Actress Daniele Watts handcuffed for failing to show ID to police

Hot Air.com ^ | September 14, 2014 | JAZZ SHAW

[freedumb2003]

>>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.

[greene66]

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.).

[berdie]

“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.

[freedumb2003]

>>“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.

[publius911]

I didn’t even click to see what the story was since I am pretty sure it was nonsense.

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...

[mrsmith]

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’.

[Jack Hydrazine]

“...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”?

[publius911]

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.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

There was no complaint in this case. Two cops just decided she was probably a prostitute. No Probable Cause.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

What are the cops supposed to do in cases like this?

Know who they are looking for rather than running everyone through the wringer.

[Jack Hydrazine]

I have no idea what you are speaking of.

[Yossarian]

Common sense tells most urban dwellers to show the officer the damn license or I.D. and be done with it.

"I hate Illinois Nazis!

[mrsmith]

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.

[freedumb2003]

>>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.

[mrsmith]

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

[lastchance]

Thank you. I thought that might be the case.

[lastchance]

Thanks. Now why am I now thinking of that scene in “Animal House”?

[mrsmith]

See 135.

In light of the complaint the behavior which would normally be unremarkable wasn’t.

[lastchance]

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.

[freedumb2003]

>>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.