The happy couple in happier times
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.)
Thank you. There is nothing indecent or provocative about what she is wearing.
No it was not. Neither kissing in a car while dressed or appearing homeless (which she does not) give rise to the police having probable cause or even reasonable suspicion warranting an I.D. check.
Head meet desk. For a site that prides itself on the value of liberty and freedom I’m right amazed at your response.
Seriously! Wearing a white tee-shirt and baggy shorts on a sunny Sunday afternoon counts as dressing like a prostitute now? Wow! When did that happen? I was dressed like a prostitute all yesterday afternoon and so was my wife and my kids too, and I had no idea!
Has someone just recruited the Taliban to Free Republic? What would you allow her to wear? A burka?
The happy couple in happier times
Does “Stop and Identify” mean tell the police who you are or does it mean produce identification? There is a difference and I’m curious.
That is really reaching. At what point was the cop ever in any kind of perceived danger?
I am afraid you are on to a loser here my friends.
Too many posters here find the concept of “free” and “republic” to be way too complicated for them.
You see that silly document called the Constitution only applies to them and people who look like them and dress like them and think like them and vote like them and agree with them.
It doesn’t 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.
Hee,hee, and applause.
I don’t know how intense the kisses were. I wasn’t there and I assume you weren’t either. It could have been out of the norm for the area. Conversely, it could have been the norm for the area for certain people, if you catch my drift.
My objection was to a headline I saw on another site that said...”Whatever Her Name Is (black) arrested for kissing white husband.”
That is pretty absurd. This isn’t 1950.
Why have you addressed this to me? Did you not comprehend my post? I thought I was quite clear in asking about the lack of Probable Cause.
As long as they were not engaging in sexual activity (which does not include just kissing no matter how passionate) the police had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that she was engaged in a criminal activity.
Then again,,,, maybe I was to quick about responding! Perhaps I didn’t comprehend your post at first quick reading? Perhaps I’m getting touchy, having received a couple posts that clearly didn’t “comprehend” mine. Sorry if that’s the case!
WE must tell the cop our name. WE do NOT have to show ID.
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.
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment if the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada
Because you appeared to be, and I apologise if I misunderstood your post, defending Ms Watts’ constitutional right not to be harassed by law-enforcement officers, and I have found that on this site to do so often provokes comments from other posters to the effect that
“She’s a black woman, she dresses like a whore, she deserved it”
If I misunderstood your position and you do in fact believe that it was justifiable to arrest this woman for exercising her constitutional right to 4th Amendment protection then you’re right, I shouldn’t have included you.
No problem, we are on the same page.
So it comes down to the fcat that she's black?
Btt
I could see the fashion police issuing them a ticket.../s
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.