• 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’

There were a number of witnesses in an office building, one of which confronted the two while they were having sex...and they shunned the request for them to stop having sex because they could be easily seen.

Then why weren't they arrested?
 
Really? What kind of seizure was this, if it wasn't either a Terry stop or an arrest? No need to get peevish. That should be an easy question for someone who knows the law as well as you have claimed to.

Do you have a point?
 
By racial component I mean that posters are reacting one way because she's a black woman claiming racism.

I'm not really sure why it would matter if she were arrested for prostitution. That has no real bearing on whether or not she committed a crime that day.

SHE reacted the way she did, presumably, because she is black.

Her claim was that the only reason the cop was questioning her is because she was black. She also claimed to simply be sitting there minding her own business. In a nutshell, she lied about what was happening, played the race card and then turned on the dramatics.
 
OK. You start

How did this animosity between cops and blacks start?

I won't contest that there have been cases where cops have unfairly targeted blacks. I won't even contest that there have been situations where that abuse was systemic. Heck, I had this conversation with a client from Detroit who made a pretty good case about cops targeting blacks in the 50's and 60's because the unions didn't want any blacks in representative positions and if you had a record you couldn't be a representative. That being said, because it happened before or is happening in some places doesn't mean that it's happening everywhere or happening all that often.

Furthermore, if we look at a lot of these cases where there is an accusation of racial bias we'll most often find that the initial contact was due to a criminal act or a lawful investigation.
 
Then why weren't they arrested?

My point was about what lead to the police making an "investigation". There is a protocol for police who are sent to make an investigation.

"There is no absolute requirement in California that a person carry ID or provide it just upon demand by a police officer," Beck said. "However, if you're being investigated for another offense and your identity is important to the investigation of that offense, then you must, by state law, comply with the legal authority of the officer -- which is to request your ID."

Attorney Dmitry Gorin said he believed the officers had the necessary reasonable suspicion to ask for identification. Refusing to obey an officer's commands during an investigation and walking away could also be considered obstruction of justice, he said.

“There is an easy way and a hard way in reality to deal with this situation. The officers can detain you in the back of a police car until they know who you are,” said Gorin, a defense attorney and former prosecutor. “They may want your identity to determine if you are on probation, have committed similar crimes or have an outstanding warrant."

Conversation between Ms. Watts and Officer Parker...

Watts insisted that the couple had done nothing wrong.

“Somebody called, which gives me the right to be here, so it gives me the right to identify you by law,” Parker said, according to the recording, portions of which were first published by celebrity news site TMZ.com.

“Do you know how many times I’ve been called, the cops have been called just for being black?” Watts said. “Just because we’re black and he’s white? I’m just being really honest, sir.”

“Who brought up the race card?” Parker said.

“I’m bringing it up,” she said.


“I said nothing about you being black,” the sergeant responded.

Parker said Watts walked away after refusing to provide her ID. He then radioed for the other officers to bring her back to the scene.

When Watts returned, she cried as she berated and cursed the police. She was released after Lucas handed police her ID, and officers determined the couple were not wanted on outstanding warrants.

In the audio, Parker told Watts the encounter would have lasted just a few minutes had she identified herself earlier. He pointed out that Lucas, who had been cooperative, had not been handcuffed.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-daniele-watts-lapd-chief-20140916-story.html
 
I won't contest that there have been cases where cops have unfairly targeted blacks. I won't even contest that there have been situations where that abuse was systemic. Heck, I had this conversation with a client from Detroit who made a pretty good case about cops targeting blacks in the 50's and 60's because the unions didn't want any blacks in representative positions and if you had a record you couldn't be a representative. That being said, because it happened before or is happening in some places doesn't mean that it's happening everywhere or happening all that often.

That is not an answer to my question.

Furthermore, if we look at a lot of these cases where there is an accusation of racial bias we'll most often find that the initial contact was due to a criminal act or a lawful investigation.

I think you'll find that a great deal of those initial contacts were the result of the police who were not investigating a report of crime and who initiated contact with people who gave them no reasonable suspicion. You're aware that many police depts have a policy of stopping random people in specific neighborhoods, aren't you? Do you suppose being stopped by the police when you've done nothing wrong might contribute a little towards the animosity?
 
That is not an answer to my question.



I think you'll find that a great deal of those initial contacts were the result of the police who were not investigating a report of crime and who initiated contact with people who gave them no reasonable suspicion. You're aware that many police depts have a policy of stopping random people in specific neighborhoods, aren't you? Do you suppose being stopped by the police when you've done nothing wrong might contribute a little towards the animosity?

I think the definition of "nothing wrong" is going to be different between parties.

If, for example, my beat is a particular neighborhood that has a reputation for drugs and I see the same kid hanging out on the same corner every day it might just occur to me that he's a spotter for the dealer a block down. I might also take a second look at the brand new BMW M5 that just came rolling down the street with two kids from the "good side of the tracks". Now I'll grant you that neither party in these scenarios is "doing something wrong" but in both cases it's worth making a casual stop even if the only reason I'm doing so is to let them know that I've got my eye on them. That isn't a racial issue at all. It's a crime prevention issue.
 
I think this general scenario is really problematic of today's police force.

It seems to me that the "investigation" really began and ended with checking this woman's ID, which is to say there really wasn't an investigation. The officers should up to a complaint, there was no evidence one way or the other, but the woman didn't show the officers enough respect so they hassled her a little bit. I'm generally a polite person but I think everyone should be uncomfortable with the idea that if you don't show the police enough respect that they can hassle you. There was no real reason for them to slap the cuffs on this woman then stuff her in a squad car. They just didn't like her attitude.

But then why should I have to show respect for people who behave that way?

If they behaved that way in any other profession we would be calling them assholes.

There's a large difference here between being an innocent bystander who gets hassled and a suspect who refuses to cooperate with a simple request. Police have two choices when they need to question someone - they can do it at the scene, with cooperation, or they can haul your ass to the precinct and do it there - choice is usually up to the person being questioned. If you think police have nothing better to do than waste their time with some dick with an attitude, you don't know modern day policing.
 
Reports they were boinking in a car.

Pic too. I saw it at the New York Daily News, but TMZ scored it. She's straddling her boyfriend. Looks pretty obvious what they're up to.
 
SC: Promoting the majority's view that an act involving sex as immoral or unacceptable s not the legitimate interest of government. Okay. :shrug:

The SCOTUS may not have an interest in issues like gender related sex or what sex act is moral or immoral.

As far as I'm concerned, if one is going to do their neighbor's goat. I don't personally care. But I might add...just don't get caught doing it in a public place.

However....

When did the S.C. rule that states can't make laws regarding sexual conduct in public places like in cars in the view of others, on park benches, at public swimming pools, inside a state capitol building, etc?

New York court has ruled that sex in a car was not sex in a public place unless the act could be readily seen by passers-by. (People v. McNamara, 585 N.E.2nd 788 (1991).)

I think that you'll find this to be the case in most states. And most laws are considered to be misdemeanor type laws. How exactly are these types of laws unconstitutional?

I don't think laws like that are unconstitutional. But a majority of the Supreme Court doesn't seem very sure about it.

The Court said this in Lawrence v. Texas: "The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."

In Lawrence, the Court held a state law under which two men had been convicted of homosexual sodomy unconstitutional for just that reason--that the fact most people in the state considered that form of sexual behavior immoral and unacceptable was not a good enough reason to make it a crime. But if that's true, why is it any better a reason just because the act is performed in public? Is adult incest, for example, less immoral just because it takes place in a car that's not open to plain view, instead of a car that is?

Did what the two people in this incident did somehow harm the people who were watching them? I don't see why it was necessarily more harmful because it took place in a car with the door open than it would have if done in a motel room with the door closed. I think the real reason for making certain sex acts crimes when done publicly is just that most people consider it immoral. But if that's the only reason, why is the act less immoral if done in private? After all, prostitution is no less a crime in most states just because the sex takes place in a room, rather than in the city park.
 
I don't think laws like that are unconstitutional. But a majority of the Supreme Court doesn't seem very sure about it.

The Court said this in Lawrence v. Texas: "The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice."

In Lawrence, the Court held a state law under which two men had been convicted of homosexual sodomy unconstitutional for just that reason--that the fact most people in the state considered that form of sexual behavior immoral and unacceptable was not a good enough reason to make it a crime. But if that's true, why is it any better a reason just because the act is performed in public? Is adult incest, for example, less immoral just because it takes place in a car that's not open to plain view, instead of a car that is?

Did what the two people in this incident did somehow harm the people who were watching them? I don't see why it was necessarily more harmful because it took place in a car with the door open than it would have if done in a motel room with the door closed. I think the real reason for making certain sex acts crimes when done publicly is just that most people consider it immoral. But if that's the only reason, why is the act less immoral if done in private? After all, prostitution is no less a crime in most states just because the sex takes place in a room, rather than in the city park.

Lawrence v. Texas was based on same gender sex - way more than where the sex acts occurred.

If a man and woman goes into a "public restroom facility" and has sex behind the doors of a toilet stall...in most states it's against the law.

Again, there's a big difference about how people perceived various types of sexual acts in terms of morality vs "where people have sex".
 
Do you have a point?

You just made it for me. This is not the first thread where I've seen you pretend to know the law on a subject, but then come up short when challenged to prove it. You don't know a Terry stop from a door stop.
 
I think the definition of "nothing wrong" is going to be different between parties.

If, for example, my beat is a particular neighborhood that has a reputation for drugs and I see the same kid hanging out on the same corner every day it might just occur to me that he's a spotter for the dealer a block down. I might also take a second look at the brand new BMW M5 that just came rolling down the street with two kids from the "good side of the tracks". Now I'll grant you that neither party in these scenarios is "doing something wrong" but in both cases it's worth making a casual stop even if the only reason I'm doing so is to let them know that I've got my eye on them. That isn't a racial issue at all. It's a crime prevention issue.

You're talking about reasonable suspicion. In most of the cases I'm referring to, a judge has determined that there was no reasonable suspicion

BTW, since you're piling on the stereotypes, could you add in that they were eating fried chicken or watermelon?
 
You just made it for me. This is not the first thread where I've seen you pretend to know the law on a subject, but then come up short when challenged to prove it. You don't know a Terry stop from a door stop.

So your objective is to find some niggling point to quibble about.

That's what I thought.
 
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.

When police are called in on something like this they have the right to interrogate people and ask for an ID. If they don't get an ID they can detain people until they get one. This is all without accusing anyone of a crime.

They have video now of what Weeks and her bf were doing. They were ****ing, not just making out.

The claims Weeks made about police conduct are falling apart.
 
On the plus side, I guess, people are talking about her. I'd never even head of her until this, and "Any publicity is better than no publicity."
 
Read several accounts dated 9/15 and that wasn't mentioned. All said it was an "anonymous call" - not even a 911 call.

Then you ought to do more research. Now they have photographs of them having sex in the car.
 
Then you ought to do more research. Now they have photographs of them having sex in the car.

Thanks for the tip but three concurring articles is about all the time I have for research.
 
Danielle Watts if you will literally show your ass in public, u shouldn't have a problem showing ur ID! #TeamDl

– DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley)

Well done Dl. Well done.
 
imgres

That is one cute x.
 
Thanks for the tip but three concurring articles is about all the time I have for research.

So in other words, you don't care about the truth. Gotcha.
 
Back
Top Bottom