• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Daniele Watts says she was detained for ‘showing affection’

sangha said:
When you're operating a motor vehicle, you're required to show ID. Otherwise, you're not, but if you don't, the police can detain you until they can identify you without your cooperation
Click to expand...

Correct as far as motor vehicles go. But NY Law provides that the officer must reasonably suspect you have committed or are about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor before you are required to provide ID. Normal caveats about police and "reasonable suspicion" naturally apply.
 
Gaius46 said:
Correct as far as motor vehicles go. But NY Law provides that the officer must reasonably suspect you have committed or are about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor before you are required to provide ID. Normal caveats about police and "reasonable suspicion" naturally apply.
Click to expand...

Yes, in NYS you are required to show ID if the police have a reasonable suspicion. My understanding is that this varies from state to state and that in CA it is not a requirement and does not violate laws about obstructing an investigation
 
RabidAlpaca said:
You don't have to show your ID to a cop at all unless you're being arrested for a crime, and no, not showing your ID is not a crime, and neither is making out in the car.
Click to expand...

Since when are you not required to show ID when you are the subject of a complaint of potential illegal activity? Is it your position that every individual who is a potential suspect has to be arrested, taken to jail, so that ID can be determined and police can ask a question?

The need to exert "rights" in order to escalate an incident above and beyond the common sense of deescalating an incident is a symptom of the whole increase in disrespect for law enforcement and the escalation of confrontation as a standard MO in some circles.
 
Poor Danielle.
God that must be a pain when you play your hole card and

splat.jpg
 
Lutherf said:
Yes, it sure as hell was.

The cop was investigating a complaint and had not only the right but also the obligation to identify her.
Click to expand...

Always taking the cops side.

All this cop had to do to complete his "investigation" was to see if this woman and this man were engaging in sex while parked. If, when the cop arrived after his trip from the donut shop, and saw that this man and woman were dressed and not having sex, that should end the so called "investigation."

But, when the man is white and the woman is black, you see what happens.
 
Texmex said:
Always taking the cops side.

All this cop had to do to complete his "investigation" was to see if this woman and this man were engaging in sex while parked. If, when the cop arrived after his trip from the donut shop, and saw that this man and woman were dressed and not having sex, that should end the so called "investigation."

But, when the man is white and the woman is black, you see what happens.
Click to expand...

... said the worst detective ever. Let's say you call the police when you see someone robbing your house. The police pull up to the curb and don't see anyone robbing your house, but they do see some people walking near the house with a bag of stuff. You expect him to not even ask them to identify themselves because the officer didn't personally see them in the act of robbing your house?
 
CycloneWanderer said:
... said the worst detective ever. Let's say you call the police when you see someone robbing your house. The police pull up to the curb and don't see anyone robbing your house, but they do see some people walking near the house with a bag of stuff. You expect him to not even ask them to identify themselves because the officer didn't personally see them in the act of robbing your house?
Click to expand...

Apples and lug nuts!
 
Texmex said:
Always taking the cops side.

All this cop had to do to complete his "investigation" was to see if this woman and this man were engaging in sex while parked. If, when the cop arrived after his trip from the donut shop, and saw that this man and woman were dressed and not having sex, that should end the so called "investigation."

But, when the man is white and the woman is black, you see what happens.
Click to expand...

Well yes. As shown on video and audio, the black person goes apoplectic and spits on the graves of those people who fought and died for equality.
 
ocean515 said:
Well yes. As shown on video and audio, the black person goes apoplectic and spits on the graves of those people who fought and died for equality.
Click to expand...

So much drama...
 
Texmex said:
So much drama...
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking when viewing and listening to her "outrage". Who threatens a Cop with a publicist?

I can only hope her princess drama results in the end of her career. Those who have worked so hard for equality don't need offensive prima donnas like this little twit as spokespeople.
 
ocean515 said:
Exactly what I was thinking when viewing and listening to her "outrage". Who threatens a Cop with a publicist?

I can only hope her princess drama results in the end of her career. Those who have worked so hard for equality don't need offensive prima donnas like this little twit as spokespeople.
Click to expand...

Yawn! :lol:
 
sangha said:
Yes, in NYS you are required to show ID if the police have a reasonable suspicion. My understanding is that this varies from state to state and that in CA it is not a requirement and does not violate laws about obstructing an investigation
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was going to look up what the Ca stop and identify statutes were.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Since when are you not required to show ID when you are the subject of a complaint of potential illegal activity? Is it your position that every individual who is a potential suspect has to be arrested, taken to jail, so that ID can be determined and police can ask a question?

The need to exert "rights" in order to escalate an incident above and beyond the common sense of deescalating an incident is a symptom of the whole increase in disrespect for law enforcement and the escalation of confrontation as a standard MO in some circles.
Click to expand...

CJ, the laws vary from state to state. In some states if a cop asks you have to provide it. In others, most as far as I know, the cop needs to suspect you of having committing a crime. CA falls into the latter category as far as I know. If she and her hubby were sitting in a legally parked car and merely kissing the cop, on the face of it, has no legal justification to ask for ID. If they were fornicating that'd be a different ballgame.

For me, it depends on the situation whether I'd comply or not.
 
Gaius46 said:
CJ, the laws vary from state to state. In some states if a cop asks you have to provide it. In others, most as far as I know, the cop needs to suspect you of having committing a crime. CA falls into the latter category as far as I know. If she and her hubby were sitting in a legally parked car and merely kissing the cop, on the face of it, has no legal justification to ask for ID. If they were fornicating that'd be a different ballgame.

For me, it depends on the situation whether I'd comply or not.
Click to expand...

But of course, they *WERE* suspected of a crime, the cop was responding to a 911 call reporting a crime so the cop, like it or not, had every right to ask for ID because he was investigating a criminal complaint. It isn't like he just walked up to them out of the blue.
 
Gaius46 said:
CJ, the laws vary from state to state. In some states if a cop asks you have to provide it. In others, most as far as I know, the cop needs to suspect you of having committing a crime. CA falls into the latter category as far as I know. If she and her hubby were sitting in a legally parked car and merely kissing the cop, on the face of it, has no legal justification to ask for ID. If they were fornicating that'd be a different ballgame.

For me, it depends on the situation whether I'd comply or not.
Click to expand...

I came across this answer to the ID question. They identified themselves as a 19yr veteran cop

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711011931AAbmgHG

mikeysco answered 8 years ago

So the answer to your question, given the very limited amount of detail you provided, is no...you do not have to show ID when requested for a "random" reason.


HOWEVER:

You are not going to be in any position to decide if the request is just a random one. The police might have a very valid reason to request your identification, and they are not required to tell you what it is before you hand over the ID.

One sure way to find out if they have the legal right to demand your identification is to refuse to hand it over. If they have the legal right to demand it, and you refuse to hand it over, the next sound you hear will be handcuffs. If that's a chance you're prepared to take, then refuse all requests for identification from law enforcement. You'll only get arrested on those occasions when the request was legally justified.

If you're one of those people who just object to the idea of telling the police who you are, get over it. We can and do make it our business to know who someone is if we have an interest in them. If you want to be the guy that refuses to identify yourself on principle, go for it. Be prepared to have unpleasant run-ins with law enforcement.
Source:

In my 19th year of California law enforcement.​

Moral of the story? Don't be a stupid fool. Get over yourself, show the ID, then go get a room.
 
ocean515 said:
Moral of the story? Don't be a stupid fool. Get over yourself, show the ID, then go get a room.
Click to expand...

Unless you're black. Then it's your god given right to fornicate in public and anyone who says it's not is a racist.
 
Gaius46 said:
CJ, the laws vary from state to state. In some states if a cop asks you have to provide it. In others, most as far as I know, the cop needs to suspect you of having committing a crime. CA falls into the latter category as far as I know. If she and her hubby were sitting in a legally parked car and merely kissing the cop, on the face of it, has no legal justification to ask for ID. If they were fornicating that'd be a different ballgame.

For me, it depends on the situation whether I'd comply or not.
Click to expand...

That's fair, and thanks. I've personally never understood the fear of identifying oneself when asked, but then with the exception of driving over the bloody low speed limits on occasion, I'm not involved in illegal activity.

In this situation, it seems quite clear to me that the officers involved were called to the scene, the car and occupants were identified, and the officers proceeded to investigate the situation that raised the complaint. If laws are similar in California as they are here, officers can't charge someone with indecent exposure and/or lewd conduct unless the officer his/herself witnesses the behaviour. As such, if she had simply identified herself and her husband/partner she would likely have been cautioned about lewd behaviour in public and sent on their way. By escalating the matter, she put herself in the unfortunate position.

The upshot is a bunch of negative publicity - but I guess for a struggling actress, any mention in the media is a good thing - but for her husband/partner, it's probably not too helpful depending on his career.
 
Cephus said:
But of course, they *WERE* suspected of a crime, the cop was responding to a 911 call reporting a crime so the cop, like it or not, had every right to ask for ID because he was investigating a criminal complaint. It isn't like he just walked up to them out of the blue.
Click to expand...

The call was for "indecent exposure" and was not something the officer witnessed himself - assuming the people in the car were clothed. Based on the it's very hard to see that he had legal justification for demanding ID.
 
Cephus said:
But of course, they *WERE* suspected of a crime, the cop was responding to a 911 call reporting a crime so the cop, like it or not, had every right to ask for ID because he was investigating a criminal complaint. It isn't like he just walked up to them out of the blue.
Click to expand...

Sorry accidentally responded twice. Ignore this one.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Unless you're black. Then it's your god given right to fornicate in public and anyone who says it's not is a racist.
Click to expand...

Perhaps she thinks they are jealous too?

Rather interesting she is being outed by a tool of her own generation, the phone video and the cops own hidden audio. Wonder what her publicist will do with that?
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair, and thanks. I've personally never understood the fear of identifying oneself when asked, but then with the exception of driving over the bloody low speed limits on occasion, I'm not involved in illegal activity.

In this situation, it seems quite clear to me that the officers involved were called to the scene, the car and occupants were identified, and the officers proceeded to investigate the situation that raised the complaint. If laws are similar in California as they are here, officers can't charge someone with indecent exposure and/or lewd conduct unless the officer his/herself witnesses the behaviour. As such, if she had simply identified herself and her husband/partner she would likely have been cautioned about lewd behaviour in public and sent on their way. By escalating the matter, she put herself in the unfortunate position.

The upshot is a bunch of negative publicity - but I guess for a struggling actress, any mention in the media is a good thing - but for her husband/partner, it's probably not too helpful depending on his career.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, in some circles this woman is being lauded as hero of the civil rights movement. To some folks out there her antics are the modern equivalent of Rosa Parks.
 
CanadaJohn said:
That's fair, and thanks. I've personally never understood the fear of identifying oneself when asked, but then with the exception of driving over the bloody low speed limits on occasion, I'm not involved in illegal activity.

In this situation, it seems quite clear to me that the officers involved were called to the scene, the car and occupants were identified, and the officers proceeded to investigate the situation that raised the complaint. If laws are similar in California as they are here, officers can't charge someone with indecent exposure and/or lewd conduct unless the officer his/herself witnesses the behaviour. As such, if she had simply identified herself and her husband/partner she would likely have been cautioned about lewd behaviour in public and sent on their way. By escalating the matter, she put herself in the unfortunate position.

The upshot is a bunch of negative publicity - but I guess for a struggling actress, any mention in the media is a good thing - but for her husband/partner, it's probably not too helpful depending on his career.
Click to expand...

My kid brother is a retired cop and his advice to me, echoed by pretty much every other cop friend I've ever had, is that the police job is to find something to arrest you for and to provide as minimal cooperation as you can get away with. Given that advice from
people who did the job I personally maintain a healthy skepticism of all cops. And I'm not involved in any illegal activities either but that's not the point really. To me it's just kind of hard to feel like I'm a free person in a free country if someone can just come up to me for any reason and demand that I identify myself.
 
Lutherf said:
Oddly enough, in some circles this woman is being lauded as hero of the civil rights movement. To some folks out there her antics are the modern equivalent of Rosa Parks.
Click to expand...

Well, there was a woman at the Vikings game this past weekend wearing a Peterson jersey and carrying a switch, so no matter what the situation, you'll always find some whack job who'll support it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom