Black actress kissing white boyfriend handcuffed/detained

ANY woman "could be" a hooker !!!! Should they ALL be stopped????


AND


NO


you do NOT have to identify yourself to police........

 

I think that even in California if the police are responding to a call and thus they have reason to suspect that you are involved in an illegal activity then they are allowed to request an I.D. Then if the person refuses to show an I.D. the officers have the legal option to take things to the next level. All of which -- gasp! -- apparently happened. Go figure.

 

Where was the boyfriend? If there, did he also show ID?

 

But they didn't detain her for trespassing, they detained her under suspicion of being a prostitute. It is my understanding that she wasn't required by California law to produce ID in the first place. Since having an ID in no way means you are or are not a prostitute, the ID part of this is moot except to those who cling to it to justify the way the police treated her. And if the police did suspect her of being a prostitute, why wasn't this man also detained and handcuffed for suspicion of solicitation?

 

Its starting off the process on a good note. Obviously nobody caries a prostitute card, hehe. A cop, having to deal with people every day, have a greater knack for reading people than ordinary joes. Refusing to admit who you are to a cop is a quick sign something is not right. It raises their antenna, creates suspicion. Getting argumentative or defensive also never helps matters. I never understand why people don't understand this? My 6 yr old daughter argues for the sake of arguing, and she always loses. Afterwards after she's getting punished, I always ask why she did it. She's always sorry, so I await the time when she just will stop her self. I guess many people never learn this lesson....explains all the divorce=)

 

Read the link, she clearly states that because SHE believed SHE had done nothing wrong she decide she would walk off and started walking off, THAT will get you detained and handcuffed. And no you do not have to carry an ID but if the police do have cause to question you and ask who you are and you cannot provide an ID on the spot they can detain you and take you to the station until your identity is established.

 

Thanks for the link, Daniele's self serving soliloquy runs the gamut; it absolves her of guilt, co-opts the 60's civil rights struggle and incorporates a flourished finish that sounds syrupy close to a Dr. Wayne Dyer channeled daily affirmation.

Nice ride, her writing style, but I think a Madison Ave. publicist wrote the thing.

Cheers
Labour

 

Sorry, but as a Jew, when a cop asks me to show my ID, its because I did something wrong(in my case only traffic tickets). I don't have much experience with cops harassing me for no reason because, guess what, I've NEVER done anything to give them any reason to harass me. I can go back to being a kid(8 or 9) when a bunch of us got caught on a building site on a weekend screwing around. When the cop asked us who we were and where we lived, 3 of us all told him. 1 brilliantly said, "I don't have to tell you nuthin" . He was tossed in the back of car and his parents had to pick him up from the station. I'm sure he got his butt whopped that night. The 3 of us were told that its dangerous, we could get hurt, and to go home. That lesson has stuck with me ever since. So simple.

And they were NOT simply walking down the street. The cop was told they might have been doing something that is technically illegal to do in public I believe.

 

It is to check if she has and priors or warrants, the fact she refused to supply her identification and then started walking off is what caused the police to detain her.

Will all of you go back and read the OP

" I knew that I had done nothing wrong, that I wasn’t harming anyone, so I walked away. A few minutes later, I was still talking to my dad when 2 different police officers accosted me and forced me into handcuffs.”"

Yes they handcuffed her at that point.

 

A good point about it being written by a publicist. Or at least with a lot of help in hitting all the right notes and buzzwords.

 

He was initially in the clinch with her. But the problem being that the banned poster's initial link was lacking in important details since it was aimed at generating the impression of blatant sexism and racism. It was a different link to the same story (found by a different poster) that revealed that the officers in question were responding to a call about a couple very nearly openly copulating on this studio property.

But as to the rest I honestly don't care enough to read about it. Just like most of the rest of the posters responding, I'm just having a bit of fun tossing out a contrarian perspective. But in point of fact my feelings would not be injured were it to turn out after all that the LEOs were officially demonstrated to be a pair of racist and sexist pigs. If so then fry them -- er -- metaphorically speaking, that is . . .

 

Wow! You skated (deliberately?) past the point; which being that they were NOT just prowling around looking for someone to hassle. They were officially responding to a dispatcher's call, meaning that there was enough suspicious activity to warrant asking for an identification so as to check background information; such as outstanding warrants and/ or see if she was even cleared to be on that site . . . which is not -- gasp! -- for random public access. It was of course her right to refuse, just as it was their legal option to cuff her afterwards and take things from there.

 

Thanks for the heads up the OP poster was banned. I missed that on the first go around.

Yes, I saw the reason for the call. While overly enthusiastic PDA can be disturbing to parents of small children, it's not illegal. There was no nudity and no intercourse. I do wonder if this was a publicity stunt. It wouldn't be difficult to set up. Like planting a person in the audience at a magician's act, having a plant place the call would kick the show off. If this is true, I'm sure it will be revealed in fairly short order.

 

It wasn't your fault for missing the OP member's banning as it occurred sometime after he posted this, his final OP. As to the rest, yes all of that is quite possible . . .

 

You are free to sacrifice your rights as you wish.

 

Fairly bad advice here Fox.

California does require one to identify one's self if legally asked by a police officer. Legally would require an other than "consensual" interaction with the police. A "consensual" encounter would be the casual conversation struck up with a police officer, say as they are getting coffee, walking a beat, in the line at a bank etc. In this case the law says no, you don't have to interact with the officer and can merely state "I don't want to talk to you." An encounter that involves a crime, the suspicion of a crime committed in the past, currently being committed or planning to be committed is sufficient for a legal demand for one to identify one's self.

In this case, the police had been detailed to the location initiated by a 911 call about suspicious activity. That alone would seem to me to raise the interaction to an investigation. Add to this the agitation of one of those on the scene and "reasonable suspicion" becomes firmer.

Think in terms of the cops view of the encounter and his or her requirement to serve protect and enforce the law. This woman could have been assaulted, and with the other individual in close proximity it might be the cause of her agitation. So they separate the two, and ask questions to determine if anyone has been harmed or if a crime has been committed or attempted. Here the female becomes uncooperative. This is an investigation and a legal detention to sort out the facts as eluded to with the original 911 complainant. In that it's a legal detention the request to identify is legal.

Id isn't required but giving your name is. In my state Vermont, a peace officer can demand your name at any time and one must give it.

Cheers
Labour

 

Not in Minnesota.

 

Having ignored the vast majority of posts -

From the outset, I guessed this to be a publicity stunt.

 

I just watched the video of her being detained. She refused to identify herself which, by law, she is supposed to do when stopped by a police officer. The police officer was responding to a call from a resident there who thought it was a prostitute thing going on in the parking lot. He didn't just willy-nilly stop her and ask her. ALL she had to do was to provide I.D. ......or if she didn't have any on her, just say so and tell the officer her name and info so he could run it. That's all she had to do......and it would have ended. Instead she made a big deal.....and claimed he was a racist.

 

24 states have stop and identify laws, shown in red here.


An officer can only demand you identify yourself if they have reasonable suspicion of a crime in those 24 states. This means you are being detained.

http://www.knowmyrights.org/knowledgebase/faq/police-encounters/when-do-i-have-to-show-id

California is not one of those states. This would be because of Latinos.

Don't dress like a hooker. Cooperation with reasonable law enforcement is a civic duty. In closing, don't dress like a hooker.

 

And responding to a call about your reported suspicion of engaging in a crime gives them reasonable suspicion to run a check on you for which they can request your ID and if you cannot provide can go to the next step and take you to the station until your identity can be confirmed. That is why it is always a good idea to have one with you, and in case of an emergency and EMT's needed to identify you to notify your family, and reasonable act to provide it to police, unless you have something to hide.

 

According to the news report the neighbors called the police because the two were getting pretty intimate.

- - - Updated - - -

According to the neighborhood watch dogs there was a lot more than just a little kissing going on.

- - - Updated - - -

I think heavy foreplay will get you in hot water too.

 

Yes because when black women kiss white men, they are obviously hookers.

That's not probable cause of anything, except may some police officers who need to find a new career.

 

They were having sex in the front seat of the car with the doors open in the middle of the afternoon.....

Of course they thought she was a prostitute.

 

Liberals have such a funny love hate relationship with the police.

I wonder if any liberal here would like to establish the appropriate standard of probable cause they would feel justifies an arrest for suspicion of prostitution?