Black actress kissing white boyfriend handcuffed/detained

What states had laws that REQUIRED you to carry an ID?

And most states have a "stop and identify" law on the books that while not requiring you to carry an ID or even produce one gives the police officer the authority to ask for one and detain you if he has reasonable suspicion you have committed a crime.

But still a highly prudent thing to do AND produce it if a police officer request it. If they are looking for someone named Joe Smith and your identities match it makes if much simpler on you to prove you are not the Joe Smith for whom they are on the lookout.

Yes just go abroad and try to reenter without "your papers".

 

If they have reasonable suspicion you are have committed a crime or their is a warrant out for you, as in you match the description of someone else they are looking for, and you cannot produce evidence, such as an ID, that you are not that person they can detain you under reasonable suspicion. That is not an unreasonable search and you are not being charged yet. I believe in most states it is 48 hours before you can demand a habeous corpus hearing before a judge.

THAT is why it is a good idea to always carry your ID, or in case you have a accident or medical emergency, and to produce it when a police officer request it. Assuming you are a law abiding citizen that is.

 

The fact that there is an active investigation, it logically follows that there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed. Multiple complainants describing an action that is precluded by law raises reasonable suspicion. At that moment, the police have an obligation to memorialize the event. This includes gathering the names of those involved, recording witness statements and if in plain view seizing evidence with cause. If after the cursory investigation further suspicions arise and progress to probable cause an arrest is then legal, warrants will be issue upon affidavit of the officer and evidence not in plain view will be seized.

The government has an obligation in it's investigation and policing to do so in a thorough professional manner. Not recording the names of those involved would not be professional, it would be malpractice.

Cheers
Labour

 

From another thread, this is another bull(*)(*)(*)(*) race hustle, and frankly, I am sick of these low life pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...legation-was-of-lewd-acts-in-car-9734083.html

Earlier on another post, Fresh Air posted an article about putting mini-cameras on the police officer and their vehicles, and I absolutely agree. This will take race hustling out of the equation, and if any officers are a problem, they will be eliminated immediately

 

I think not. The police were originally brought to the scene by a 911 call about a couple going at it like wild beasts in broad daylight in their auto.
It's a small detail the OP never mentioned.

 

Cops get called when people are having sex in a car, even after people have asked them to stop.

Doesn't matter what color this classless actress is.

Add this to your long list of race-bait fails.

 

California doesn't have such a law.

 

Hmmm... the closed version of this thread was about more current info. and not even merged.

And it was less dead.

 

I don't think anyone would disagree with this policy EXCEPT the police, who do quite the opposite - they chase down those taking pictures, sometimes arrest them, and destroy the cameras. In one incident after another, the cops make it clear that the VERY LAST thing they want is an accurate record of what happened.

 

Well, for one, have it recorded in real time and not have any officer have access to it. 99.9% of police officers are honest solid Americans. The low life's they deal every day, a camera would erase the vast majority question of who is truthful or not

BTW, do you have evidence that they oppose cameras?

 

What evidence would you like. Cops chasing down photographers and destroying cameras is a common practice. Which implies that the police most emphatically don't want records of what happens. And I can't blame them, since many cases in court come down to the word of the cop against the citizen, and the judges and juries tend to believe the cops - which is the correct thing most of the time, perhaps, but not all of the time.

Police accounts of events too often bear little resemblance to eyewitness accounts of the same events. A photographic record wouldn't always make things unambiguous, but if the courts invariably accept the cops' accounts, then the cops have everything to lose and nothing to gain with photographic records. So the policy of putting cameras on the cops and in their cars would have to be made at a political level well above the police force -- AND it would need to be enforced in the predictable cases where the witnesses claim the cops did something bad, and the cops say (like the IRS) that their cameras all just happened to be on the fritz at that time.

 

Put up the evidence, your opinion means nothing

 

First, that's the LaRouche people who did the Obama as Hitler posters that showed up at Tea Party rallies (they showed up at OWS ones as well, but oddly didn't show up on TV...)


Secondly, your meaning was clear. You were not making any sort of "play on absurdity." On the other hand, it seems like you realize how ridiculous you sounded and are trying to backpedal, so I'll give you credit for finally figuring out what you did wrong, and having the good sense to be embarrassed by it.

 

The cop did have one. The police have it which is why they are defending their officer.

Daniele Watts' Story About a Racist LAPD Stop Is Falling Apart

And from the same article, a response from the LAPD about being asked for ID. Hopefully this clears up the nonsense:

Officers may "detain" someone when they have "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity has, is, or is about to a occur and the person being detained may be involved. You are not free to leave during a legal detention. If you try to leave, it is a violation of 148(a)(1) PC - Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing Officer; and you may be subject to arrest.

Further, while you are not required to carry physical identification (unless operating a vehicle), you are required to identify yourself during a detention when asked. It is part of the investigative process and necessary to documented the incident. Failure to do so again delays and obstructs the officer from doing his job and can be a violation of 148(a)(1) PC.

 

Of course. I have no problem with that. If witnesses stepped forward, pointed at Danielle and her boyfriend then said "they were engaging in lewd behavior", the police might be obligated to arrest them. Papers or no papers.

My problem is with those who declare that the police have a right to demand your papers or be arrested.

 

you are if you are a suspect when you match the description of a suspect of a crime
the cops was responding to a call of a white male and black female in a floral shirt having public sex they matched the description so they was asked for IDs

 

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/20...ory-about-a-racist-lapd-stop-is-falling-apart

Witness was contacted according to this article.
Also addresses your other points.

Another good cop saved by a 'race card cam'.

 

Of course. Nice of you to toss in the qualifier of a warrant. Was there a warrant out on Danièle?

Like I replied before, my main gripe here is Nanny States like you who advocate that the police have a RIGHT to demand your ID, papers or anything else without either seeing you committing a crime or, as you put it, having a warrant for arrest and you fit the description.


FWIW:
http://blog.sfgate.com/dailydish/2014/09/17/police-officer-comments-on-danielle-watts-incident/

IMO, the video exonerates the police officers. They followed the law. My problem is with a legal system and a Nanny State citizenry that believes police officers have a right to demand ID, frisk you or do anything else to you without actually seeing you commit a crime or having a warrant looking for someone who looks exactly like you. Not just old, white male or some other general BS description.

 

I would like to see all police wear them, this crap from race hustlers would stop

 

Nice dodge on the Nanny State idea of police having a right to demand your papers.

Thanks for the link. The video shows the police doing their job. As stated previously, my gripe isn't with them, but a legal system which, supported by Nanny Staters, gives police the right to stop anyone without evidence.

Yes, there was a report of sex. I noticed the citizen reporting this mentioned a tissue being tossed. Was it recovered? I've seen no other mention of this.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-daniele-watts-lapd-show-id-20140915-story.html

 

If you think i support a police state it shows you how ignorant you are on this forum. You should know the posters by now and by post history is full of criticisms of the police and both parties so get off your high horse.

 

The ignorant ones are those advocating a police state aka Nanny State. Get a clue.

 

Then take it out on them ~

 

I am.

Anyone who believes police have a right to demand your papers is among the Nanny Staters whether they want to admit it or not.