Black actress kissing white boyfriend handcuffed/detained

Lewd Conduct is a misdemeanor, so a Cop has to witness it himself OR have someone willing to make a citizens arrest. Because neither happened doesn't mean the conduct didn't happen. The Police had multiple calls from different reporting parties about people having sex in a car. Like it or not they are obligated to respond to the call and check the welfare of those involved to make sure no one is being forced to do anything they don't consent to. Part of that consists of identifying the participants and take statements so they can't come back later and make outrageous claims.

I'm at the point where "the little boy who cried wolf" on racist claims. So many have been proven false I'm likely to simply marginalize the legitimate ones with the cornucopia of bogus ones. After a while no one will believe any of them anymore.

 

But it DOES mean that you must presume it happened despite no evidence. And while we're presuming without evidence, we can presume whatever strokes our prejudices, right?

And it turns out there was no cause for concern, on the part of anyone. I'm amazed here, it's like I'm talking to one of those people who simply did not see the guy in the gorilla suit. They sincerely didn't see him!

But you'd make more sense if you didn't have the cops showing up and "making sure no one is being forced to do anything they don't consent to" by handcuffing the presumed victim and demanding identification. Clearly, there was no presumed victim here. There was a presumed whore, who was treated as such, because when people expect whore, they SEE whore. And since whores have sex, people SEE sex in the car. Which of course never happened either, but you know, you don't have to SEE what a whore is doing to KNOW what a whore is doing, right?

I think you miss the point here. Racism, like it or not, is like a poison gas, it permeates everything, it influences what we see, what we think, what we do. You don't "prove racist claims false" in any real sense; what you do is find insufficient evidence of overt racism. Subtle influences on our presumptions, our attitudes, our behaviors aren't the stuff of legal cases, but they are everywhere.

What we had here was just one of those instances where everyone involved, the callers and the cops and even the victims, came pre-equipped with foregone conclusions which influenced what they saw (even though they didn't), and how they responded. And that includes the response of the victim, who clearly distrusted the cops and had a chip on her shoulder. I suppose it got there because, you know, black people are, you know, black. What can you expect?

 

That isn't what happened. Why do you keep repeating this lie?

 

Yes because in your Progressive world everyone has an agenda for everything. Some people are not obsessed with race. You have no idea what that person saw or why they called but yet you assume its "racism" because your political idealogy NEEDS racism to be in everything.

 

If that's the case, I clearly won't go to you for calculus tutoring. Your statement, "Wow, a lot of people in this thread would make great citizens of the Third Reich. Papers, please!"

...reads much more like you are calling people Nazi's. I hope you gave a money back guarantee to those horse students of yours

 

Clearly nobody on this thread actually saw 'Django Unchained'. Someone had to suffer for this box office travesty. Why does this have to be racism? Why can't it just be an 'artistic disagreement'.

 

That's a good question. Either it's just trolling to spice up an idle Tuesday afternoon or it is an inability to think a process through in a logical step by step manner.

Minds are different and some cannot sort events into a linear step by step, if then / goto, map. Some are better at math, some are visual learners, some minds can visualize complex structures and rotate the mental imagery. It's like navigating through a city without using the GPS, some people just cannot do it.

That said, I feel that's what we are seeing, an inability to put things in order. The jump to "they determined that there was no crime so they should have let them go right off," is a flaw produced by a lack of cognitive ability. Emotion allows many to skip the steps that lead up to "they determine," Part of the process in "determining" is gathering information, that's talking to each and every party in turn. What's your name, what happened, what's your relationship to others etc. All of this investigation must happen prior to making a "determination" that no illegal activity has or will happen.

Flow chart are our friends in life.

Cheers
Labour

 

Exactly. Once the officer cleared it up he probably would have told them to get a room and be done with it.

 

Nazis are a play on absurdity, because they are a virtually non-existent ideology in serious political discourse. I don't think the Tea Partiers actually think Obama is a nazi when they paint a Hitler mustache on his visage.

 

When the cops showed up, they didn't know what had happened prior to their arrival. In fact, we don't know for sure that the diva and her boyfriend weren't engaging in public sex; all we know is that is what THEY claim (and, of course, are they going to admit a crime to police?) Now, the cops just wanted to write the report they were obligated to write and get out of there, but oh no, she had to throw a tantrum and be like "don't you know who I am?" Now maybe....MAYBE the people who called the cops made an assumption based on race, but that doesn't change the duty that the cops had. The one thing we do know for sure is that the white cops are being profiled as racist by people such as yourself- based on their race.

 

Is there a specific law that says that a person has to have ID on him while walking down a public street?

 

Multiple 911 calls from different people all seeing the same thing? The presumption was a safe one.

 

Yes, but they've been invalidated by the Supreme Court. Several states "stop and identify" laws have been struck down on the requirement to carry and produce ID. So the answer is no, one does not have to carry positive ID while walking down the street.

However the requirement to identify one's self on reasonable suspicion, complaint, or other official interaction with the police has been upheld. Name date of birth.

I laugh about the "show me your papers" argument. Hell, that's an anachronism. Give the computer that all police have in their car or on thier smart phone while walking a beat, a name and date of birth and up pops the picture of the individual; assuming they've every gotten a State ID or State DL.

Cheers
Labour

 

No but if you are suspected of a crime you better have one.

 

The cop may have been outside the bounds of the law as California does not have stop and identify laws. Unless she was driving, there doesn't seem to be any reason for her to give up her id. I could be wrong though.

http://www.ibtimes.com/daniele-watts-brian-lucas-lapd-clash-do-cops-have-legal-right-demand-identification-1689491

 

Probable cause due to the complaints. If a cop is sent to investigate what is thought it be an ongoing crime of course they have a right to ID people.

 

A right? What about our citizen rights? Not defending the actions of Watts and boyfriend regarding their erotic PDA, but I get a bit queasy when people are so quick to jump onboard the police state wagon.

 

I suggest no such thing. And the Nazi card is so overused.

 

So you have no problem with a police state?

 

Again never suggested such a thing. Stop trolling.

 

BS. You said " If a cop is sent to investigate what is thought it be an ongoing crime of course they have a right to ID people." If you want to run from your own statement, at least have the guts to admit it.

I'm against Nanny Statism and anything close to a police state no matter how many Lefties think it's a great idea "for the children".

 

The cops being able to ( or having the right) to see Id when investigating a possible crime is not a police state. Stop being a drama queen. Let me guess last time you were pulled over you screamed Nazi right? ( rolls eyes)

 

LOL. Nice insults.

Sorry, but I missed the part of police rights to question, detain and arrest people for failing to show ID. Please list them because all I can find are these:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now I know you Nanny Staters love Mayor Bloomberg's proclamation "you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change" but I'm more supportive of Benjamin Franklin's statement "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

We may be a little behind the curve here in Texas, but can you (*)(*)(*)(*) your girlfriend in the car on a busy public streeet in California without violating any laws?

 

No. Is it a prudent thing to do. Yes.