From a very biased source... Even they acknowledge that ID would be required in this situation
Even if someone perceives that they are being stopped solely because of their race, or in fact, they are being stopped because of that with no charge of a crime or even the suspicion of one being committed, the hard reality is that successive court rulings, including a Supreme Court ruling, are unequivocal. When police detain someone even though there is no arrest, they have the right to ask for identification and the detainee must show it or be subject to arrest.
Civil liberties groups have challenged this on the grounds that this gives police the unfettered power to stop, search and harass citizens without any checks or safeguards. The courts have brushed this argument aside with the retort that police would be severely hampered in crime fighting without the authority to require a detainee to produce identification.
Unfortunately, the Watts stop did meet the low bar legal requirement in which she was legally compelled to show identification. This, of course, in no way cancels out the equally hard reality that blacks and Hispanics are stopped in wildly disproportionate numbers to whites, often times without any crime or even the suspicion of a crime being committed.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
Legally (depending on the state) you don't have to provide ID if there is no probable cause, yet that doesn't stop the storm troopers from roughing you up and throwing you in jail for the night or the weekend - weather the cops have a legitimate case or not.... You see cops (most cops) don't care - they could care less if their case is dismissed all they know is that you just spent a day or two in jail for "disobeying them" and their tyrannical orders.
Usually cases like this get thrown out and the prosecutor makes it seem as if the victim is "lucky" the case was thrown out - despite the fact there was no probable cause and no due process..... It's a little game they play - it's called "contempt of cop."
There is no law stating/or statute (depending on the state) in which you have to disclose your identity without probable cause. Although if you refuse many municipalities will charge you with "disorderly conduct" which is highly unconstitutional - which is why the charges are always dropped unless resisting arrest is attached.
The best way to deal with these tyrants is to remain calm and ask questions pertaining to your civil liberties, don't get peppy with them and sue their asses off if they arrest you (which they wont if you don't get hostile with them).
Activists seek apology from Django Unchained's Daniele Watts who 'cried wolf' | Daily Mail Online
Civil rights activists have demanded that a Django Unchained actress apologize for accusing police of singling her out because of her race.Oops. I'm glad to see them realize the truth of the matter and call her out on it.Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Project Islamic Hope President Najee Ali and others released a statement this morning in the Inglewood area of LA.
Hutchinson said: 'There was provable cause for the detention. You must have your facts. You can't rush to judgment. If you do that, you have no credibility.'
According to NBC, he added: 'It's like crying wolf - after a while, it has no meaning.'
Ali also spoke against her, CBS reported.
He said: 'She should be embarrassed. She's the one that told the lie. She came and stated she's a victim of racial profiling. We found out later on based on new information that she wasn't,'
If she wants to keep working, and because better late than never, Danielle Watts needs to acknowledge her bad, beginning with the stupid decision to have sex in a park in broad daylight (causing employees in a nearby building who could see her getting after it to call the police). And trying to play the race card. Shame on her. And if she isn't ashamed, my bet is that she is going to be sorry.
I listened to a couple of minutes of the audio tope and kept thinking of Jon Lovitz and "Master Thespian." My, but she did go on, and she even told the (openly gay) officer that he didn't know what it's like to be called the n-word all your life.
Not Sorry: Actress Daniele Watts Won't Apologize for Racism Claim - NBC News
Nothing wrong with :showing affection" in public.. even if that includes humping your boyfriend with everyone watching on.
I think that her "crying wolf" will be punished.
Crimes might be solved by looking for the criminal ID in Canada but our IDs hold no relevant information on if a crime was committed. Ours are pretty much limited to name, address, date of birth, a picture, and a brief physical description. I suppose they could have found out if she's an organ donor or was required to wear corrective lenses while driving but I'm just not sure what relevance any of that played in whether or not she was having sex on a public street. Since the only "investigating" they did was looking at an ID that, unlike yours, had no details of the crime then I think it's reasonable to say they were basically just harassing her.
I could understand asking for her ID if it was actually pertinent to an investigation but this wasn't one of those times.
Last edited by shavingcollywob; 09-23-14 at 09:31 AM.