Who is 'them'?

I see it as a class war of the police vs the public.

---

It should read...

Who is 'them'?

I see it as a class war of the police & politicians vs the public.

It should read...

Who is 'them'?

I see it as a class war of the police & politicians vs the public.

I can agree with your statement.

It should read...

Who is 'them'?

I see it as a class war of the police & politicians vs the public.

I can agree with your statement.

There is a huge plutocratic element involved and IMO the driving force.

---

'Django Unchained’ Actress Detained After Kissing Husband When Police Mistake Her For Prostitute

---

Reality Internet Personality

'Django Unchained’ Actress Detained After Kissing Husband When Police Mistake Her For Prostitute

You beat me to it Es.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/django-unchained-actor-daniele-watts-claims-she-was-handcuffed-detained-by-police-who-thought-she-was-a-prostitute/story-fn907478-1227058401965

But at least no guns were involved this time.

Cheers.

Back to the original case.

Link is a couple days old.

Agency: Woman pushed officer who then punched her


LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California Highway Patrol officer videotaped repeatedly punching a woman on the side of a Los Angeles freeway had just pulled her from oncoming traffic and she resisted by pushing him, a patrol investigator said.

Investigator Sean Taketa outlined the July 1 incident in a request to search 51-year-old Marlene Pinnock's medical records. The narrative in the search warrant was made public in court documents last month and is the first detailed account of the incident since a passing driver released cellphone video that went viral.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/11/california-highway-patrol-woman-punched/15493863/

---

'Django Unchained’ Actress Detained After Kissing Husband When Police Mistake Her For Prostitute

You beat me to it Es.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/django-unchained-actor-daniele-watts-claims-she-was-handcuffed-detained-by-police-who-thought-she-was-a-prostitute/story-fn907478-1227058401965

But at least no guns were involved this time.

Cheers.

How is this a problem? From reading the article you linked, I have pieced together the chain of events.

1. Woman and husband are walking down the street and sharing some affectionate moments.
2. Someone witnesses the activity and calls police reporting 'solicitation' by a prostitute.
3. Officer arrives and requests to see ID from both of them.
4. Woman refuses. From the article:

“I knew that I had done nothing wrong, that I wasn’t harming anyone, so I walked away. A few minutes later, I was still talking to my dad when 2 different police officers accosted me and forced me into handcuffs.

5. A few minutes later, 2 more police arrive, and detain the woman.
6. They check out her (and her husband's) ID, and let her go a few minutes later.

Prostitution is illegal in the USA except in a small part of one state (Nevada).

The police responded to a report of a crime in progress.

The Woman ignores the first Police officer's request for ID and walks away. This is itself a crime.

Two more officers detain woman and proceed to check her ID. They then let her go after that process was complete.

Excuse me, but how is this news? It seems to me that the police followed proper procedure. The big mistake made here was on the Woman's part when she did not comply with the first Police officer's instructions.

If she HAD cooperated with the request, a couple minutes later the couple would have been on their way. The police received a report of a crime, they investigated, and the reported 'criminal' fails to cooperate with the investigation.

The Woman's detention in the police car in handcuffs was so lengthy likely because the officers had to call their bosses and decide whether or not to arrest her and charge her with 'failure to show ID'.

This has nothing to do with racism on the part of the police. It only happened because the Woman ignored a police officers instructions and left the scene.

'Django Unchained’ Actress Detained After Kissing Husband When Police Mistake Her For Prostitute

You beat me to it Es.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/django-unchained-actor-daniele-watts-claims-she-was-handcuffed-detained-by-police-who-thought-she-was-a-prostitute/story-fn907478-1227058401965

But at least no guns were involved this time.

Cheers.

How is this a problem? From reading the article you linked, I have pieced together the chain of events.

1. Woman and husband are walking down the street and sharing some affectionate moments.
2. Someone witnesses the activity and calls police reporting 'solicitation' by a prostitute.
3. Officer arrives and requests to see ID from both of them.
4. Woman refuses. From the article:

“I knew that I had done nothing wrong, that I wasn’t harming anyone, so I walked away. A few minutes later, I was still talking to my dad when 2 different police officers accosted me and forced me into handcuffs.

5. A few minutes later, 2 more police arrive, and detain the woman.
6. They check out her (and her husband's) ID, and let her go a few minutes later.

Prostitution is illegal in the USA except in a small part of one state (Nevada).

The police responded to a report of a crime in progress.

The Woman ignores the first Police officer's request for ID and walks away. This is itself a crime.

Two more officers detain woman and proceed to check her ID. They then let her go after that process was complete.

Excuse me, but how is this news? It seems to me that the police followed proper procedure. The big mistake made here was on the Woman's part when she did not comply with the first Police officer's instructions.

If she HAD cooperated with the request, a couple minutes later the couple would have been on their way. The police received a report of a crime, they investigated, and the reported 'criminal' fails to cooperate with the investigation.

The Woman's detention in the police car in handcuffs was so lengthy likely because the officers had to call their bosses and decide whether or not to arrest her and charge her with 'failure to show ID'.

This has nothing to do with racism on the part of the police. It only happened because the Woman ignored a police officers instructions and left the scene.

Question.

Why on earth did anyone assume she was a prostitute? I am not sure how I would behave if I was accused of that when walking down the street with my husband, but if all it takes is for me to pretend I'm not in Nazi Germany and refuse to show my papers, then I'd probably end up in the back of a cop car too.

---

Reality Internet Personality

. Officer arrives and requests to see ID from both of them.

Major I often go out with out ID, such as for a bike ride, walk or when I was younger for a run. The thought that is grounds to be detained appalls me. What is next an ID tatoo on the forhead at birth?

---

Officer arrives and requests to see ID from both of them.

I suppose that what might worry some people, is as far as I am aware it is not a legal requirement to carry any sort of id in the UK at any time and certainly not if you are walking down the street.

Is it a requirement in the US?

I have noticed on the "reality cop shows" from the US the first thing they ask a driver is "driving licence and insurance" once again in the UK there is no legal requirement to carry your licence, you can be asked to "produce" it at a police station within 7 days.

I believe without a better knowledge of the laws in the US it is difficult to comment.

---

The Woman ignores the first Police officer's request for ID and walks away. This is itself a crime.

Not in California. That section of the Penal Code 647(e) was held unconstitutional.

---

Back to the original case.

Link is a couple days old.

Agency: Woman pushed officer who then punched her


LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California Highway Patrol officer videotaped repeatedly punching a woman on the side of a Los Angeles freeway had just pulled her from oncoming traffic and she resisted by pushing him, a patrol investigator said.

Investigator Sean Taketa outlined the July 1 incident in a request to search 51-year-old Marlene Pinnock's medical records. The narrative in the search warrant was made public in court documents last month and is the first detailed account of the incident since a passing driver released cellphone video that went viral.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/11/california-highway-patrol-woman-punched/15493863/

Andrew "grabbed her arm to prevent her from being struck by traffic. Ms. Pinnock resisted by pushing the officer," the documents say.

Andrew then straddled her on the ground as Pinnock resisted by "kicking her legs, grabbing the officer's uniform and twisting her body," the investigator wrote. Andrew "struck her in the upper torso and head several times with a closed right fist," the records say.

Taketa said Pinnock suffered no signs of physical injury and refused medical treatment. She was ultimately placed on a psychiatric hold for two weeks, the warrant says.

Two Weeks?! 5150, is at most a 72 hour hold. That means a Doctor put a 5250 14 day hold on her after the 72 hour hold.

Pinnock has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and had been off her medication for two to three months before the altercation.

Okay, that explains it.

Harper didn't provide The Associated Press with medical documentation because she said the records from Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center, where Pinnock was on psychiatric hold, weren't accurate or consistent in characterizing Pinnock's injuries.

Translation, doesn't support his lawsuit.

OBW LA County-USC Medical Center, 13th floor, is the jail ward for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

The investigator said he was seeking the medical records to determine Pinnock's injuries and her treatment for a potential felony filing.

Only felony possible is to charge the officer.

---

Es99 wrote:

Question.

Why on earth did anyone assume she was a prostitute?

Well, the news.com.au article Wiggo linked does state the following:

Watts claims she and husband Brian James Lucas were kissing on a Hollywood street when police were called and they were asked to show their ID cards.

Who called and reported it? I dunno for sure. But, based on my knowledge of the 'street' (mostly learned when I used to carry a badge and firearm on duty), prostitutes and pimps are somewhat jealous of their 'turf' and it is quite likely that either a prostitute or pimp saw a strange woman that they thought was 'working' their turf and called in an anonymous tip. The police had to investigate the report of the crime. Dollars to donuts says that is what happened.

Gary Charpentier wrote:

Not in California. That section of the Penal Code 647(e) was held unconstitutional.

Yes, 'ID at any time for any reason' laws have generally been held unconstitutional. Some of the cases made it all the way to the US Supreme Court.

However, the Police still have the authority to force a person to ID themselves if they have 'probable cause'. And investigating a report that someone matching your description had committed a crime is DEFINITELY 'probable cause'.

That said, 'ID themselves' does not equate to 'showing drivers license/state ID card' no matter how much some police officers wish it did. Courts have ruled that merely stating your name and address is sufficient, last I heard. Besides with that info, it is only a minute or so for the police officer to pull up the matching DL/State ID and verify it.

Bernie Vine wrote:

I have noticed on the "reality cop shows" from the US the first thing they ask a driver is "driving licence and insurance" once again in the UK there is no legal requirement to carry your licence, you can be asked to "produce" it at a police station within 7 days.

'Driver'. If the person was driving in most/all of the USA, they must show driver's license and proof of insurance to a police officer if said officer stops them.

In Texas:

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:

(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and

(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

It is similar for the 'proof of insurance', but this need is slowly going away as the State of Texas is implementing a database linking your DL record to your Insurance policy. Safest to go ahead and carry the paper 'proof', though, and produce it when requested.

Sorry, but walking may be a right, but driving a motor vehicle isn't. It is a privilege. You gave consent to producing your DL on demand to a police officer when you got in the driver's seat of the vehicle.

This is NOT the same ball of wax as the 'ID' issue in the news story being discussed.

Es99 wrote:

Question.

Why on earth did anyone assume she was a prostitute?

Well, the news.com.au article Wiggo linked does state the following:

Watts claims she and husband Brian James Lucas were kissing on a Hollywood street when police were called and they were asked to show their ID cards.

Who called and reported it? I dunno for sure. But, based on my knowledge of the 'street' (mostly learned when I used to carry a badge and firearm on duty), prostitutes and pimps are somewhat jealous of their 'turf' and it is quite likely that either a prostitute or pimp saw a strange woman that they thought was 'working' their turf and called in an anonymous tip. The police had to investigate the report of the crime. Dollars to donuts says that is what happened.

A much more local paper says:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140914/django-unchained-actress-detained-released-after-lapd-respond-to-indecent-exposure-call
It was reported as indecent exposure. Now if some bluenose in the air type or KKK sympathyser reported it, Studio City isn't quite Beverly Hills in affluence and lily whiteness, but it isn't Watts, or if your scenario is right doesn't much matter.

Gary Charpentier wrote:

Not in California. That section of the Penal Code 647(e) was held unconstitutional.

Yes, 'ID at any time for any reason' laws have generally been held unconstitutional. Some of the cases made it all the way to the US Supreme Court.

However, the Police still have the authority to force a person to ID themselves if they have 'probable cause'. And investigating a report that someone matching your description had committed a crime is DEFINITELY 'probable cause'.

That said, 'ID themselves' does not equate to 'showing drivers license/state ID card' no matter how much some police officers wish it did. Courts have ruled that merely stating your name and address is sufficient, last I heard. Besides with that info, it is only a minute or so for the police officer to pull up the matching DL/State ID and verify it.

Probable cause gets you detained. Until the police tell you you are detained, they are operating under stop and ID if they ask. Once they detain or arrest, then you are required to give biographic information, name, DOB, address, and of course they can search you for "officer safety." If you fail to give the information, expect a trip to the station for fingerprints and a long wait until they ID you, or give up trying.

---

I have noticed on the "reality cop shows" from the US the first thing they ask a driver is "driving licence and insurance" once again in the UK there is no legal requirement to carry your licence, you can be asked to "produce" it at a police station within 7 days.

That may still hold true for all non-hgv drivers. However, for us, we must be in possession of our Photocard, Digital Tacho & dCPC cards at all times we are driving a hgv.

Probable cause gets you detained. Until the police tell you you are detained, they are operating under stop and ID if they ask. Once they detain or arrest, then you are required to give biographic information, name, DOB, address, and of course they can search you for "officer safety." If you fail to give the information, expect a trip to the station for fingerprints and a long wait until they ID you, or give up trying.

Yes, you are correct.

BUT, after she ignored the 1st police officer, two more police officers approached her, and placed her in handcuffs. Once *that* happened, she was 'detained', wouldn't you say?

A much more local paper says:
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140914/django-unchained-actress-detained-released-after-lapd-respond-to-indecent-exposure-call
It was reported as indecent exposure. Now if some bluenose in the air type or KKK sympathyser reported it, Studio City isn't quite Beverly Hills in affluence and lily whiteness, but it isn't Watts, or if your scenario is right doesn't much matter.

Well, that is interesting news re: the call being for indecent exposure. Thank you for the link.

But my comments were about 'potential racism' in the police dept. (in line with the subject matter of this thread).

If the person that reported the 'indecent exposure' to the police had racial motives, that is neither here nor there.

My point is that the police appear to have acted properly.

ALL the unpleasentness could have been AVOIDED if Ms. Watts had provided her ID to the first police officer and cooperated, like her husband/BF/SO Mr. Lucas DID. She would not have been detained.

The ONLY reason she got 'cuffed and stuffed' into the police car was that she did NOT cooperate in the investigation of a report of a crime.

Something slightly similar once happened to me.

I was on my way home one night after visiting friends. A police officer pulled me over. I knew I had done nothing wrong, so (unlike Ms. Watts) I totally cooperated. Very rapidly, more police showed up. Police from the city I live in (where I was pulled over), the city of Dallas (I lived in a suburb of Dallas at the time), the Dallas County Sheriff's Dept., even a couple of FBI agents were there. Then, a van from one of the local news stations showed up and parked not too far away. After I had spoken with a few of the officers and answered a few questions they had (things like name, address, where I had been and where was I going, etc.) I got to stand by the back of my car for about another 10 minutes or so.

Then one of the police walked up to me, apologized to me for the mess, and told me I could be on my way.

The next day at work, I found out the reason behind me getting pulled over.

A convicted cop-killer (that matched my general description) had broken out of jail an hour or so earlier and had stolen a car that was the same year/model/color as mine. They thought that I was him.

Now, if I had pulled a Ms. Watts, and knowing that I had done nothing wrong, refused to cooperate with the Police and attempted to be on my way, if I was VERY lucky I would have woken up inside a jail cell (or else be on a slab at the morgue).

But, I respectfully cooperated with the police, and was treated with courtesy and respect as they sorted things out. (I was not cuffed and stuffed, for instance). And was allowed to be on my way after a few minutes with an apology for the bother from the police in question.

In this case, the police received a report of a crime, they investigated, one of the suspects refused to cooperate, got detained, and is whining about it. The police acted, imo, properly in this case. Get over it.

The other two cases of note in this thread, 1. the beat-down of the mentally ill lady and 2. the shooting death of the guy... I think there needs to be criminal trials in these two cases. Not because I think the police involved necessarily did anything wrong, but because the seriousness of the reported incidents warrants them being cleared up. Let the facts come out in an open court of law, and let a jury of the policemen's peers decide if they committed 1. Assault and Battery or 2. Murder.

A police response
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-django-unchained-actress-detained-lapd-20140915-story.html

Los Angeles police official defended the actions of officers who detained "Django Unchained" actress Daniele Watts as "basic police work" amid claims that she was mistreated.

According to the police account of the incident, officers were responding to a 911 complaint that a couple was engaged in indecent exposure last week inside a silver Mercedes-Benz with the door open.

---

Since The Excuse of 'Past' 'Slavery' 'is' Not Working for Blacks Any More, they Gin Up all This Racism and Profiling Crappola about The Lighter Skinned Cops.

Man 'O Live, I Wish I Be Part of A Group who Had Ready Made Excuses, so as to Get Away With All Kinds of Behavior.

But, I Have To Suffer The Plight of Fair Skin.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Since The Excuse of 'Past' 'Slavery' 'is' Not Working for Blacks Any More, they Gin Up all This Racism and Profiling Crappola about The Lighter Skinned Cops.

Man 'O Live, I Wish I Be Part of A Group who Had Ready Made Excuses, so as to Get Away With All Kinds of Behavior.

But, I Have To Suffer The Plight of Fair Skin.

' '

I hope everyone else sees the irony of your post.

You are by definition part of a group that has ready made excuses. You have what is called white privilege. The benefits of your skin colour or many. One of them is that you get away with so much more than someone with darker skin.

I hope you are happy that your wish was granted the moment you were born.

---

Reality Internet Personality