Black actress arrested for banging white guy in car

[avxo]

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.

[Simple Simon]

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.

[Mr Anabolic]

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.

[avxo]

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.

[Schnauzer]

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".

[Simple Simon]

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?

[Schnauzer]

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.

[avxo]

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.

[Schnauzer]

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.

[Simple Simon]

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

[avxo]

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...

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.

[Deacon Jeschin]

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......

[Deacon Jeschin]

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.

[monstermunch]

Kissing a black woman ought to be a crime.

[Lustral]

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

[Deacon Jeschin]

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 

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.

[Tapeworm]

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.

[Pray_4_War]

bald headed hoes

"Whatcha see D, w-w-w-whatcha see D"?

[Lustral]

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 

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.

[Skorp1o]

She's bald and not attractive...who cares.

[BigCyp]

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).

[bigmc]

She's bald and not attractive...who cares.

would you do skin from skunk anansais

[Skorp1o]

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:

[bigmc]

No, I like them more feminine bald or not.

I'd savagely empty my nut sack over Amber Rose's skull:

she is hot

but its those curves that are sealing the deal

I used to hate sinead o connor with a passion

[Skorp1o]

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.