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.)
She does not look like a ho, she was not acting like a ho. Sometimes I like the ACLU. As in when government officials get their backsides handed to them for violating a person’s constitutional rights. You know one that is not just a penumbra.
Ah! Thanks. Still, I don’t think that’s a legitimate Probable Cause.
She does not look like a ho, she was not acting like a ho. Sometimes I like the ACLU. As in when government officials get their backsides handed to them for violating a person’s constitutional rights. You know one that is not just a penumbra.
>>Le Sigh, I know you get it freedumb but others obviously do not.<<
Bunch of straw men, but I will help you.
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.<<
Straw Man #1: Irrelevant. Purchasing alcohol is an act that REQUIRES identification. Kissing in public does not.
>>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. <<
Strawman #2: Any person operating a motor vehicle must be in full control of that vehicle at all times (you can check your local ordinance to determine I am 100% correct)
>>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.<<
Strawman #3: Yes, you must possess a valid operator’s licence to be in a moving motor vehicle (motorized or not). Yes, you are breaking the law.
>>Sheesh.<<
Yes, your gross ignorance is: sheesh.
Kissing (passionately or not) is not purchasing alcohol nor operating a motor vehicle. Except in your “free republic” where since the former 2 require an ID, the latter must also (unless your arguments can be led to any other possible conclusion).
Next time you kiss in public, be ready to show your papers.
I’m pretty sure that the law does not allow a BS complaint to be the jump off point for probable cause. Think how easy that assumption would make it for rights to be violated and for legal bullying to be the norm.
>>She does not look like a ho, she was not acting like a ho. Sometimes I like the ACLU. As in when government officials get their backsides handed to them for violating a person’s constitutional rights. You know one that is not just a penumbra.<<
By Encino standards, she was dressed like a NUN!
She was reported as a ho because in Encino that is most of the Black women who are seen (especially with white guys).
She doesn’t lose her Constitutional Rights for someone else’s prejudice.
>>I’m pretty sure that the law does not allow a BS complaint to be the jump off point for probable cause. Think how easy that assumption would make it for rights to be violated and for legal bullying to be the norm.<<
According to Mrs Smith (and many others here at once was a “free” “republic”), it does.
Just keep your papers handy so you can relinquish all your rights if you look at a cop wrong and give him/her “probable cause.”
Freedumb,
I totally am in agreement with you. I was trying to show how absurd it was to compare buying alcohol with just going about one’s business while not engaging in suspicious behavior or a criminal act.
PS.
Did you notice I specified the vehicle was not in motion? I think you missed that.
Again I am total agreement with you and I think you misunderstood my post.
I think I just hit you with friendly fire (and you, me).
I think we are on the same side of this and we are both tired.
I reread this and saw I read some things into your response that weren’t there.
This lady had no need to show her ID to the cop — if you agree then we agree.
I blew it totally.
*doh*
I should have started my apologies with *doh*
I totally agree. I hate, hate the attitude that “If you did nothing wrong you shouldn’t mind doing whatever the police tell you to do.” I also hate the attitude of “Well if you weren’t doing anything wrong why did the police bother you?”
The so called justice system is full of sharks. Being blase’ about your rights is like diving in the water with handfuls of chum. I prefer to say safe on the boat.
NO apology needed. It is late and I know I am going cross eyed.
>>Being blase’ about your rights is like diving in the water with handfuls of chum. I prefer to say safe on the boat.<<
That is pretty good tagline material.
It just angers me that so many just give away their rights so cheaply.
The moment of truth for all of us is when we refuse to allow cops on a traffic stop to search our vehicle.
Thank God we have recording cell phones we can use — and roday you must!
If it were our wife(s)
Any Freeper would be furious.
The fact it was a black libtard doesn’t change that
You’re right
Be honest
What percentage of folks here would you really want to know
Or have on your jury if wrongly accused
You know how it is here....if your sincere....you drift towards other sincere folks of similar culture and views....and you show respect to those
There are a lot of folks come here just to be nasty....and they freeload
Sorry it was my use of the term “on to a loser” that caused the confusion, I see, it’s a British term meaning on a hiding to nothing.
Trying to convince cop-worshippers that the freedoms enshrined in the United States Constitution apply to everyone or eventually they apply to no one is such a hopeless cause in my experience.
One does not have to like Ms Watts or her choice of clothes (though frankly I have no idea what’s wrong with them) to accept that she is as entitled to 4th Amendment protection as a died-in-the-wool conservative white guy in a Brooks bros suit. If she loses her constitutional rights, then very soon everyone loses them.
Sorry for the initial confusion.
Thank you
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.