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.)
Keeping just one step ahead of the intergalactic fashion police.
“..statutes requiring suspects..”
In this instance I fail to see how she was a suspect. So I don’t think that ruling would apply to her even if it does cover California. I don’t know if the ruling only applied to Nevada.
You do not need to show ID. The author of this article is wildly misinformed saying that is step one.
If walking down the street and COP asks you for ID, REFUSE!
You are not required to show ID. Long ago or now.
Hopefully Lee, some day you may have the same freedoms us whites do. I pray that you live to see it happen.
Not if they can be convinced that the couple are making an ironic post modern hipster statement about eco fashion.
Me too, ....
Cop had probable cause. no way that guy could get a chick that hot without paying for it. (or she was Muslim)
I never really understood that either. When I was a youngster there were out of the way spots that the kids used. The cops would drive out there and hassle the kids and threaten to arrest them. I wouldn't want my kids out there but that's not really a police matter.
The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted that identify himself to mean to merely state his name. As of April 2008, 23 other states[2] have similar laws.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3204014/posts?page=95#95
See my response above.
Sorry was my post very complicated or something?
I was addressing posters who appeared to be defending Ms Watts’ 4th Amendment right not to be arrested without probable cause and in so doing I was pointing out that other posters on this site are not so protective of constitutional rights as you and others are.
I was simply warning you that you will get grief from people who don’t fully understand the Constitution and who somehow believe that it only applies to them rather than Hollywood actresses dressed casually and in the company of their husband on a Sunday afternoon.
I apologise if my original post was not clear but it seems clear enough to me.
"Beautiful! Perfect! What agony! That New York Film Academy is really great! Earlier you 'acted' suspicious perfectly. I'm gonna try them myself if I ever get the bucks to go!"
>>If you click on the link in the story...it states she was sitting in the husbands lap in a car making out.
Maybe that didnt happen...I dont know. I wasnt there. But if it did...thats a little more than kissing in public.<<
HORRORS! My HS GF and I should have been arrested every damn day!
>>As far as showing id... no, I dont have a problem. I show id to buy a beer or get on a plane. Our rights re: showing id were lost long ago.<<
4th Amendment? What 4th Amendment? Why fight for something that out forefathers died for? It isn’t a question of DOING SOMETHING, it is a question of just existing.
It was thinking like yours that led to obozocare.
You must be very proud.
Post of the Month
Not necessary, I'm a big boy.
You are required to state your name only.
>>It doesnt apply to a black woman wearing, you know extremely slutty clothes like, er, a white tee-shirt and baggy shorts on a sunny Sunday afternoon.
George III would have loved some of the posters here.<<
Ain’t that the damn truth.
They want to despise a probable-liberal actor more than uphold the USC.
They also will be the first to run waving their papers when asked for them by the new SS saying “look at me, I am a good Citizen of the Demokracy!!”
Oh puhleeze! What the heck does obamacare have to do with this?
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.
This really doesn’t have squat to do with the 4th Amendment, the Founding Fathers or the fight to protect freedom. Because of the area, the cops thought she might be a hooker. She wouldn’t show an id. The husband did. Get a grip.
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.
And yes...just for the record I am very proud of myself.
You’re kidding, right?
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.