"I hate Illinois Nazis!
Posted on 09/14/2014 3:34:06 PM PDT by Kaslin
At first glance, this story doesn’t look like the sort of thing which would normally catch our attention, but it really does tie in to broader issues currently under discussion nationally in terms of race relations and how the police interact with those they serve and protect. Out on the left coast, quite close to the liberal Ground Zero of Hollywood, actress Daniele Watts ran into some trouble this week. (You may remember Watts from her appearance in Django Unchained among other roles.) As Reason tells the tale, she was outdoors, hanging out with her husband and talking on the phone with her father, when she was approached by the police.
African-American actress Danièle Watts claims she was “handcuffed and detained” by police officers from the Studio City Police Department in Los Angeles on Thursday after allegedly being mistaken for a prostitute.
According to accounts by Watts and her husband Brian James Lucas, two police officers mistook the couple for a prostitute and client when they were seen showing affection in public. Watts refused to show her ID to the cops when questioned and was subsequently handcuffed and placed in the back of their car while police attempted to ascertain her identity. The two officers released Watts shortly afterwards.
There are two sides to this story and we shouldn’t ignore either of them. I will grant that there are questions to be answered as to how and why the officers determined that she might be a prostitute and approached her on that basis. Watts is black and her husband is white, so it would be disingenuous to ignore that aspect of the encounter with the cops entirely. If this was an area which was experiencing a lot of problems and complaints about such activity, they might approach anyone. But if this was some sort of selective targeting which was out of their normal enforcement priorities, it’s fair to ask questions about that.
But there’s a second part to this story as well. By her own account of the events, the cops began by asking questions, not throwing her to the ground, tazing her or any other such tactics. And the leading question – which I’m sure anyone of any race who has ever had to speak to the police has heard as well – was can we see your ID? This is pretty basic. If the cops think that there might be a crime to be investigated, ascertaining who they are speaking with is pretty much square one. Watts made the conscious decision to refuse to identify herself or show her ID.
What are the cops supposed to do in cases like this? If there was a burglary in the area and they saw someone who matched the description of a suspect, if that person refuses to show their ID should the police just say, Oh well, I guess that’s a dead end and walk away? Watts clearly knew where this was going and it’s difficult to believe she didn’t react that way as a provocative act to get a reaction from the police. Had she simply identified herself and revealed that the person with her was her husband – particularly given her high profile identity – this matter would have been over in moments. And in the end, she was not taken to the station, locked up, or anything else. The cops figured out who she was, that there was no crime in progress, and cut her loose.
Many years ago, Chris Rock put out a comedy video about how not to get in trouble with the police. (Language warning should go without saying.) Behind the humor there’s probably some pretty good advice to be found. (And before you set your hair on fire, yes… that was a joke. And I’ve always loved that video.)
>>Oh puhleeze! What the heck does obamacare have to do with this?<<
If it is OK to tax you for doing something, it is OK to tax you for doing nothing.
You know, your thinking.
>>If your HS GF was sitting on your lap and ya’ll were passionate and in the view of the public and police that shows a certain amount of inconsideration to the other people in the neighborhood. Doesn’t it? I wouldn’t admit to such behavior or sound proud of it. Of course, we all went to make out somewhere...just in private. Every town had a Lovers Lane, but it usually wasn’t Main Street.<<
So “inconsideration” trumps the 4th Amendment. Gotit.
>>
This really doesn’t have squat to do with the 4th Amendment, the Founding Fathers or the fight to protect freedom.<<
You’re clearly not familiar with the BOR and the 4th Amendment are you? This is NOT a good place to proudly trumpet your ignorance.
>>Because of the area, the cops thought she might be a hooker. She wouldn’t show an id. The husband did. Get a grip.<<
She isn’t even immodest by standards ANYWHERE. Unless. if course, you mean being Black = being a prostitute. And you are really not understanding the issue: SHE DOESN’T HAVE TO SHOW ID. NO ONE DOES unless there is more than “being Black in Encino.”
>>I don’t get all wadded up when the liquor store person (back in the day, lol) asked to see my id or the airline attendant asks to see one. I SURE didn’t get all bent this year when I voted and had to show an id.<<
Straw man. This is someone who is just existing, not breaking ANY laws nor requesting any service requiring an ID. Your analogy pathetically fails.
>>And yes...just for the record I am very proud of myself.<<
Disrespect for the BOR, presenting logical fallacies, overt racism — yep, you hit the trifecta.
In the hundred-and-fifty-plus years my town has been incorporated, had there been an incident identical to this occur on our main street in broad daylight, the local police would have tossed the gal (who looked like a ho, and was acting like a ho) in the back of the police car and transported her to either jail or outside the county line.
So it’s not like I particularly view this as some shocking, new and unprecedented encroachment against freedom (like so many other things here in 2014, in the vein of TSA, cameras, etc.).
“overt racism”
For all you know I might be black.
You are veering off in so many directions, I can’t keep track of you. Of course that is a form of very destructive debate.
So all I will say to you, FRiend, is that we agree to disagree. And have a great week. Good evening.
>>“overt racism”
For all you know I might be black.<<
*slap forehead* Of course, I forgot! Blacks can’t be racist!
You got me.
>>You are veering off in so many directions, I can’t keep track of you. Of course that is a form of very destructive debate.<<
I am like a laser. Either you believe in the BOR, and particularly the 4th Amendment, or you don’t.
>>So all I will say to you, FRiend, is that we agree to disagree. And have a great week. Good evening.<<
Good morrow to you. Enjoy the police state you embrace.
Since I never heard of the woman, I couldn't react the same way.
I avoid these stories. I call them a "Woman Arrested for Petting Dog," stories after a most absurd headline a few years back...
OK, a “free” “republic” is one in which police responding to a complaint of illegal activity who arrive on the scene and see apparent evidence of the validity of the complaint must allow any of the participants to immediately leave.
No investigation is allowed.
Come on, I hope we can agree that people with such a view understand neither ‘free’ nor ‘republic’.
“...of illegal activity who arrive on the scene and see apparent evidence of the validity of the complaint must allow any of the participants to immediately leave.”
And not make them accountable for their illegal actions?
When did that become part of a “free” “republic”?
After being curious about what the heck a “Paralympics” is, I see a lot of Freepers in deep doodoo for the hate crime of violating the ADA Act.
There was no complaint in this case. Two cops just decided she was probably a prostitute. No Probable Cause.
Know who they are looking for rather than running everyone through the wringer.
I have no idea what you are speaking of.
That’s what everyone’s saying:
The police must allow everyone to immediately leave.
It’s in some constitution (the living one I guess) that police are not allowed to investigate a complaint- even after seeing evidence of the complaint’s validity.
>>OK, a “free” “republic” is one in which police responding to a complaint of illegal activity who arrive on the scene and see apparent evidence of the validity of the complaint must allow any of the participants to immediately leave.
No investigation is allowed.<<
2 people kissing passionately is an illegal act? Where do you live?
>>Come on, I hope we can agree that people with such a view understand neither ‘free’ nor ‘republic’.<<
If you think kissing passionately is potentially illegal and thus rises to “probable cause” then there is nothing “free” about the “republic” where you live.
Ah, it’s not in this report, it is in the Daily Mail one.
“...Separately her chef husband posted on his Facebook page that he thought that the person who called the police had decided they looked like a prostitute and a client. “
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3203847/posts?page=71
Thank you. I thought that might be the case.
Thanks. Now why am I now thinking of that scene in “Animal House”?
See 135.
In light of the complaint the behavior which would normally be unremarkable wasn’t.
Le Sigh, I know you get it freedumb but others obviously do not.
I wonder if there might be laws that restrict the sale of alcohol to those over a certain age? How could one prove they were old enough to take part in this transaction? Is there some sort of paper or badge or card issued by some authority that can be offered upon request to prove one is legally entitled to that brewski? Let me think.
Is there a law that forbids one from being in a vehicle not in motion and kissing in that vehicle in such a matter that does not violate any statute or ordinance? Can’t find one. Would one have to prove they were legally entitled to engage in such an activity? Both people are obviously past the age of consent, so again no. Would one have to produce an officially issued document that verified one was not breaking the law? Well no, cause no law was being broken. See the difference.
Sheesh.
>>Separately her chef husband posted on his Facebook page that he thought that the person who called the police had decided they looked like a prostitute and a client. “<<
Looks like that tread reflects this one.
People who think that kissing, if reported, is probable cause for the Police to instigate an investigation even if not illegal...
and those who understand liberty and the 4th Amendment.
An accusation is not “probable cause.”
You not only don’t know the BOR, you don’t know Law 099.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.