• 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’

Cephus said:
So in other words, you don't care about the truth. Gotcha.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a stretch there. I said read three articles on the subject, none of which referenced photos or complainant interviews, and formed my opinion based on those. That opinion is always subject to change based on new information.
 
Gaius46 said:
That's a bit of a stretch there. I said read three articles on the subject, none of which referenced photos or complainant interviews, and formed my opinion based on those. That opinion is always subject to change based on new information.
Click to expand...

New information you say you're not interested in looking at. We already have audio of the encounter, as well as interviews with the cop where he specifically says he talked to the person making the report, now we have pictures of them having sex in the car. There's no denying that much of what you read in those initial three articles is simply wrong. We even know now that people from SAG went down and told them to knock it off and they were told to go away. Clearly the cop was responding to a legitimate 911 call and had every right to ask for identification from Watts and her boyfriend. Watts was totally in the wrong, both for having sex in public in the first place and for refusing to comply with a wholly legal order from the police.

She got what she deserved and there's no racism at all here, except maybe from Watts herself, who tried to play the pathetically overused race card.
 
LowDown said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL, thanks for the link it certainly puts things in perspective. Flat out lying about what she was doing, pulling the race card and the fame card, goodness know the police have better things to do then play games with her.

Notice how quickly the BF came up with his ID, done and over with after a few words with the officer.
 
Cephus said:
New information you say you're not interested in looking at. We already have audio of the encounter, as well as interviews with the cop where he specifically says he talked to the person making the report, now we have pictures of them having sex in the car. There's no denying that much of what you read in those initial three articles is simply wrong. We even know now that people from SAG went down and told them to knock it off and they were told to go away. Clearly the cop was responding to a legitimate 911 call and had every right to ask for identification from Watts and her boyfriend. Watts was totally in the wrong, both for having sex in public in the first place and for refusing to comply with a wholly legal order from the police.

She got what she deserved and there's no racism at all here, except maybe from Watts herself, who tried to play the pathetically overused race card.
Click to expand...

Please show me where I said I wasn't willing to look at new information. I did not say that anywhere. I would NEVER say that.
And in point of fact I'll look for new articles when I get home from work tonight.
 
Gaius46 said:
Please show me where I said I wasn't willing to look at new information. I did not say that anywhere. I would NEVER say that.
And in point of fact I'll look for new articles when I get home from work tonight.
Click to expand...

Well, you said:

Thanks for the tip but three concurring articles is about all the time I have for research.
Click to expand...

It's nice that you've changed your mind though. Good luck.
 
Cephus said:
Well, you said:



It's nice that you've changed your mind though. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Okay. Yeah I can see how you got that impression. "Had" would have been a better choice there.
 
She was engaged in an unlawful act and was lucky she didn't get charged with it. She should've just shown ID and it would've been over in minutes without all this unnecessary drama. The fact that she wasn't charged seems to show me the officer showed remarkable restraint and professionalism. Most people who pull this sort of stuff with the police get charged with all kinds of bogus charges and this cop had a perfectly legit charge just begging to be used.
 
Gaius46 said:
Okay. Yeah I can see how you got that impression. "Had" would have been a better choice there.
Click to expand...

No worries, glad to see we're all on the same page here. :)
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seeing how the police determined that she committed no crime, I think innocent bystander would clearly be the best way to describe her.

The investigation began and ended with checking her license. I honestly don't know what Canadian drivers licenses say but I can assure you that there was no information on her's that really aided those officers in their "investigation".
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I think you're reacting the way you are because she is black too.

I don't know what it is you think she lied about but as near as I can tell she committed no crime. Outside the race card, I'm really just not sure why she was stopped in the first place.
 
shavingcollywob said:
Seeing how the police determined that she committed no crime, I think innocent bystander would clearly be the best way to describe her.
Click to expand...

No, the officer decided he wasn't going to PROSECUTE her for a crime, not that she didn't commit one. I'm sure that if he had the videos and pictures on hand at the time he approached her, she'd have been in handcuffs. There is a difference.

The investigation began and ended with checking her license. I honestly don't know what Canadian drivers licenses say but I can assure you that there was no information on her's that really aided those officers in their "investigation".
Click to expand...

That's exactly what should have happened. The cop would have ran her license and made sure she didn't have any outstanding warrants, then let her go with a warning not to do it again. That's all it had to be. She's the one that turned into a raving racist bitch.
 
Cephus said:
No, the officer decided he wasn't going to PROSECUTE her for a crime, not that she didn't commit one. I'm sure that if he had the videos and pictures on hand at the time he approached her, she'd have been in handcuffs. There is a difference.

That's exactly what should have happened. The cop would have ran her license and made sure she didn't have any outstanding warrants, then let her go with a warning not to do it again. That's all it had to be. She's the one that turned into a raving racist bitch.
Click to expand...

Not to do what again?

Continue not committing crimes?

:lamo
 
shavingcollywob said:
And I think you're reacting the way you are because she is black too.

I don't know what it is you think she lied about but as near as I can tell she committed no crime. Outside the race card, I'm really just not sure why she was stopped in the first place.
Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention or reading the links.

There was a call that people were having sex in a car on a public street. The cop showed up to investigate. He requested ID from both parties. Watts refused to provide ID and accused the cop of approaching her solely because she was black. She lied about what was going on and actively obstructed a lawful investigation of the complaint.
 
I listened to the tape with the officer and Watts.

First off, the officer is hilariously genius. And secondly, you liberals defending her are beyond pathetic.
 
shavingcollywob said:
Seeing how the police determined that she committed no crime, I think innocent bystander would clearly be the best way to describe her.

The investigation began and ended with checking her license. I honestly don't know what Canadian drivers licenses say but I can assure you that there was no information on her's that really aided those officers in their "investigation".
Click to expand...

It had a name.. Allowing them to run it through the computer to see what's going on... No?
 
shavingcollywob said:
Seeing how the police determined that she committed no crime, I think innocent bystander would clearly be the best way to describe her.

The investigation began and ended with checking her license. I honestly don't know what Canadian drivers licenses say but I can assure you that there was no information on her's that really aided those officers in their "investigation".
Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't fully understand the concept of "investigating". Just because no one was arrested and the police determined she didn't commit a crime for which they could lay charges, doesn't mean that they weren't investigating a complaint of illegal activity. Surely you're not suggesting that police only ask questions of people who are guilty of crimes.
 
shavingcollywob said:
Seeing how the police determined that she committed no crime, I think innocent bystander would clearly be the best way to describe her.

The investigation began and ended with checking her license. I honestly don't know what Canadian drivers licenses say but I can assure you that there was no information on her's that really aided those officers in their "investigation".
Click to expand...

Having sex in public is a crime. The police needed her ID to file a report. The DA's office will decide how far to take it.
 
I wonder if, now that there is photgraphic evidence that they were having sex in public, those thatinitially rushed to cry racism and claim this was excessive police response just because she was black will now have the decency to admit how foolish they were and just...

 
VanceMack said:
I wonder if, now that there is photgraphic evidence that they were having sex in public, those thatinitially rushed to cry racism and claim this was excessive police response just because she was black will now have the decency to admit how foolish they were and just...

Click to expand...


Come on, you know better than that. They'll all double down on the stupidity.
 
Lutherf said:
Then you haven't been paying attention or reading the links.

There was a call that people were having sex in a car on a public street. The cop showed up to investigate. He requested ID from both parties. Watts refused to provide ID and accused the cop of approaching her solely because she was black. She lied about what was going on and actively obstructed a lawful investigation of the complaint.
Click to expand...

She is not required to show ID in CA and she is allowed to accuse the cop of approaching her because she's black. Neither is a crime.

As far as her lying, until I see a penetration shot, I'm not buying what you're selling.
 
The ACLU in Northern CA says...
If you are stopped for questioning, DO...
DO give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.
DO remember you have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested or detained for refusing to answer questions. But it can look suspicious to the police.
DO show an ID if you are getting a ticket so that you can be released.
DO ask the police to see a search warrant if they want to search you or your home.
DO make sure the officer knows you do not agree to be searched (they might search you anyway, but make your opposition known. You can say “I do not consent to a search.”).
DO ask if you are free to leave. If they say ‘yes,’ leave; if they say ‘no,’ DO ask to know why.
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/your-rights-and-police

And while in California the state officials cannot compel you to provide ID and they cannot arrest you merely for not providing ID, they can and likely WILL arrest you for suspicion of commission of the crime in which you are accused of committing. Thats just common sense.
 
sangha said:
She is not required to show ID in CA and she is allowed to accuse the cop of approaching her because she's black. Neither is a crime.

As far as her lying, until I see a penetration shot, I'm not buying what you're selling.
Click to expand...

While she may not have to produce ID she is not allowed to actively obstruct a lawful investigation.
 
Cephus said:
Come on, you know better than that. They'll all double down on the stupidity.
Click to expand...
On the plus side, those are the folks that have provided us with 20+ years of entertainment on episodes of "COPS, filmed on location with police departments around the country. All suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom