Black actress kissing white boyfriend handcuffed/detained

Everywhere, including in the idea that Refusal to do so will usually end up with you in cuffs. Enough of this police state already.

 

How does showing ID exonerate you?

 

The problem with that is that a malicious busybody is free to call the cops on someone they hate so that when the cops show up they will either beat the person up or kill him. I think someone should pay the busybody a personal visit.

 

Were it a random stop and frisk type action I would agree.
In this case it wasn't random but rather an investigation so ID of suspects/accused is warranted.
As explained in the provided article.

You make it seem as though this officer just went after some random citizen and that just isn't the case at all.
So for me your point falls flat.

Perhaps a thread on militarization of police and/or the chipping away of rights would be interesting.
I'm sure many varied views would arise.


Tongue in cheek....What good is the tissue without the suspects' ID?

 

Just to add a bit of clarity.
Reasonable suspicion vs Probable cause.

http://thelawdictionary.org/article/definitions-of-probable-cause-vs-reasonable-suspicion/

 

If those people fit the description of the person or people who was reported as the alleged perpetrator of the suspected criminal activity......yes

If the suspected criminal was described as an elderly white woman with gray hair they probably would not be questioning a young black male on his way home from his morning classes at the local technical institute.

 

Black women hate it when a sista gets a whiteboy. They would all love to have one, but whiteboys don't want sistas, mostly because sistas hump brothas. If whiteboys made it apparent that they like sistas, sistas wouldn't hump brothas, but most whiteboys arn't into sistas anyway.


And there you have white male/black female relations in a nutshell.

 

LoL why do you feel the need to make young black males seem like young asian males?

 

She was in a straddle position on top of him in the car.

Why would the police think something wasn't lawful?
Cop asks for ID, y'gotta show ID but, nothing else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes
The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating. The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.


Moi
Amazing how straddle is not in the reports.
I heard it on local L.A. NBC News

r > g

View attachment 30088 ​

 

That is the law.... Your issue with it is? And no one was arrested btw. Why you keep repeating a lie is beyond me.

- - - Updated - - -

Who said it did? Any more "ahah" type of questions or do you want to actually debate something for once?

 

When people support the idea of a police state, even simply a police right to demand papers from anyone, I have a problem with it. You do not. Fine. What other rights and liberties are you willing to give up for the security?

 

They dont have the right to demand ID from anyone.. Why are we back to this again? Do you even have a clue what the topic is?

 

Agreed it wasn't a random citizen. However, it was two citizens of which, unless the tissue was found, recovered and sent into evidence, there was no evidence except a report of PDA.

 

Ahh, so now you're backpedaling. Good. Yes, it's wrong to support the police having rights to demand ID. Glad you finally caught on. How long did it take? Only two days? Your penchant for personal attacks is interesting. That's a good topic of discussion itself; "Why do people think insults are a valid form of debate?"


These aren't all the posts where people asserted the police have rights that supersede the rights of citizens, just a sampling:

 

I have yet to back pedal.. You go from having an issue with the police seeing ID after a criminal complaint to claiming people support police being able to ask for id whenever they please. You have yet to be honest in this thread. There is a major difference between those two instances.

And please your constant implying i support a "nanny" state and your constant refrences to "paper please" and Nazis is meant to be insulting so dont start crying now.

 

Not sure your point, to me a police State is a constant whereas the photos you posted was a exception that was needed for a certain situation.

 

Do you think that, since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, we've violated Benjamin Franklin's maxim of giving up essential liberties for temporary safety? The picture you eliminated from the same post you quoted:

 

I'm usually with you on this IF there was some sort of suspicious activity. But it seems the cop was a complete asshat and didn't have anything else better to do.

 

Again there were citizen complaint they were responding to.. This wasnt a "bored" cop.

 

Disagreed. The police were responding to a complaint. It's their job to do so. They followed the law. Watts and her BF are making a mountain out of a molehill with their racism accusations.

 

You are the one making the assumptions.

 

I dont see a thing to indicate anyone was misinformed. Two people (*)(*)(*)(*)ING in their car in broad daylight on a public street, and neighbors call the police to have them stop it.

 

Not according to the couple, not according to the police, and not according to the available evidence. The couple testified that they were both fully clothed at all times, and did nothing illegal. So someone here is misinformed.

 

Of course they denied their illegal actions. Had the cops gotten there a little sooner, they likely would have been cited for lewd behavior or some similar charge.

 

No. However, we have set the tools in place for serious infringement of liberty.

The Patriot Act is, in the main, externally focused. The "war on drugs" has done more harm to individual liberty. If some future strong man combines these two abominations, all is lost.

Cheers
JM