• 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’

Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to witness it himself. A crime is a crime whether the cop saw it or not. Cops don't see the overwhelming majority of murders occur, do they just ignore it then? That's absurd.
 
ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The sense of entitlement and the utter disregard for the interests of others that this woman displayed is truly remarkable.....and disgusting. It's also quite telling that the cops reaction to her blaming the incident on race is straight cynicism. He's obviously heard the claim on a regular basis so I'm going to hazard a guess that this type of deportment from blacks in the LA area is normal.
 
Cephus said:
He doesn't have to witness it himself. A crime is a crime whether the cop saw it or not. Cops don't see the overwhelming majority of murders occur, do they just ignore it then? That's absurd.
Click to expand...

Don't bet the ranch on that. He's responding to an anonymous call. If he doesn't witness it himself he has zero evidence of anything. No evidence, no reasonably suspicion. No reasonable suspicion no justification to ask for ID or to make an arrest.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the "for any reason" part of your comments. Perhaps I come from a different generation - I was raised to respect police officers and I've never had any reason not to do so. It's my nature to cooperate with them and I've avoided numerous speeding tickets by being a gentleman, fully cooperative, and truthful. I'd use your phrase back at you and say it's usually not helpful if you're obstinate "for no good reason".
 
Gaius46 said:
Don't bet the ranch on that. He's responding to an anonymous call. If he doesn't witness it himself he has zero evidence of anything. No evidence, no reasonably suspicion. No reasonable suspicion no justification to ask for ID or to make an arrest.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an anonymous call, he talked to the person who made the call after this encounter and she specified that they were actually having sex in the car. They pointed out a tissue on the ground that she used to clean herself up. You need to pay closer attention to the news.
 
Cephus said:
He doesn't have to witness it himself. A crime is a crime whether the cop saw it or not. Cops don't see the overwhelming majority of murders occur, do they just ignore it then? That's absurd.
Click to expand...

Some crimes must be observed by an officer for charges to be laid.
 
sangha said:
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...

Can you cite any legal authority for that? Unless there is some recent Supreme Court decision to the contrary I'm not aware of, the fact a person does not identify himself when police briefly detain him under reasonable suspicion does not give them a basis for detaining him any further. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352

"Terry encounters must be brief; the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter; and, most importantly, the suspect must be free to leave after a short time and to decline to answer the questions put to him." (Brennan, J., concurring).
 
Last edited:
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That was your brother's take on cop work? He must have been Schenectady PD. This cop had a perfectly good reason to investigate the complaint and the individuals involved.
 
Intereview with them... She seems a bit crazy.. So the psych unit that the cop offered may have been a good idea.. And he must be part giraffe. He can certainly reach the leaves at the top of the tree with that neck.

'Django' actress defends not giving cop ID - CNN.com
 
CanadaJohn said:
I appreciate the "for any reason" part of your comments. Perhaps I come from a different generation - I was raised to respect police officers and I've never had any reason not to do so. It's my nature to cooperate with them and I've avoided numerous speeding tickets by being a gentleman, fully cooperative, and truthful. I'd use your phrase back at you and say it's usually not helpful if you're obstinate "for no good reason".
Click to expand...

I think we come from the same generation - I'm middle 50s. I was raised the same. And when we were kids the local beat cop - we still had them back then - was a frequent guest, sometimes in uniform, at weekend cookouts. Those were different times though.
I've personally never had an interaction with a cop that didn't involve me driving and I'm always courteous and respectful (and I've never pulled the "my brother is a cop" bit either fwiw) and have managed to not get more tickets than I have gotten. But I'm also
a respectable looking middle class white guy which no doubt helps.
 
Lutherf said:
That was your brother's take on cop work? He must have been Schenectady PD. This cop had a perfectly good reason to investigate the complaint and the individuals involved.
Click to expand...

Fifteen years a sergeant of the NYPD. Similar advice from other NYPD cops and a retired Nassau County Lieutenant.
 
Lutherf said:
The sense of entitlement and the utter disregard for the interests of others that this woman displayed is truly remarkable.....and disgusting. It's also quite telling that the cops reaction to her blaming the incident on race is straight cynicism. He's obviously heard the claim on a regular basis so I'm going to hazard a guess that this type of deportment from blacks in the LA area is normal.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, quite common. Accusations of racism ares reported all the time in order to excuse abysmal behavior. It's appalling given how much it demeans the real history behind the effort to stamp it out.

The Cop was great in the audio I heard. Thanking this little princess from throwing down the race card. I hope she is embarrassed into oblivion. Enough with this entitled crap from self effected morons.
 
Cephus said:
It wasn't an anonymous call, he talked to the person who made the call after this encounter and she specified that they were actually having sex in the car. They pointed out a tissue on the ground that she used to clean herself up. You need to pay closer attention to the news.
Click to expand...

Read several accounts dated 9/15 and that wasn't mentioned. All said it was an "anonymous call" - not even a 911 call.
 
Gaius46 said:
I think we come from the same generation - I'm middle 50s. I was raised the same. And when we were kids the local beat cop - we still had them back then - was a frequent guest, sometimes in uniform, at weekend cookouts. Those were different times though.
I've personally never had an interaction with a cop that didn't involve me driving and I'm always courteous and respectful (and I've never pulled the "my brother is a cop" bit either fwiw) and have managed to not get more tickets than I have gotten. But I'm also
a respectable looking middle class white guy which no doubt helps.
Click to expand...

Absolutely fair comment - we're basically the same.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Though it doesn't really apply to ID, it is possible for a totally innocent and law abiding citizen to incriminate themselves by complying with a police officers requests. For example, if an officer asks you "Where were you at (date and time)?" and your response places you near the scene of crime that occurred at that date and time, you may have given the officer probably cause.

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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There's a good reason to not answer questions, but requests for ID should generally be complied with unless you have the time to go to the police station.

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...

I'm not sure how "struggling" is defined, but this actress has had a lot of work since Django. Check her Imdb filmography
 
matchlight said:
Can you cite any legal authority for that? Unless there is some recent Supreme Court decision to the contrary I'm not aware of, the fact a person does not identify himself when police briefly detain him under reasonable suspicion does not give them a basis for detaining him any further. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352

"Terry encounters must be brief; the suspect must not be moved or asked to move more than a short distance; physical searches are permitted only to the extent necessary to protect the police officers involved during the encounter; and, most importantly, the suspect must be free to leave after a short time and to decline to answer the questions put to him." (Brennan, J., concurring).
Click to expand...

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Fearandloathing said:
One, under most law, you must "identify" yourself when asked by a police officer, you must also comply with all "reasonable" requests.
Click to expand...

I question that any state law can require that. If there's a Supreme Court decision saying a state can make it a crime to refuse to provide identification to police during an investigatory detention, I'd like to read it.
 
Deuce said:
California has no "stop and identify" law.
Click to expand...

Then you need to learn what that covers. This was not a stop and identify situation. There were reports the couple were having sex in the car [public display]. That's not random stop, that's cause.
 
beefheart said:
Blah blah blah..anger.

I have an opinion, so do you...lets leave it at that without all the anger.
Click to expand...

Heh, you got caught in a kneejerk that reveals your character and now want to distract from that. Everyone here can see it. Just admit you were wrong and eat your crow. The sky won't fall.
 
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...

The news report from the audio link states quite clearly you are required to show ID on a probable cause stop in CA.
 
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...

No, that's not how it goes. If he finds them clothed, he identifies them and takes down all the details. It's then referred to detectives who investigate the complaints called in. If the witnesses want to step forward and the DA wants to go forward with the case, then it's a matter for the court to decide.
 
I notice the Supreme Court made a point of noting in Hilbel that the Nevada statute it was upholding as constitutional did not require the detainee in a Terry stop to show police a driver's license or other identifying document, but only to tell them his name.

The Court also said that requirement did not violate the Fifth Amendment because compelling Hilbel to give police his name, by itself, did not expose him to any substantial risk of self-incrimination. The Court recognized, though, that there might be circumstances in which that issue would come up:

"Still, a case may arise where there is a substantial allegation that furnishing identity at the time of a stop would have given the police a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict the individual of a separate offense. In that case, the court can then consider whether the privilege applies, and, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, what remedy must follow."

I don't see how the police did anything unreasonable in this case, or what good reason this woman had not to cooperate with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom