd behavior.
Cops don't have to observe illegal behavior for it to have occurred.
They weren't intending arrest them. What's the purpose of identifying a person if you don't have the intention to arrest them?
They may have arrested them if, after investigating, they thought it was warranted. Baring that, a warning. Cops do that sort of thing all the time. They don't arrest you because your tail light is broken, they pull you over and let you know you need to fix it. The cop finding a couple parking in a car and telling them to move along is so common in film it's almost cliche. This is just the daytime version.
Has she given an account of other times the cops have been called because she is black, blah, blah, blah? Surely there are other police reports of her going bat-shit fucking crazy because RACISM. Inquiring minds want to know. Maybe her publicist could be helpful. Have we heard from here Hollywood publicist? Get her Daddy on the phone.
Contrast this scene with the last one Althouse blogged about in Minnesota.
That cop (the fat guy who said, "I'm not your brother. You're not going anywhere, you're under arrest) escalated the situation because of his behavior. I was critical of law enforcement in that situation, because the cop seemed like he was looking for trouble. He created the situation because of his response. This cop is completely the opposite. He responds to the attitude and anger not with hostility, but with sarcastic humor. Great job.
b3k, you need the comma before the ellipsis at the end there.
For the verisimilitude. Of the illiteracy.
Actually I think this is a pretty simple situation. We have a women who fancies herself as an A-list actress (she's not.) She's been having sex in an open car in a public space and people have complained about it. She refuses to give her ID not because of some social justice stand but because she worries about the bad publicity if her name is made public. So she refuses.
Of course, like a lot of people on this thread, she can't simply argue the facts. She has to play the race card. It's kind of reflexive. Like claiming the cop was racist to ask a black woman for her ID when he's already made the SAME request to a white man.
The Crack Emcee said
nothing
Where is he when we need him?
"We intentionally allow armed warriors to walk our streets, to protect us."
One of the earliest organized police forces was in ancient Athens, where Sarmatian archers — slaves — were employed to patrol the streets and make arrests. The logic behind it was that no free Athenian citizen would suffer another citizen to lay hands upon him. Slaves lacked the social stature to make it an infringement of a citizen's rights.
I'm surprised Crack hasn't come along to point out that the popo behave the way they do because SLAVERY when this time there's some actual historical background to it.
You guys are really lost without Crack.
AReasonableMan said...
You guys are really lost without Crack
Crack shall forever be with us.
If instead of calling her dad and putting him on speaker phone she had called her publicist and put him/her on speaker phone it can't imagine the publicist would say "don't show him your ID girl. You keep fighting for the right to be free to be, you and me"
My guess is she would say "if you don't show h your ID get hand cuffed and have a conniption this might get out and it could impact your career. So show your Id to the nice officer"
So, again, can anybody show anything on California law requiring her to show ID? Can anyone show anything in California law that authorized the cop to continue to detain her solely because she refused to show ID?
Anybody? Bueller?
I feel like half the threads have people complaining because Crack showed up, the other half have people wondering why he didn't show up.
And in each case it's the same people...
B wrote:
Is getting a call enough to demand someone's ID or put them in cuffs? The cops didn't observe the lewd behavior. They weren't intending arrest them. What's the purpose of identifying a person if you don't have the intention to arrest them?
The purpose of the identification is to figure out who they are speaking to and whether they should in fact be arrested or go home with a summons or have absolutely nothing happen to them. The cop is merely there because someone complained and he has to investigate the complaint.
So, again, can anybody show anything on California law requiring her to show ID? Can anyone show anything in California law that authorized the cop to continue to detain her solely because she refused to show ID?
None, but he already had probable cause to arrest her for lewd conduct, so it doesn't appear to matter.
Jason wrote:
So, again, can anybody show anything on California law requiring her to show ID? Can anyone show anything in California law that authorized the cop to continue to detain her solely because she refused to show ID?
Was she detained because she didn't show ID? Or was she detained for leaving the scene? Listen to the tapes where he asks her if he put her in handcuffs or she put herself in handcuffs. And it's because she left the scene not because she didn't show ID.
"The Crack Emcee said
nothing
Where is he when we need him?"
He probably listened to the tapes, heard how crazy she was acting and realized he couldn't defend her actions against the cop since she was acting like a baby and a crazy person and entitled rich brat, all rolled into one.
Obamas America, where blacks can do anything they want, and you are a racist if you call them on it.
wendybar,
"Obamas America, where blacks can do anything they want, and you are a racist if you call them on it."
What a tragedy, considering the past, huh? (Slavery lasted for 256 years, so blacks have known white's slavery for LONGER than we've known freedom.) Whites abusing blacks, at will, was so much more satisfying. No need for a change of pace, there. Tragedy it can't stay the same.
Remember the days of the Eight-Box Rule? When blacks were forced to vote by matching a candidate's name on a piece of paper to the same name on one of eight boxes - when blacks still couldn't read? Whites would switch the boxes around, like a shell game - which it was - and it was all backed by the Supreme Court of these great United States. Why blacks would call whites racist, for anything after THAT, boggles the mind. I mean, it's not like whites PLAN these things they do (and say) right? They're colorblind now, and if what whites do hurts black Americans, well,...hurting other Americans was always what white America has been about.
They're innocent, pure, and simple.
Signed,
Another of your vile and lowly creatures with nothing to say someone so virtuous, as a white, should ever have to contemplate or endure,....
jr565,
"He probably listened to the tapes, heard how crazy she was acting and realized he couldn't defend her actions against the cop since she was acting like a baby and a crazy person and entitled rich brat, all rolled into one."
jr's still showing off those famous "psychic abilities" of his, telling whites my deepest inner thoughts - and, especially, exposing my motivations - with an uncanny accuracy he still insists (after YEARS of repeatedly getting it wrong) can never be questioned. No black could question the KKK, could they? Of course not.
And you don't question overseers either. Didn't you see 12 Years a Slave? (Silly question: only 2% of America saw 12 Years a Slave.) If you question an overseer, expect to be hung from a tree by the neck until a white decides to cut you down - IF a white decides to cut you down. That's tradition.
As is not allowing blacks to be "a baby and a crazy person and entitled rich brat, all rolled into one." Can't have that, can we? That's worth a night in the pokie, at least. Naturally, to (and for) the whites who trained us, every black is expected to be the most up-right, high-minded, intellectually curious, high-achieving, God-fearing, Ambassador of Peace this nation has ever produced. Anything less is an abomination. Just ask Paris I-Can-Say-Nigger Hilton.
Signed,
Dred Scott (That's short for Plessy vs. Ferguson - FERGUSON!!!!)
The Crack MC said-
"What a tragedy, considering the past, huh? (Slavery lasted for 256 years, so blacks have known white's slavery for LONGER than we've known freedom.) Whites abusing blacks, at will, was so much more satisfying. No need for a change of pace, there. Tragedy it can't stay the same."
Since I wasn't around for those 256 years, and my ancestors weren't here, YOU can't blame me for that. What?? Do you need 256 years of blacks rioting and looting and hollering racism to even the score?? Grow up.
jr565 said...
"The Crack Emcee said
nothing
One could hope, but he just said he's been a slave for 256 years, so he should probably update his profile pic, which shows a much younger person.
Calling all lawyers. I just read up on Terry Stops. In a later case, the court said that a Nevada law requiring that a person identify themselves did not violate the fourth amendment. Does California law require the person to show an ID during a Terry Stop or even to identify themselves? (In Hibel, the court seemed to indicate that asking for a name was constitution while asking for an ID was not.)
(My reading of various articles is that California actually does not have a law governing self-identification, hence my request for anyone with legal experience in these matters.)
Second, once law enforcement determines they don't have enough evidence to file charges, does the Terry Stop doctrine cease, regardless of other actions by the suspects?
In a Wikipedia article, I found the following statement, which may be quoting an SC opinion since I've seen the wording elsewhere:
"As of February 2011, there is no U.S. federal law requiring that an individual identify himself during a Terry stop, but Hiibel held that states may enact such laws, provided the law requires the officer to have reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement..."
One of my main points in the previous post by Althouse is that in the story that was related, the officer did not articulate a suspicion of criminal involvement and absent that, the actions of the officers seemed very suspect to me. Regardless of how big of an ass Daniele may be, this is key (as Jason pointed out, the constitution protects the asses as much as the non-asses, perhaps moreso.)
Still, I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of both constitutional experts and California legal experts.
BTW, here is an interesting, albeit rather brief, post by Orin Kerr that may be related: http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/02/first-look-navarette-v-california-stops-governed-rules-terry-case-case-reasonableness/
(This addresses one issue that bothers me; anonymous tips. It appears the tip in the Watts case was not anonymous, but for the sake of argument, let's say it was--what does that change about the Terry Stop?)
wendybar,
"Since I wasn't around for those 256 years, and my ancestors weren't here, YOU can't blame me for that."
Ah, it's one of those immigrant families who only came for the good parts of America, and thus bear no responsibility for what happens (or has happened) after they got here. That allows them to walk amongst the deprived with a clear conscience, you see, as they vote for policies which continue the trend of white's supremacy in this country.
If blacks were deprived of freedom for 256 years - leaving them to roam a hostile country destitute - and then suffered Jim Crow for another hundred years - which is when most immigrants got here, but no matter, THEY made money - and then all the bogus laws and policies that continued onward - facilitated by the children of those who came before, wherever they're from - it's nobody's fault but BLACKS.
Because y'all came late, after the dirt was already being done, and this was a rich country THEY can enjoy while blacks continue, with each generation, to scratch out a living under the weight of them.
That's what's "fair" and "just" and, God Damn It, just makes good sense to say.
Solid citizenship is what it is.
Why blacks would call that "Patriotism a la Carte" - and white's the country's ultimate hypocrites - I have no idea,....
Fernandinande,
"One could hope, but he just said he's been a slave for 256 years, so he should probably update his profile pic, which shows a much younger person."
Racist white's "sense of humor" leaves a LOT to be desired.
How Richard Pryor became the nation's King of Comedy is a mystery:
It's not like whites take anything blacks say seriously,...
Crack wrote:
jr's still showing off those famous "psychic abilities" of his, telling whites my deepest inner thoughts - and, especially, exposing my motivations - with an uncanny accuracy he still insists (after YEARS of repeatedly getting it wrong) can never be questioned. No black could question the KKK, could they? Of course not.
well you obviously have psychic abilities that let you know how whites think. If it's not true for me, maybe not for you as well. right?
And I said "Probably" meaning I was assuming EVEN YOU would approach this with a modicum of common sense and see the situation, and her in particular as the brat she was, and this wasn't yet another example of white cop abusing black person because of racism. I guess I was wrong to assume that about you.
Crack Emcee,
And you don't question overseers either. Didn't you see 12 Years a Slave? (Silly question: only 2% of America saw 12 Years a Slave.) If you question an overseer, expect to be hung from a tree by the neck until a white decides to cut you down - IF a white decides to cut you down. That's tradition.
So where are all the blacks being hung from trees for questioning their white overseers. Did this cop lynch her when she questioned showing ID? POint to 5 recent examples of blacks hung from trees anytime in the last 20 years for questioning overseers.
Ah, it's one of those immigrant families who only came for the good parts of America
Like not dying of starvation?
The Fugitive Slave Act was a great law, wasn't it? Overseers could bring people who escaped to freedom BACK into slavery - BECAUSE THAT WAS THE LAW WHITES WROTE AND IT WAS GOOD - just as cops and the law always are.
No need for any black to question either with THAT background.
Man, anytime white people decide to parade their moral bonafides - when they can't even bring themselves to apologize for the CENTURIES of Hell they unleashed on us - that's a day of true COMEDY,...
jr565,
"Well you obviously have psychic abilities that let you know how whites think. If it's not true for me, maybe not for you as well. right?"
No, jr, because - for starters - I'm not an idiot.
What part of you've-been-wrong-repeatedly is hard to process?
I'll help you with it.
Because I'm not an idiot,...
jr565,
"POint to 5 recent examples of blacks hung from trees anytime in the last 20 years for questioning overseers."
See, now you're hung up on the word "tree," to the extent you forgot a young man lying in the baking sun for 4 hours while his brains drained down the street.
Or the straight-A student who had a car accident, approached the cops for help, and they shot him down.
Must I go on, jr - it hurts?
I can. The list is long. Eric Garner, "choked out" for selling single cigarettes for 75 cents apiece. That IS a crime worth any cop's time. (My white wife killed three people and - zip. Amazing what perspective that gives me. She's no "nice," just like every other white person.)
I get it now - black deaths don't count unless there's a tree involved.
I'ma strap one to my back, just in case,...
Shanna,
"Like not dying of starvation?"
And then coming over here to participate in starving blacks!
Such an uplifting immigrant story,...
Shanna,
"Such an uplifting immigrant story."
Leaving starvation, somewhere, and then actively looking at the abused people in your new home and saying to their face:
"We have nothing to do with this."
That's the kind of "compassion" and "citizenship" and "honor" and "justice" whites learned from YOUR experience with starvation, right?
I'm so glad blacks learned different lessons.
That's OUR our terrible, terrible culture at work.
Whites' is clearly better,...
Crack Emcee wrote:
Or the straight-A student who had a car accident, approached the cops for help, and they shot him down.
Must I go on, jr - it hurts?
I can. The list is long. Eric Garner, "choked out" for selling single cigarettes for 75 cents apiece. That IS a crime worth any cop's time. (My white wife killed three people and - zip. Amazing what perspective that gives me. She's no "nice," just like every other white person.)
I get it now - black deaths don't count unless there's a tree involved.
Or how about the old guy who was punched by the black dude and wound up in a coma. Or how about the black kid shot in a drive by by another black dude. Don't quote anecdotal crime stats at me as if its a pattern akin to lynching of slaves.
Just becase a black guy dies at the hand of a white person don't make it a lynching.
And this woman wasn't lynched, wasn't murdered, wasn't punched nothing. The only reason she wound up in handcuffs was not because she was kissing her white bf, but because she acted like a twat.
"I can. The list is long. Eric Garner, "choked out" for selling single cigarettes for 75 cents apiece. That IS a crime worth any cop's time. (My white wife killed three people and - zip. Amazing what perspective that gives me. She's no "nice," just like every other white person.)"
HE had three pending court cases. Not a first time offender. And he wasn't choked because he was selling cigarettes. Cops went into to arrest him and he started resisting. One cop in an effort to get him to the ground reached around his neck and pulled him to the ground. The guy was huge. There may be no easy way to bring someone like that down to the ground that doesn't involve grabbing him by the neck. But the intent wasn't to "choke him out". It was to get him to the ground. Totally different. Did it contribute to his death? Sure. But it wasn't the cops intent to choke him to death.
Do you think football players who tackle someone and end up breaking their knecks are guilty of choking someone out? Should we charge them with murder? Or was it simply something that sometimes occurs when people are forcing people to the ground who don't want to cooperate?
Garner had three pending cases in court for selling cigarettes illegally. He was out on $2,000 dollar bail. He also got in trouble for driving without a license and then giving the cops a false name (see how that whole ID thing comes into play) and while they were getting him for that they found the illegal cigarettes and some pot in his car/
http://www.silive.com/northshore/index.ssf/2014/07/eric_garner_who_died_in_police.html
So, the cops had knowledge that this guy was out on bail and probably selling illegal cigarettes again. Which is why they went into arrest him, and probably why he tried to resist.
(cont.) it wasn't cops simply saying "Hey look at that random black guy. Lets bust him for selling illegal cigarettes and put him in a chokehold".
Any ex ue, jr.
As one white guy said, itwas a good kill.
Lesson from Garner. don't resist arrest. Especially if cops are getting you for misdeameanors. considering his repeated court appearances for the same charge, he should have known the drill. Cops will arrest him, he'll appear in court. He'll get out on bail. And then probably go back to selling cigarettes on the street. ANd then cops will see him selling the cigarettes and go in to arrest him (repeat ad nauseum). My guess is, because he had so many court cases pending if he was arrested AGAIN he'd face harsher sentencing. So maybe there was incentive to resist. Still not a good idea. Had he not, he would be alive today.
Unknown wrote:
Any ex ue, jr.
As one white guy said, itwas a good kill.
Excuse for what? For the arrest? There were valid reasons for the arrest. For the take down? Cops needed to subdue someone who didn't want to be arrested. if they had tased him and he died of a heart attack you'd say they were responsible because of the tasing.
Compare Gardners case to Abner Louima's case. In one the cop is trying to subdue a suspect while arresting him and he dies. Versus another where the cop takes him into the bathroom and sodomizes him with a plunger. Surely you can see the difference between those two events. One involves in intent to arrest someone which leads to their accidental death while you are trying to subdue. and one involves the intent to sodomozize someone with a plunger who's already in custody.
the first MIGHT be excusable, the second, never.
The cops remarks are hilarious. The point of the id is to dismiss the complaint by backing up her assertion 'this is her husband.'
Here she is on CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/09/15/newday-intv-watts-django-actress-mistaken-for-prostitute.cnn.html
The interviewer points out to Watts that CNN’s attorneys checked into it and found that if there is a report of a crime, the officer is entitled to not only ask for ID, but to detain a likely subject “for a reasonable amount of time” to ascertain their identity.
Which is exactly what happened.
Who are CNN's attorneys and why are they right?
The officer may be entitled to ask for ID but that is not the question. The question is, in California is the citizen obligated to provide it? If so, at what point? You haven't shown that at all.
If you think a citizen is required to show ID at any point, really, how do you square that with the fact that nobody is required to carry an ID on their person if they aren't operating a motor vehicle?
It is my understanding that California does not have a stop and identify law, thus a person has no obligation to identify themselves to a police officer, let alone be required to produce an ID. Though if they do identify themselves, such identification must be truthful. If this is wrong, please cite the applicable California law.
Further, my reading found that the supreme court has suggested that requiring an ID is a violation of the fourth amendment regardless of any state law, though this is unsettled, as are many aspects of Terry Stops.
Hence, my repeated request for the informed opinion of a constitutional lawyer and a California lawyer. (Bruce Hayden?)
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Is-refusing-to-show-ID-grounds-for-arrest-886038.php
Two California attorneys here say no, there is no requirement to show ID.
Here is the SCOTUS decision striking down California's earlier Stop and Identify statute, with a lengthy discussion of the Constitutional issues involved:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5715486327167573392&q=Kolender+v.+Lawson,+461+U.S.+352+(1983)&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1
From a concurring opinion: For precisely that reason, the scope of seizures of the person on less than probable cause that Terry 365*365 permits is strictly circumscribed to limit the degree of intrusion they cause. Terry encounters must be brief; the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter; and, most importantly, the suspect must be free to leave after a short time and to decline to answer the questions put to him.
"[T]he person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring).
Failure to observe these limitations converts a Terry encounter into the sort of detention that can be justified only by probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
Joe said...
All good points Joe and I understand your position and likely support it too.
As you say, in CA are you required to produce ID on demand AND what is their recourse if you tell them to "pound sand"? What does CA law say on the subject?
What I found on Google is not a perfect answer but includes the following (info comes from someone claiming to be a CA CDA:
1) you never are obligated to carry identification on you in California unless you are in a secure locus, such as an airport, secured facility or other sensitive location. While you are the random Joe Blow on the street, you can walk around with no ID on you.
2)HOWEVER, once the police have a reason to stop a person the(y) can demand identification and legally hold someone for a reasonable amount of time to determine their identification. As for the reasons to stop, the 4th amendment has been interpreted to allow a stop based only on reasonable suspicion. This is a VERY low standard and can be found based only on innocent behavior, coupled with an officer's training and experience that a crime MIGHT be afoot. (See Terry v. Ohio).
These stops can also be sustained based on calling the police to report a crime, being in the location where a crime was reported or even being a witness to a crime or accident.
3) if you are stopped lawfully and you do not have a license, the police have several actions they can choose from. These range from taking a thumb print at the scene to finally arresting someone and hold then at the police station pending positive identification.
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/in-california--am-i-legally-required-to-carry-id-o-962970.html
I too would appreciate a comment from an actual CA lawyer on what the "rules" are.
Here is the language from the California Penal Code that describes what an LEO may arrest someone for, under CPC 836
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/836.html
836. (a) A peace officer may arrest a person in obedience to a
warrant, or, pursuant to the authority granted to him or her by
Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2,
without a warrant, may arrest a person whenever any of the following
circumstances occur:
(1) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence.
(2) The person arrested has committed a felony, although not in
the officer's presence.
(3) The officer has probable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a felony, whether or not a felony, in fact,
has been committed.
Most of the rest of it pertains to domestic violence incidents not relevant here. Oh, and special rules that apply only to places like airports and don't apply elsewhere. (I'm looking at you, Eric).
By my reading, since the cop did not observe any crime, he had nothing to arrest anyone for. Public lewdness is not a felony. So even if others provided eyewitness statements on the record (they did not) there was nothing there.
So why do you bootlickers think Watts had to show ID in order to be free to go?
Jason wrote:
By my reading, since the cop did not observe any crime, he had nothing to arrest anyone for. Public lewdness is not a felony. So even if others provided eyewitness statements on the record (they did not) there was nothing there.
But he didn't arrest anyone. Investigating a complaint often doesn't lead to an arrest at all or even a detainment. Sometimes you get a summons sometimes the cop lets you go with a warning.
So if he can't make an arrest, then why the detainment to illegally compel her to show ID?
Answer: Fishing expedition.
Innocent kissing?
No, topless lapdance.
Instapundit just posted a link with photos.
So another hysterical accusation of racism turns out to be utter BS.
Damn, JR. You sure are eager to throw away a lot of law in order to screw this person.
How does that Kiwi boot polish taste?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा