Black actress arrested for banging white guy in car

[denarii]

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

[Deacon Jeschin]

Dumb fucking pigs don't think much of civil rights.......

Fire the cocksuckers and open up your checkbook LAPD.......again.

[Schnauzer]

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.

[Simple Simon]

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.

Sevaste again?

[Nails]

bald headed hoes

[Deacon Jeschin]

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.

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.

[mr.turbo]

schnauzer to the rescue white knighting the LAPD from unruly getbig civiliannaires

[anabolichalo]

bald headed hoes

the world is ending

[denarii]

BWC strikes again

[denarii]

she looks like a shaved lil wayne

[Schnauzer]

schnauzer to the rescue white knighting the LAPD from unruly getbig civiliannaires

Facts are facts

[avxo]

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?

[mr.turbo]

Facts are facts

yes I see the thread title is inaccurate

[Schnauzer]

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" . Any questions?

[avxo]

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"?

[Simple Simon]

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?

[Schnauzer]

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?

[Schnauzer]

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".

[avxo]

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.

[Nails]

[avxo]

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.?

[Schnauzer]

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?

[avxo]

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?

[Simple Simon]

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'?

[Schnauzer]

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