Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: denarii on September 14, 2014, 11:45:18 AM
-
lol. she doesnt look like much of a catch to me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11095548/Django-Unchained-actress-claims-racist-police-mistook-her-for-prostitute.html
-
Dumb fucking pigs don't think much of civil rights.......
Fire the cocksuckers and open up your checkbook LAPD.......again.
-
Dumb fucking pigs don't think much of civil rights.......
Fire the cocksuckers and open up your checkbook LAPD.......again.
Once again on Getbig FACTS are ignored. The cops were called by a resident of the area that saw two people making out in a car in an area known for street prostitution. The cops came and questioned the man and woman, who were boyfriend/girlfriend. The (white) man produced ID while the (black) woman refused to produce ID. She walked away from the cops during questioning and was subsequently placed in cuffs until her ID could be established, at which point she was released.
She was not cuffed because of her race, she was cuffed because she refused to show ID. When she was ID'ed she was released. She was NOT arrested. If she had just shown the cops her ID, as her white boyfriend did, she would not have been detained.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/09/14/0914-django-unchained-facebook-sub-5.jpg)
-
Once again on Getbig FACTS are ignored. The cops were called by a resident of the area that saw two people making out in a car in an area known for street prostitution. The cops came and questioned the man and woman, who were boyfriend/girlfriend. The (white) man produced ID while the (black) woman refused to produce ID. She walked away from the cops during questioning and was subsequently placed in cuffs until her ID could be established, at which point she was released.
She was not cuffed because of her race, she was cuffed because she refused to show ID. When she was ID'ed she was released. She was NOT arrested. If she had just shown the cops her ID, as her white boyfriend did, she would not have been detained.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/09/14/0914-django-unchained-facebook-sub-5.jpg)
Sevaste again?
-
bald headed hoes
-
Once again on Getbig FACTS are ignored. The cops were called by a resident of the area that saw two people making out in a car in an area known for street prostitution. The cops came and questioned the man and woman, who were boyfriend/girlfriend. The (white) man produced ID while the (black) woman refused to produce ID. She walked away from the cops during questioning and was subsequently placed in cuffs until her ID could be established, at which point she was released.
She was not cuffed because of her race, she was cuffed because she refused to show ID. When she was ID'ed she was released. She was NOT arrested. If she had just shown the cops her ID, as her white boyfriend did, she would not have been detained.
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/09/14/0914-django-unchained-facebook-sub-5.jpg)
Since when is it a requirement to show ID when kissing your boyfriend? She shouldn't have to show them shit......and to her credit - did not. What the cops did was violate her civil rights based on a false assumption of her being a hooker. Guess they missed the day to retard academy training where they are taught to check out actual facts before acting inappropriately.
The article says she is now suing the department......good for her.
Maybe if more people stood up for themselves like this woman did, pigs wouldn't treat people like shit based on nothing but their INCORRECT assumptions.
-
schnauzer to the rescue white knighting the LAPD from unruly getbig civiliannaires
-
bald headed hoes
the world is ending :-\
-
BWC strikes again ;D
-
she looks like a shaved lil wayne
(http://thissongissick.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Lil-Wayne-smoking.jpg)
-
schnauzer to the rescue white knighting the LAPD from unruly getbig civiliannaires
Facts are facts
-
Once again on Getbig FACTS are ignored. The cops were called by a resident of the area that saw two people making out in a car in an area known for street prostitution. The cops came and questioned the man and woman, who were boyfriend/girlfriend. The (white) man produced ID while the (black) woman refused to produce ID. She walked away from the cops during questioning and was subsequently placed in cuffs until her ID could be established, at which point she was released.
Well... except that (a) she is NOT required to produce ID and (b) unless she was being detained she was free to walk away at any time, and if the cops had legitimate reason to detain her in the first place, they would likely have arrested her when she started to walk away. That someone else called the cops about two people kissing is irrelevant.
She was not cuffed because of her race, she was cuffed because she refused to show ID.
She cannot be handcuffed for refusing to provide ID: there is no stop-and-identify statute in California.
If she had just shown the cops her ID, as her white boyfriend did, she would not have been detained.[/b]
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. She is not required to identify herself just because a cop wants to know who she is and failure to produce id is not sufficient for her to be detained because california does not have a stop-and-identify statute.
Any questions?
-
Facts are facts
yes I see the thread title is inaccurate
-
Well... except that (a) she is NOT required to produce ID and (b) unless she was being detained she was free to walk away at any time. That someone else called the cops about two people kissing is irrelevant.
She cannot be handcuffed for refusing to provide ID: there is no stop-and-identify statute in California.
If she had just shown the cops her ID, as her white boyfriend did, she would not have been detained.[/b]
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. She is not required to identify herself just because a cop wants to know who she is and failure to produce id is not sufficient for her to be detained because california does not have a stop-and-identify statute.
Any questions?
Facts are facts, "avxo" ;D. Any questions?
-
Facts are facts, "avxo". Any questions?
Yes, facts are facts - it's a pity you haven't provided any. So I'll repeat the one and only fact that matters: California does not have a "stop-and-identify" statute and she cannot be compelled to produce her ID.
How's that "Schnauzerdumbass"?
-
Yes, facts are facts - it's a pity you haven't provided any. So I'll repeat the one and only fact that matters: California does not have a "stop-and-identify" statute and she cannot be compelled to produce her ID.
How's that "Schnauzerdumbass"?
If the cop "believed" there was a possibility she was a prostitute then isnt requesting ID justified?
-
Yes, facts are facts - it's a pity you haven't provided any. So I'll repeat the one and only fact that matters: California does not have a "stop-and-identify" statute and she cannot be compelled to produce her ID.
How's that "Schnauzerdumbass"?
It's not "stop and ID", dumbass. It's reasonable suspicion, you fucking idiot. "av-homo" ::), oh brother. Do you even lift, dipshit?
-
If the cop "believed" there was a possibility she was a prostitute then isnt requesting ID justified?
Yes, but the idiots on this board are posting, "durr-civil rights, durr-racism, durr-cops are pigs".
-
If the cop "believed" there was a possibility she was a prostitute then isnt requesting ID justified?
No! Mere belief isn't enough. It's true that the police can detain someone but only if they have reasonable suspicion that she had committed or was in the process of committing a crime. Notice, that they must have reasonable suspicion first. A simple phone call from someone who saw a couple kissing doesn't mean reasonable suspicion, for the same reason that someone talking on their cell phone while walking on the sidewalk isn't reasonable suspicion: because people talk on the phone while walking on the sidewalk all the time. It's the same with couples: they kiss in public all the time.
-
(http://media.techeblog.com/images/origami_parking_fine.jpg)
-
It's not "stop and ID", dumbass. It's reasonable suspicion, you fucking idiot. "av-homo" ::), oh brother. Do you even lift, dipshit?
Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts and rational inferences, as evaluated by the mythical "reasonable person." It's not reasonable to suspect someone of being a prostitute because she kissed someone in public, since people do that ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Whether I lift or not is irrelevant. Do you have a J.D.?
-
Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts and rational inferences, as evaluated by a reasonable person standard. It's not reasonable to suspect someone of being a prostitute because she kissed someone in public, since people do that ALL THE FUCKING TIME.
Whether I lift or not is irrelevant. Do you have a J.D.?
Do you?
-
Do you?
Maybe - maybe not. But the fact is that I, unlike you, speak intelligently on the subject and have refuted your (let's be polite and call them) arguments. All you said "if she obeyed, she'd be ok." Can you refute a single thing I've written in this thread?
-
No! Mere belief isn't enough. It's true that the police can detain someone but only if they have reasonable suspicion that she had committed or was in the process of committing a crime. Notice, that they must have reasonable suspicion first. A simple phone call from someone who saw a couple kissing isn't reasonable suspicion, for the same reason that someone talking on their cell phone while walking on the sidewalk isn't reasonable suspicion: because people talk on the phone will walking on the sidewalk all the time. It's the same with couples: they kiss in public all the time.
So a cop turns up in an area known for prostitution where he has (maybe) had a report of a prostitute in a car and he arrives and finds her wandering around on her phone ignoring him (read between the lines of her story) and its now a decision he has to make of 'is it reasonable to assume this person ignoring me and attempting to leave the scene is a prostitute or not'?
-
Maybe - maybe not. But the fact is that I, unlike you, speak intelligently on the subject and have refuted your (let's be polite and call them) arguments. All you said "if she obeyed, she'd be ok." Can you refute a single thing I've written in this thread?
I will take this to mean "no", counselor ::)
-
So a cop turns up in an area known for prostitution where he has (maybe) had a report of a prostitute in a car and he arrives and finds her wandering around on her phone ignoring him (read between the lines of her story) and its now a decision he has to make of 'is it reasonable to assume this person ignoring me and attempting to leave the scene is a prostitute or not'?
You're making too much sense for the Getbig simpletons with "J.D.s" ::).
Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is, or has been, occurring.
-
Stupid woman only has herself to blame. But as usual, she wants media attention and what better way than to complain about racism etc.....
-
LMFAO! , there is no hookers walking the streets in STUDIO CITY , next to the CBS building
-
LMFAO! , there is no hookers walking the streets in STUDIO CITY , next to the CBS building
No hookers in LA? Are you kidding? They go where the money is.
-
So a cop turns up in an area known for prostitution where he has (maybe) had a report of a prostitute in a car and he arrives and finds her wandering around on her phone ignoring him (read between the lines of her story) and its now a decision he has to make of 'is it reasonable to assume this person ignoring me and attempting to leave the scene is a prostitute or not'?
It is a decision that he has to make, that's right. But keep in mind that he can't just use "well, she ignored me" or "she won't talk to me" to reach a conclusion: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that refusing to talk to police cannot be used in a reasonable suspicion analysis - I am on my iPhone and don't have easy access to Lexis right now, but I will dig up the reference later today and update this post with it.
To suggest that a complaint that two people was kissing on the street provides an officer with reasonable suspicion to detain someone is laughable because as I said before, people kiss in public all the time. You might as well argue "well, she was breathing and prostitutes breathe, therefore reasonable suspicion."
-
No hookers in LA? Are you kidding? They go where the money is.
seem plenty of hookers on Lankershim Boulevard a few miles away on Lankershim Blvd , but not in studio city
then again i guess im not really trolling around for hookers like Jr
-
You're making too much sense for the Getbig simpletons with "J.D.s" ::).
Quoting legalzoom is probably not the best of ideas. You may want to read Terry v. Ohio (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html) which defines, in quite clear language, what qualifies as reasonable suspicion.
-
It is a decision that he has to make, that's right. But keep in mind that he can't just use "well, she ignored me" or "she won't talk to me" to reach a conclusion: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that refusing to talk to police cannot be used in a reasonable suspicion analysis - I am on my iPhone and don't have easy access to Lexis right now, but I will dig up the reference later today and update this post with it.
To suggest that a complaint that two people was kissing on the street provides an officer with reasonable suspicion to detain someone is laughable because as I said before, people kiss in public all the time. You might as well argue "well, she was breathing and prostitutes breathe, therefore reasonable suspicion."
No but if you take that to its logical conclusion you get the scenario of a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car, cop turns up so guy just starts talking on his phone and walks away and cop is powerless.
-
Well... except that (a) she is NOT required to produce ID and (b) unless she was being detained she was free to walk away at any time, and if the cops had legitimate reason to detain her in the first place, they would likely have arrested her when she started to walk away. That someone else called the cops about two people kissing is irrelevant.
She cannot be handcuffed for refusing to provide ID: there is no stop-and-identify statute in California.
If she had just shown the cops her ID, as her white boyfriend did, she would not have been detained.[/b]
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. She is not required to identify herself just because a cop wants to know who she is and failure to produce id is not sufficient for her to be detained because california does not have a stop-and-identify statute.
Any questions?
Correct about not needing to produce ID, however, in the context presented, she is required to identify herself by name. Police will ask for ID knowing most folks don't understand it's not required by law.
-
Quoting legalzoom is probably not the best of ideas. You may want to read Terry v. Ohio (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/case.html) which defines, in quite clear language, what qualifies as reasonable suspicion.
Brutal citing of Ohio law when debating California statutes ::). Try again, Perry Mason.
-
Brutal citing of Ohio law when debating California statutes ::). Try again, Perry Mason.
It's a U.S. Supreme Court decision that applies throughout the United States...
-
It's a U.S. Supreme Court decision that applies throughout the United States...
Did you even read the case?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
-
Did you even read the case?
Did you bother to read the rest of the statement?
"...if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
-
No but if you take that to its logical conclusion you get the scenario of a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car, cop turns up so guy just starts talking on his phone and walks away and cop is powerless.
He may not be - that's particularized enough to maybe stand up. Besides, such a report is usually not all that the cop has to make a decision. Let's look at the hypo: As before, the cop that gets a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car. He arrives at the location and observes broken glass by the car. He also sees a white male in a red shirt with a cut on his fist, rapidly walking away. THAT is reasonable suspicion.
-
He may not be - that's particularized enough to maybe stand up. Besides, such a report is usually not all that the cop has to make a decision. Let's look at the hypo: As before, the cop that gets a report of a white male in a red shirt breaking into a car. He arrives at the location and observes broken glass by the car. He also sees a white male in a red shirt with a cut on his fist, rapidly walking away. THAT is my interpretation of reasonable suspicion.
fixed
the point is "reasonable suspicion" is going to vary greatly and is down to the situation and the individual.
The cops in the case we are discussing I believe had reasonable suspicion to approach this woman and question her, and Im pretty sure the court will agree.
-
Did you bother to read the rest of the statement?
"...if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
Exactly, but you are applying it to a case involving an "unarmed" citizen. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Try again, Atticus Finch.
-
Did you even read the case?
I have. What's important isn't the particulars of Terry's situation but the establishment of the reasonable suspicion standard. You're grasping at straws - first you claimed that the case is irrelevant because it was in Ohio (???) and now you say it doesn't apply because it's not exact same situation.
Keep making a fool of yourself...
-
I have. What's important isn't the particulars of Terry's situation but the establishment of the reasonable suspicion standard. You're grasping at straws - first you claimed that the case is irrelevant because it was in Ohio (???) and now you say it doesn't apply because it's not exact same situation.
Keep making a fool of yourself...
The Terry case involved a suspect with a concealed weapon. I think it is you that is grasping at straws. You are comparing case law based on an armed suspect with the detention of an unarmed person.
A fool indeed...
-
fixed
Of course it is. But the standard says that when it comes to reasonable suspicion, the analysis involves examining how a reasonable person would evaluate the officer's inferences. I'm not the arbiter of what is an isn't reasonable, but I'd like to think I'm a reasonable person; as a reasonable person I'm stating that in those circumstances detaining the white male in the red shirt seems reasonable.
-
So a cop turns up in an area known for prostitution where he has (maybe) had a report of a prostitute in a car and he arrives and finds her wandering around on her phone ignoring him (read between the lines of her story) and its now a decision he has to make of 'is it reasonable to assume this person ignoring me and attempting to leave the scene is a prostitute or not'?
What actual facts did the cops have? - NONE. Just the word of someone who called, and their fucktard instinct.
If a cop walks up on a car filled with three known hookers and a known John at the wheel....yet all they are doing is talking, what can he do? The answer is nothing. You can't bust people based on what an idiot cop mind deems illegal or what he thinks is going on.. Yet, these asshole pigs made the assumption that the skinny, black female was a whore, and acted inappropriately.
Hope it costs the LAPD lots of cash and these simpleton pigs their worthless badges.....
-
I have. What's important isn't the particulars of Terry's situation but the establishment of the reasonable suspicion standard. You're grasping at straws - first you claimed that the case is irrelevant because it was in Ohio (???) and now you say it doesn't apply because it's not exact same situation.
Keep making a fool of yourself...
Great grasp of the law, J.D. ::)
-
Exactly, but you are applying it to a case involving an "unarmed" citizen. Therefore, your argument is invalid. Try again, Atticus Finch.
I'll leave avxo to continue to lay bare your stupidity for the board to read. How you missed what I quoted speaks volumes.
-
I'll leave avxo to continue to lay bare your stupidity for the board to read. How you missed what I quoted speaks volumes.
What did you quote? And how many volumes would it "speak", EastCoastDick?
-
Well... except that (a) she is NOT required to produce ID and (b) unless she was being detained she was free to walk away at any time, and if the cops had legitimate reason to detain her in the first place, they would likely have arrested her when she started to walk away. That someone else called the cops about two people kissing is irrelevant.
She cannot be handcuffed for refusing to provide ID: there is no stop-and-identify statute in California.
There will be one day... you can bet on that.
-
What did you quote? And how many volumes would it "speak", EastCoastDick?
Alas, I won't recover.
-
The Terry case involved a suspect with a concealed weapon. I think it is you that is grasping at straws. You are comparing case law based on an armed suspect with the detention of an unarmed person.
A fool indeed...
The Terry case essentially defined reasonable suspicion. Whether Terry was armed or not is not what is important. What's important is that it was in Terry that the Supreme Court decided that Police must have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a crime in order to stop and detain them.
You can keep trolling all you want, but ignoring the facts won't make them go away.
-
What actual facts did the cops have? - NONE. Just the word of someone who called, and their fucktard instinct.
If a cop walks up on a car filled with three known hookers and a known John at the wheel....yet all they are doing is talking, what can he do? The answer is nothing. You can't bust people based on what an idiot cop mind deems illegal or what he thinks is going on.. Yet, these asshole pigs made the assumption that the skinny, black female was a whore, and acted inappropriately.
Hope it costs the LAPD lots of cash and these simpleton pigs their worthless badges.....
Really, in the UK if you are in a vehicle you can all be searched and ID must be provided by the driver.
-
What actual facts did the cops have? - NONE. Just the word of someone who called, and their fucktard instinct.
If a cop walks up on a car filled with three known hookers and a known John at the wheel....yet all they are doing is talking, what can he do? The answer is nothing. You can't bust people based on what an idiot cop mind deems illegal or what he thinks is going on.. Yet, these asshole pigs made the assumption that the skinny, black female was a whore, and acted inappropriately.
Hope it costs the LAPD lots of cash and these simpleton pigs their worthless badges.....
It won't cost the LAPD anything... the taxpayers pay it. 95% of the time, the cops keep their jobs... and probably get a few weeks paid vacation out of the deal too.
-
Really, in the UK if you are in a vehicle you can all be searched and ID must be provided by the driver.
No surprise there. The UK is, for all intents and purposes, a police state.
-
The Terry case essentially defined reasonable suspicion. Whether Terry was armed or not is not what is important. What's important is that it was in Terry that the Supreme Court decided that Police must have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in a crime in order to stop and detain them.
You can keep trolling all you want, but ignoring the facts won't make them go away.
The police DID have reasonable suspicion, dunce. You keep arguing in circles, then when you can't win you say "troll".
-
No surprise there. The UK is, for all intents and purposes, a police state.
Are you sure its not the same in the states?
Officer sticks his head in the car and says "I smell weed"
Now what?
-
From your beloved Terry vs. Ohio:
In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.
Facts are facts.
-
The police DID have reasonable suspicion, dunce. You keep arguing in circles, then when you can't win you say "troll".
With who? Terry? Or the lady in this incident? Remember, that even if the police had reasonable suspicion in Terry doesn't mean that they have reasonable suspicion here.
You can troll all you want, avxo, but facts are facts.
Yes, facts are important. Whether the officers involved in Terry's stop had reasonable suspicion or not isn't the salient point of Terry v. Ohio or important in this case. The important point in Terry v. Ohio was that it established, once and for all, that reasonable suspicion is required to detain someone.
The cops in this case detained this lady. The question is: did they have reasonable suspicion to detain her? If all they had to go by was a phone call by a neighbor reporting her kissing someone and a refusal to talk to them the answer is an unequivocal no, they did not. If they did not have reasonable suspicion to detain her then she was not required to produce ID or provide them with her name.
You are being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse: in other words you're a troll.
Are you sure its not the same in the states?
Officer sticks his head in the car and says "I smell weed"
Now what?
You won't find me arguing that the United States is a bastion of freedom. We're following in the Brits' footsteps all too rapidly.
-
The question is: did they have reasonable suspicion to detain her? If all they had to go by was a phone call by a neighbor reporting her kissing someone and a refusal to talk to them the answer is an unequivocal no, they did not.
In your opinion. The officer on scene obviously did not agree with your opinion. He must base his actions on reasonable assumptions. As you are not a reasonable person, you must then be a troll. I cannot argue with you further, as I have to prepare for a deposition tomorrow morning. Good day, sir.
-
The cops in this case detained this lady. The question is: did they have reasonable suspicion to detain her? If all they had to go by was a phone call by a neighbor reporting her kissing someone and a refusal to talk to them the answer is an unequivocal no, they did not. If they did not have reasonable suspicion to detain her then she was not required to produce ID or provide them with her name.
Lets just wait for the court case.
Im pretty sure the officers will be exonerated.
They will simply state that she fit the description of the suspected prostitute and was clearly being defensive and acting suspiciously.
Cops need to be able to make decisions to stop and check people.
How would you feel if cops turned up to a report of a guy fleeing a rape and they let a guy go who fit the description of the suspect because they were shit scared of being sued and losing their jobs because he wasnt running around with his cock out so they thought it best not to stop him and ask him a couple of questions
-
In your opinion. The officer on scene obviously did not agree with your opinion. He must base his actions on reasonable assumptions. As you are not a reasonable person, you must then be a troll. I cannot argue with you further, as I have to prepare for a deposition tomorrow morning. Good day, sir.
Coming from the person who said what relevance Terry v. Ohio has when discussing California law, that's just rich... ;D
Lets just wait for the court case.
Im pretty sure the officers will be exonerated.
They will simply state that she fit the description of the suspected prostitute and was clearly being defensive and acting suspiciously.
As I've said before "being defensive" isn't a factor that they can consider and if by "acting suspiciously" you mean she refused to talk to them and walked away that's another thing that they cannot factor into their analysis. This is well-established precedent. Based on what we know so far, I simply can't see how detaining her was reasonable. Of course, other facts may surface at a later point in time, and I wouldn't be surprised.
Cops need to be able to make decisions to stop and check people.
They can and they do. The question is what facts they are allowed to consider when making decisions to stop and check people.
How would you feel if cops turned up to a report of a guy fleeing a rape and they let a guy go who fit the description of the suspect because they were shit scared of being sued and losing their jobs because he wasnt running around with his cock out so they thought it best not to stop him and ask him a couple of questions
This is a typical ploy... "oh, how would you feel if <horrible & extreme situation> and <inability to prevent horrible & extreme situation because of my position>" and I normally don't bother answering such silliness. But I don't think that the answer is "well, cops should be given broad powers to stop whomever they feel like."
You may disagree and you may find living in a world where cops can stop you and demand that you produce your papers for any reason - perhaps even for no reason at all - appealing. I don't.
-
It won't cost the LAPD anything... the taxpayers pay it. 95% of the time, the cops keep their jobs... and probably get a few weeks paid vacation out of the deal too.
Good.....hope it costs them a bundle. And people who cost great monetary loss are sometimes held accountable, since police are funded through taxes.....but you're probably right - the offending pigs will most likely stay on the job and continue their shitty contribution to public service.
I guess there's always alternative justice......
-
Really, in the UK if you are in a vehicle you can all be searched and ID must be provided by the driver.
Here too....if you're the driver. You need a license to drive. You do not need a license to stand or walk on a sidewalk, like the victim of this story did.
-
Kissing a black woman ought to be a crime.
-
Since when is it a requirement to show ID when kissing your boyfriend? She shouldn't have to show them shit......and to her credit - did not. What the cops did was violate her civil rights based on a false assumption of her being a hooker. Guess they missed the day to retard academy training where they are taught to check out actual facts before acting inappropriately.
The article says she is now suing the department......good for her.
Maybe if more people stood up for themselves like this woman did, pigs wouldn't treat people like shit based on nothing but their INCORRECT assumptions.
I got pulled by cops for fucking my gf in a car park a few times. By few I mean many and by gf I mean lota of girls. They would alway use excuse of rape in area blah blah. It is just funny and I get it. Id do it if I was a cop to piss off people.
This is back to my pet hate of agendas. They maybe thought she was a whore but I bet she plays race card. It happens everyone, celebrity or not. White black gay straight. They asked gf to prove she was with me and she happened to have photos. They do it for fun half the time. Moaning bitch
-
I got pulled by cops for fucking my gf in a car park a few times. By few I mean many and by gf I mean lota of girls. They would alway use excuse of rape in area blah blah. It is just funny and I get it. Id do it if I was a cop to piss off people.
This is back to my pet hate of agendas. They maybe thought she was a whore but I bet she plays race card. It happens everyone, celebrity or not. White black gay straight. They asked gf to prove she was with me and she happened to have photos. They do it for fun half the time. Moaning bitch
Well, what you described is something totally different than the content of the story. You could have been arrested for public indecency or something like that. Kissing in public is legal......fucking is not ;D
And she should play the race card, because that what was done to her. If it were two lily white, well dressed people kissing, I doubt the cowards would have detained and terrorized the woman.
-
The police acted improperly. It's unreasonable to conclude that anyone would pay money to have sex with that woman. I wouldn't pay that skinheaded hutu half a mud brick.
-
bald headed hoes
"Whatcha see D, w-w-w-whatcha see D"?
-
Well, what you described is something totally different than the content of the story. You could have been arrested for public indecency or something like that. Kissing in public is legal......fucking is not ;D
And she should play the race card, because that what was done to her. If it were two lily white, well dressed people kissing, I doubt the cowards would have detained and terrorized the woman.
Maybe it wasn't clear but I have also been done kissing in car. asked girl did she know me etc. Two white people. Was asked if chocolate protein powder was heroin too. It is a cop fuck up but I get it and don't use some bullshit to paint it as anything else.
cops always profile and do stupid shit for lols. Deal with it.
-
She's bald and not attractive...who cares.
-
Few things,
If she wasn't famous - wouldn't be newsworthy (obvious, I know but still a point)
Her skin colour was nothing to do with her being detained - her failure to produce I.D aroused suspicisions (in light of the area they were stopped)
I have a feeling, if she hadn't recently been at an Oscars Ceremony she may have spoken to the officers in a different manner or just produced some I.D. (just a hunch).
-
She's bald and not attractive...who cares.
would you do skin from skunk anansais
-
would you do skin from skunk anansais
No, I like them more feminine bald or not.
I'd savagely empty my nut sack over Amber Rose's skull:
(http://us.cdn001.fansshare.com/photos/amberrose/gallery-enlarged-amber-rose-south-beach-walk-photos-beach-17084558.jpg)
-
No, I like them more feminine bald or not.
I'd savagely empty my nut sack over Amber Rose's skull:
(http://us.cdn001.fansshare.com/photos/amberrose/gallery-enlarged-amber-rose-south-beach-walk-photos-beach-17084558.jpg)
she is hot
but its those curves that are sealing the deal
I used to hate sinead o connor with a passion
-
she is hot
but its those curves that are sealing the deal
I used to hate sinead o connor with a passion
I was very young when she had a hit, even then I used to visualise myself rubbing my itchy nut sack on her head.
-
cops always profile and do stupid shit for lols. Deal with it.
I do.......
-
Since when is it a requirement to show ID when kissing your boyfriend? She shouldn't have to show them shit......and to her credit - did not. What the cops did was violate her civil rights based on a false assumption of her being a hooker. Guess they missed the day to retard academy training where they are taught to check out actual facts before acting inappropriately.
The article says she is now suing the department......good for her.
Maybe if more people stood up for themselves like this woman did, pigs wouldn't treat people like shit based on nothing but their INCORRECT assumptions.
x10000000
Everyone's ready for the "show your papers" police state. Fuck that noise! and ::) at prostitution still being illegal
-
Few things,
If she wasn't famous - wouldn't be newsworthy (obvious, I know but still a point)
Her skin colour was nothing to do with her being detained - her failure to produce I.D aroused suspicisions (in light of the area they were stopped)
I have a feeling, if she hadn't recently been at an Oscars Ceremony she may have spoken to the officers in a different manner or just produced some I.D. (just a hunch).
Again, keep the following in mind:
The Police needed to have reasonable suspicion before they detained her. If they weren't detaining her she was free to walk away from them and the cops could not draw any inference from that - that is they couldn't use her walking away as a factor in a reasonable suspicion a analysis in deciding to subsequently detain her. Similarly, she wasn't required to provide ID since California doesn't have a stop-and-identify statute and, again, the cops could not use her refusal to provide ID as a factor in a reasonable suspicion analysis to subsequently detain her.
So they had to detain her first before they could require ID. Based on what we have available for so, the only question that seems relevant is did the cops have reasonable suspicion to detain her? If all they had was her kissing then no. If all they had was her kissing and refusing to talk to them then no. If all they had was her kissing not talking to them and refusing to produce ID then no.
There is well-settled precedent for this!
-
I am no lawyer, but I do not understand how 2 people kissing in the street is reasonable suspicion that it may be a prostitute. What hell kind of logic is that? With that framework, any cop can cast reasonable suspicion on someone. I mean if a man with black hair robs a store, do you approach every person with black hair? Cops needed more facts than just seeing someone kiss.
-
one possibility is she twirked it as she walked away from the cop... think about it.
-
one possibility is she twirked it as she walked away from the cop... think about it.
Twerked what? She's like a board. Do you mean planking? Lol
-
The driver id requirements are a condition of there being an identified driver.
What happens if nobody is sitting in the drivers seat?
Well I assume if they followed the car and stopped it and no one got out then its one of the people in the car.
I expect if they dont own up they will all get IDd.
I could check, I have a police officers handbook and its support book "points to prove" if you really want to know.
-
is it legal obligation in the USA to carry personal identification papers (or such like) ?
No.
-
she does look like a crack ho to me. also she is batting so far above her league that would have been another factor.
-
Again, keep the following in mind:
The Police needed to have reasonable suspicion before they detained her. If they weren't detaining her she was free to walk away from them and the cops could not draw any inference from that - that is they couldn't use her walking away as a factor in a reasonable suspicion a analysis in deciding to subsequently detain her. Similarly, she wasn't required to provide ID since California doesn't have a stop-and-identify statute and, again, the cops could not use her refusal to provide ID as a factor in a reasonable suspicion analysis to subsequently detain her.
So they had to detain her first before they could require ID. Based on what we have available for so, the only question that seems relevant is did the cops have reasonable suspicion to detain her? If all they had was her kissing then no. If all they had was her kissing and refusing to talk to them then no. If all they had was her kissing not talking to them and refusing to produce ID then no.
There is well-settled precedent for this!
There is the law and there is what cops do. Strange for me with legal training to say this but it is the truth. They base a lot of warrants on confidential informants - you think that means anything more than "someone told us" or "we think shit is going on"?
Cops make up shit for stopping you. You were driving too fast when you weren't. An issue came up with your registration on computer. It didn't. We have reports of rapes in the area. Maybe, but you just want to see my gf's tits and have a laugh. Like I said, there is the law and there is real life. Accept that cops pull this shit, it isn't a completely unreasonable stop, they prob wanted to see tits - race has fuck all to do with it.
-
There is the law and there is what cops do. Strange for me with legal training to say this but it is the truth. They base a lot of warrants on confidential informants - you think that means anything more than "someone told us" or "we think shit is going on"?
Cops make up shit for stopping you. You were driving too fast when you weren't. An issue came up with your registration on computer. It didn't. We have reports of rapes in the area. Maybe, but you just want to see my gf's tits and have a laugh. Like I said, there is the law and there is real life. Accept that cops pull this shit, it isn't a completely unreasonable stop, they prob wanted to see tits - race has fuck all to do with it.
I don't disagree. Do note that I didn't say whether they considered those factors or not althought I do, in fact, think it's likely that they did. All I said is that they're not supposed to use those factors and if this case goes forward, they should be required to explicitly articulate the reasons that caused them to detain her and if those reasons don't stand up to scrutiny they should be reprimanded or charged, if appropriate.
To address something you said specifically: the notion of "confidential informants" in a warrant application is despicable and abhorrent. At the very least the Judge or Magistrate should evaluate the specific details provided by the confidential informant and decide whether he or is she credible with credibility being a prerequisite to issuance of the warrant. Not that I really think that very many would do more than a token "evaluation" before rubber-stamping the warrant.
It's quite sad...
-
I don't disagree. Do note that I didn't say whether they considered those factors or not althought I do, in fact, think it's likely that they did. All I said is that they're not supposed to use those factors and if this case goes forward, they should be required to explicitly articulate the reasons that caused them to detain her and if those reasons don't stand up to scrutiny they should be reprimanded or charged, if appropriate.
To address something you said specifically: the notion of "confidential informants" in a warrant application is despicable and abhorrent. At the very least the Judge or Magistrate should evaluate the specific details provided by the confidential informant and decide whether he or is she credible with credibility being a prerequisite to issuance of the warrant. Not that I really think that very many would do more than a token "evaluation" before rubber-stamping the warrant.
It's quite sad...
Gonna deal with this in reverse order base don rage. Many warrants here are sanctioned not by judges but by "commissioners of peace" - in my case a pub owner who had never taken legal training or said no to police (why did they go to him on a monday afternoon when court was open and judges available???) Confidential informant can mean one thing for mafia, for most people it means they heard something they cannot substantiate or have fuck all reason but have an out. Guess how much appeals cost?
First point, there are rules, and there is reality. It makes you disillusioned. Punching a crack addict who killed his kid while arresting him is fine. Fuck, roughing up a drunk who took a swing and gave you lip is fine. Making up shit for warrants to search a house or pursuing vendettas and using bullshit like confidential informants or invented evidence is abhorrent.
-
Gonna deal with this in reverse order base don rage. Many warrants here are sanctioned not by judges but by "commissioners of peace" - in my case a pub owner who had never taken legal training or said no to police (why did they go to him on a monday afternoon when court was open and judges available???) Confidential informant can mean one thing for mafia, for most people it means they heard something they cannot substantiate or have fuck all reason but have an out. Guess how much appeals cost?
First point, there are rules, and there is reality. It makes you disillusioned. Punching a crack addict who killed his kid while arresting him is fine. Fuck, roughing up a drunk who took a swing and gave you lip is fine. Making up shit for warrants to search a house or pursuing vendettas and using bullshit like confidential informants or invented evidence is abhorrent.
I would wager Josh doesent think so.
-
:D
-
:D
"Im just making out with my fucking boyfriend on a fucking street corner"
That was in a conversation with her father. ::)
The prosecution rests.
-
is it legal obligation in the USA to carry personal identification papers (or such like) ?
No, but of course every one does. She HAD her ID, she just preferred to yell "racism". Her white boyfriend showed his ID to the cop and was done. She chose to escalate the situation.
When she went onto the CBS studio lot she had to show...ID
When she drove home from the studio she had to have...ID (a driver's license)
When she cashed her paycheck from the studio she had to have...ID
If she went out later with her boyfriend for a beer she would have to show...ID
Her ID was not really the issue. She wants the law to be applied differently for her than for whites. Her white boyfriend was treated the same as her, but the outcome was different because she injected racism into the encounter where there was none.
-
:D
What a whiny twat ffs
id hate to be a cop over there
-
why is the pig standing there with his feet crossed like a total fucking Fagggot
-
No, but of course every one does. She HAD her ID, she just preferred to yell "racism". Her white boyfriend showed his ID to the cop and was done. She chose to escalate the situation.
When she went onto the CBS studio lot she had to show...ID
When she drove home from the studio she had to have...ID (a driver's license)
When she cashed her paycheck from the studio she had to have...ID
If she went out later with her boyfriend for a beer she would have to show...ID
Her ID was not really the issue. She wants the law to be applied differently for her than for whites. Her white boyfriend was treated the same as her, but the outcome was different because she injected racism into the encounter where there was none.
100%
-
As far as I know, US hookers don't kiss their johns. Cops should have known they weren't hooker and john.
-
The officer got a call there was lewd behavior. She played the race card immediately as if that wasn't expected.
Watts: What's the issue?
Officer: Somebody called the police saying that there was lewd acts in the car.
Watts: But there's no lewd acts happening…
Officer: Doesn't matter, I have to ID you.
Watts: We're not doing anything…I'm on the phone with my dad. This is my boyfriend, we're sitting in front of a public place...
Officer: Okay, I want to see your ID. Somebody called which gives me the right to be here, so it gives me the right to identify you.
Watts: Do you know how many times I've been called -- the cops have been called just for being black? Just because we're black and he's white? I'm just being really honest, sir.
Officer: Who brought up a race card? Why? I said nothing about you being black.
Watts: I'm bringing it up because I have every right to be here.
Officer: I have every right to ask for your ID.
Watts: And I have the right to say no.
More bullshit from the perpetual victim.
"I think I'd like to identify you ... to my publicist."
"I serve freedom and love. You guys serve detainment. That's cool."
"I hope when you're f***ing your spouses you really feel alive."
http://www.tmz.com/2014/09/15/django-actress-daniele-watts-lapd-race-card-fame-audio/#ixzz3DZTsoKcI
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758162/LAPD-officer-accused-harassing-black-Django-Unchained-actress-white-boyfriend-defends-actions-says-never-suspected-couple-prostitution.html
"Witnesses told TMZ that they watched Watts and her boyfriend having sex in their car with the door open. They watched her get out and wipe herself with a tissue then throw it on the ground, according to the gossip site."
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2758162/LAPD-officer-accused-harassing-black-Django-Unchained-actress-white-boyfriend-defends-actions-says-never-suspected-couple-prostitution.html
"Witnesses told TMZ that they watched Watts and her boyfriend having sex in their car with the door open. They watched her get out and wipe herself with a tissue then throw it on the ground, according to the gossip site."
Would love to be that tissue.
Wonder if baby momma is harassed by police when with halo.
-
(http://static1.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1942611.1410960501!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/daniele-watts-detained.jpg)
(http://static2.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1942609.1410964088!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/daniele-watts-detained.jpg)
-
lulz. what sort of self respecting man would hit a shaved headed female?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/10/21/1413923049382_wps_10_The_Django_Unchained_actr.jpg)
Django Unchained actress and boyfriend charged with lewd conduct 'for having sex in car' one month after claiming LAPD arrested her because she's black
Daniele Watts and boyfriend Brian James Lucas have each been charged with one count of lewd conduct
A witness claimed the two were having sex in a parked car last month, while Watts maintains they were just kissing
The actress went on to accuse the LAPD of racial profiling, before it was revealed her resisting officers were all minorities
If convicted, the couple could spend up to six months in jail and face a $1,000 fine
By Ashley Collman for MailOnline
Published: 21:42, 21 October 2014 | Updated: 22:25, 21 October 2014
5
View comments
Actress Daniele Watts, who played the slave CoCo in Django Unchained, and her boyfriend have formally been charged with lewd conduct, one month after claiming Los Angeles Police used racial profiling in their arrest.
Watts maintains that she and boyfriend Brian James Lucas were only kissing in her car, parked outside the CBS Studio Center, when police approached them on September 4.
However, witnesses allegedly told police that the two were having sex in public and the LAPD stepped in to investigate the claims.
Scroll down for video
Charged: Actress Daniele Watts (right) and boyfriend Brian James Lucas have been charged with lewd conduct after a witness called police last month to report them having sex in a parked car
+4
Charged: Actress Daniele Watts (right) and boyfriend Brian James Lucas have been charged with lewd conduct after a witness called police last month to report them having sex in a parked car
Watts was arrested when she refused to show a responding officer her identification.
An arraignment is scheduled for November 13, and if convicted the two could face a maximum sentence of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
RELATED ARTICLES
Previous
1
Next
FILE - OCTOBER 20: It was reported October 20, 2014 that Leslie Jones, who is currently on the "Saturday Night Live" writing staff, will join the cast starting October 25. SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE -- "Chris Pratt" Episode 1663 -- Pictured: (l-r) Relationship expert Leslie Jones, Colin Jost and Michael Che during the "Weekend Update" skit on September 27, 2014 -- (Photo by: Dana Edelson/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images) A new face on Saturday Night Live: Writer Leslie Jones gets... EXCLUSIVE - 'Don't give me that bulls**t! This is not what... Former St Louis police chief has accused the Feds of leaking... FRANKLIN LAKES, NJ - Sunday, October 19, 2014. ¿The Real Housewives Of New Jersey¿ On tonight¿s episode titled ¿Judgement Day,¿ Rumors swirl and create tension between Teresa G. and Teresa A. just as Dina's charity event draws near in the Season 6 finale. Also: Melissa breaks ground on her dream home; and Teresa and Joe Giudice learn their legal fate. At the end of the show they teased next week¿s RHONJ reunion show. Starring Teresa and Joe Giudice, Dina Manzo, Melissa and Joe Gorga, Amber and Jim Marchese, and the twins, Nicole Napolitano and Teresa and Rino Aprea. Denied! Teresa Giudice won't be able to serve her time at...
Share this article?
Share
Her boyfriend took a picture of her crying after her arrest, and it quickly went viral.
While civil rights activists initially rallied around the actress, she is not being asked to apologize after the LAPD viciously denied that any racial profiling happened in the incident.
Sobbing: Lucas posted a picture of his girlfriend to Facebook. She claimed the LAPD had racially profiled her but it has since been revealed that her arresting officers were minorities
+4
Sobbing: Lucas posted a picture of his girlfriend to Facebook. She claimed the LAPD had racially profiled her but it has since been revealed that her arresting officers were minorities
'I know my rights, I played a cop on TV' Daniele Watts to LAPD
They backed that claim by releasing an audio recording of the arrest in which officers struggle to explain the arrest to a hysterical Watts.
'You're not the one in handcuffs, you're not the one who's spent your life being called a n*****, and growing up in the South and now I get the cops called on me,' she says through tears.
'I'm an actress at this studio! I'm in a major sitcom and I'm still being put in handcuffs because I'm making out with my boyfriend.'
Watts is perhaps best known for her small role in Django Unchained, playing a slave called Coco
+4
Watts also posted theis picture to Facebook, claiming she was injured in the arrest
+4
Allegations: Watts is perhaps best known for her small role in Django Unchained, playing a slave called Coco. She also posted the picture on the right to Facebook, claiming she was injured in the arrest
Watts' claims were not taken well by the responding officers, which included a woman and a hispanic.
Sgt Jim Parker, a 25-year veteran of the force, who is openly gay, was another one of the responding officers, and says she picked the wrong group to allege profiling.
'How funny it is. She kind of didn’t really get the right mix there. It’s quite comical.'
'It’s a new generation. It’s not about who you are or what religion you are or what color you are, it's about who you are and what you do in uniform,' he told MailOnline.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2802161/django-unchained-actress-boyfriend-charged-lewd-conduct-having-sex-car-one-month-claiming-lapd-arrested-s-black.html#ixzz3Gol0OHF4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
bump
-
She was giving him a blowjob in that old mercedes?
-
>>> http://38.media.tumblr.com/2a4a369984ab730e9829a89332644d78/tumblr_mpoc6rMZgK1sro0ngo1_250.gif <<<
-
(http://static1.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1942611.1410960501!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/daniele-watts-detained.jpg)
(http://static2.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1942609.1410964088!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/daniele-watts-detained.jpg)
Old ass bumperless Mercedes of peace. ::)
-
Fortunately, most of the women here in Queensland are fairly normal.
-
Old ass bumperless Mercedes of peace. ::)
bitches love mercedes regardless
-
Fortunately, most of the women here in Queensland are fairly normal.
You're a strange, strange man.
-
Maybe we should focus on the point of the matter. the girl was trash and unattractive and also slutty. And the cops just showed her her place when she was disobedient because of her lower value as a human. Nothing strange really.
-
(http://sandrarose.com/images20/daniele-watts-lucas-550x551.jpg)
halo? baby mama?
-
I wish you guys would stop bagging the cops. Weren't you taught that it is NOT OK to pick on retarded people?
-
bitches love mercedes regardless
She sees a Mercedes and thinks 'Mr. President'