Birmingham Alabama, Jackson Mississippi?

 

No, open minded Los Angeles.

 

That is surprising.

Birmingham Alabama, Jackson Mississippi?

 

No, open minded Los Angeles.

I have lived in Jackson, Mississippi. Mixed race couples are common there and a couple kissing in public in a nice neighborhood would draw no more than a glance. But in a wealthy LA neighborhood with a high ratio of TV celebrities to common folk? There is no way that an innocent kiss alone prompted the police to go for the handcuffs.

Call me a skeptic, but I tend to give the police the benefit of doubt when it is a case of he said-she said and the alleged victim has something to gain by fabricating a story. I also assume that magazines like Newsweek and Time selectively report facts in their story to promote their liberal viewpoints.

 

The Newsweek article fails to mention that the officers were dispatched to the scene after an unidentified caller reported the couple's activity. The impression given by the Newsweek story is that the two officers just jumped to conclusions because a black woman was kissing a white man in public. I find that to be extremely hard to believe, which I searched for more details.

 

You underestimate the cost of publicity and the value of free publicity. After reading more about this incident, the couple's statements sound like they are reading from a bad script.

 

 

 

I am not buying it.

 

 

That's fine, but we can agree to disagree, and I'll do so here.

 

Working in the legal field, I find it convenient when there's always that anonymous call to report suspicious activity and things like that, sometimes there's a lost dashcam video, this or that which comes up in these situations after the fact.

 

How convenient now that there was an anonymous call by an unidentified caller that comes out once this starts going viral. Why didn't they mention that yesterday? You accuse the actress and her producer husband for having incentive to lie as a form of skepticism, I'll do the same for the officer who is in damage control mode and department who is desperate to save face when they suddenly come up with the "unidentified caller", especially given that the LAPD was already contacted yesterday and didn't mention anything about a response to a call.

 

Maybe we are both right, maybe we are both wrong, but those are just assumptions. I know that for me personally, it seems much more likely that the guy trying to save his job fakes a report on an unidentified call taking place than I will an actress and her husband who are loaded and successful looking for some type of payday by going through with a plan to fake something like this.

 

You think that tape of the unidentified caller will ever be released? I'd make a friendly gentleman's wager with you that it won't be if you'd like.

 

Despite all of that, even if there were a call made, I think it easily could have been handled much differently.

 

You are acting like a woman whose been in successful TV shows and movies and is married to a producer, living in an area where the median income is well over 6 figures, with each of them being people who probably make well above that, are out for a payday. Sorry, I just don't see it, they probably throw around what that guy makes in a year during a day of vacation or a trip shopping. What do they have to gain financially by suing him?

That's fine, but we can agree to disagree, and I'll do so here.

 

Working in the legal field, I find it convenient when there's always that anonymous call to report suspicious activity and things like that, sometimes there's a lost dashcam video, this or that which comes up in these situations.

 

How convenient now that there was an anonymous call that comes out once this starts going viral. Why didn't they mention that yesterday? You accuse the actress and her producer husband for having incentive to lie as a form of skepticism, I'll do the same for the officer who is in damage control mode and department who is desperate to save face when they suddenly come up with the "unidentified caller", especially given that the LAPD was already contacted yesterday and didn't mention anything about a response to a call.

 

Maybe we are both right, maybe we are both wrong, but those are just assumptions. I know that for me personally, it seems much more likely that the guy trying to save his job fakes a report on an unidentified call taking place than I will an actress and her husband who are loaded and successful looking for some type of payday by going through with a plan to fake something like this.

 

You think that tape of the unidentified caller will ever be released? I'd make a friendly gentleman's wager with you that it won't be if you'd like.

 

Despite all of that, even if there were a call made, I think it easily could have been handled much differently.

 

You are acting like a woman whose been in successful TV shows and movies and is married to a producer, living in an area where the median income is well over 6 figures, with each of them being people who probably make well above that, are out for a payday. Sorry, I just don't see it, they probably throw around what that guy makes in a year during a day of vacation or a trip shopping. What do they have to gain financially by suing him?

Newsweek simply omitted some of the facts to get people with a blame the police first bias to take the bait. That is what they do. It is one reason why the magazine's circulation plummeted and it only exists on the web.

 

Try reading the couples' account in the Daily Mail article, but instead of assuming that the police behaved badly, assume that this was a publicity stunt and that the officers were set up. Then ask yourself if there is any good reason to believe one version of the events over the other one.

 

BTW, other accounts of this story describe the husband as a chef, not a producer. Maybe he is both, or maybe the video of this incident is his attempt to change careers.

Newsweek simply omitted some of the facts to get people with a blame the police first bias to take the bait. That is what they do. It is one reason why the magazine's circulation plummeted and it only exists on the web.

 

Try reading the couples' account in the Daily Mail article, but instead of assuming that the police behaved badly, assume that this was a publicity stunt and that the officers were set up. Then ask yourself if there is any good reason to believe one version of the events over the other one.

 

BTW, other accounts of this story describe the husband as a chef, not a producer. Maybe he is both, or maybe the video of this incident is his attempt to change careers.

 

 

Correct, I misspoke. Watts herself is an actress and producer as well, so when I read producer in the second article I looked up, I attributed it to her husband.

 

Yes, he's a "chef", but he's also the owner of a highly successful restaurant chain, has written a book, appeared in documentaries, and has a number of awards, both national and international, for his work. Not really a line server at Applebee's. Nonetheless, I did misspeak about him being a producer unless he produced the documentary he starred in.

 

I doubt this is some publicity stunt to change careers.

 

Just like you can be critical of Newsweek and their "police bias", I think the same could be said for basically any media source today. Print readership as a whole is declining, so I'm not really sure what that proves. From a business sense, its' probably more profitable for the majority of publications to just go that route. Show me a source and I can probably raise some questions about it. It's funny you use the Daily Mail, because I remember them being sued for libel by JK Rowling not too long ago and losing. After that, they posted a public apology to her. Aside from that, there's the whole problem of the Daily Mail basically being a tabloid. Not saying they're wrong, just that I don't get the critique of Newsweek if you are going to use the Daily Mail as any better.

Correct, I misspoke. Watts herself is an actress and producer as well, so when I read producer in the second article I looked up, I attributed it to her husband.

 

Yes, he's a "chef", but he's also the owner of a highly successful restaurant chain, has written a book, appeared in documentaries, and has a number of awards, both national and international, for his work. Not really a line server at Applebee's. Nonetheless, I did misspeak about him being a producer unless he produced the documentary he starred in.

 

I doubt this is some publicity stunt to change careers.

 

Just like you can be critical of Newsweek and their "police bias", I think the same could be said for basically any media source today. Print readership as a whole is declining, so I'm not really sure what that proves. From a business sense, its' probably more profitable for the majority of publications to just go that route. Show me a source and I can probably raise some questions about it. It's funny you use the Daily Mail, because I remember them being sued for libel by JK Rowling not too long ago and losing. After that, they posted a public apology to her. Aside from that, there's the whole problem of the Daily Mail basically being a tabloid. Not saying they're wrong, just that I don't get the critique of Newsweek if you are going to use the Daily Mail as any better.

Young emerging Hollywood starlets and stars have been staging publicity stunts since the days movies were called "talkies." Publicity is gold in the entertainment business.

 

As for Newsweek, I looked elsewhere because I suspected that Newsweek had omitted important details in its article, and I was right. Newsweek has a long history of political bias. Eleanor Clift was and remains the biggest Clinton apologist in the national media. I trust the large UK newspapers to report American news over the American media because, although they have their own biases, they are not nearly as sensitive to American political pressure.

Young emerging Hollywood starlets and stars have been staging publicity stunts since the days movies were called "talkies." Publicity is gold in the entertainment business.

 

As for Newsweek, I looked elsewhere because I suspected that Newsweek had omitted important details in its article, and I was right. Newsweek has a long history of political bias. Eleanor Clift was and remains the biggest Clinton apologist in the national media. I trust the large UK newspapers to report American news over the American media because, although they have their own biases, they are not nearly as sensitive to American political pressure.

 

Can't really argue with any of that.

 

I will say that I think going public is a dangerous game if you can't back up all of what you say, so if that's what she's done here and it turns out that she's lying, I won't have any sympathy for whatever comes her way afterward.

One thing I will say, regardless of how this turns out: LAPD could have made this whole thing much easier on themselves by reporting the "response to the 911 call" when they were questioned by media outlets as late as yesterday. Most of the articles, at least the ones I'm seeing, aren't containing any kind of reference to response to a call until around noon today, only references that the police had "no reports because no arrest was made". This incident happened Thursday. That's plenty of time.

 

I'll still stand by saying that I doubt we ever hear evidence from this "anonymous call" by an "unidentified caller" that suddenly surfaced once things went viral. Maybe I'm wrong on that though. I just don't see why that wasn't released until Sunday when the incident in question happened on a Thursday. Would you agree with me there?

One thing I will say, regardless of how this turns out: LAPD could have made this whole thing much easier on themselves by reporting the "response to the 911 call" when they were questioned by media outlets as late as yesterday. Most of the articles, at least the ones I'm seeing, aren't containing any kind of reference to response to a call until around noon today, only references that the police had "no reports because no arrest was made". This incident happened Thursday. That's plenty of time.

 

I'll still stand by saying that I doubt we ever hear evidence from this "anonymous call" by an "unidentified caller" that suddenly surfaced once things went viral. Maybe I'm wrong on that though. I just don't see why that wasn't released until Sunday when the incident in question happened on a Thursday. Would you agree with me there?

No. I cannot agree with that at all. For there not to have been an anonymous call that prompted the visit by the police, you would have to believe that the officers simply started harassing a woman talking on the phone.

 

From the Daily Mail article:

 

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.

 

He wrote: 'From the questions that he asked me as D was already on her phone with her dad, I could tell that whoever called on us (including the officers), saw a tatted RAWKer white boy and a hot bootie shorted black girl and thought we were a H* (prostitute) & a TRICK (client).

It seems obvious to me, based on the couple's own statements, that the officers were responding to a report. I really do not understand why you are so determined to believe that the officers fabricated a phone call. Am I missing something where either the officers or the couple claimed that the officers witnessed the couple kissing?

 

It seems obvious to me that Newsweek engaged in some creative editing to embellish the story. It also seems likely that either a real concerned citizen reported seeing more than a kiss, or the anonymous caller called at the behest of a publicity chasing couple.

No. I cannot agree with that at all. For there not to have been an anonymous call that prompted the visit by the police, you would have to believe that the officers simply started harassing a woman talking on the phone.

 

From the Daily Mail article:

 

It seems obvious to me, based on the couple's own statements, that the officers were responding to a report. I really do not understand why you are so determined to believe that the officers fabricated a phone call. Am I missing something where either the officers or the couple claimed that the officers witnessed the couple kissing?

 

It seems obvious to me that Newsweek engaged in some creative editing to embellish the story. It also seems likely that either a real concerned citizen reported seeing more than a kiss, or the anonymous caller called at the behest of a publicity chasing couple.

 

 

That's fair. I just don't understand the motive of making a 911 call given the place they were at and that there was probably security on site already.

 

 

Maybe I'm jaded by being in a position to see plenty of times when police officers blatantly lie to cover up their backside when things go south and questions start getting asked, but from my experience, yes, that happens and I'll question everything.

 

Did you ever think that maybe the police just said they received a call when they didn't and used that as a pretext for stopping and questioning them? I know it'd probably be the first time in history that a police officer ever said they received an anonymous call when they didn't and used it as an investigatory tool when they had nothing legitimate to go on, so maybe that's a huge jump on my part.

 

Sorry, I just can't see actors faking a 911 call, I don't see why officers respond to a call of indecent exposure and get there but make no arrest, then jump to it being an investigation of prostitution.

 

Most of all, I don't understand why the LAPD didn't get out in front of a legitimate call and just provide that detail to reporters. I don't see it mentioned anywhere before late Saturday/early Sunday. This happened at 3 pm Thursday. Do I think you can understand why I'd be skeptical of a "911 call" that we just hear about late Saturday/early Sunday once the story goes viral and the police have to save face with an internal investigation. Seems they could have avoided a lot of the steam that this whole thing is getting if they'd just released things like that once the initial questions started coming.

 

Maybe the police will release a tape of the 911 call and we'll get to hear it for ourselves, but given that it didn't come out until right around the time that news of an internal investigation was being launched, I won't hold my breath.

LAX Cops used to be very over zealous. Haven't been to LAX in about 5 years or so but im sure not much has changed.

It's just funny to me how one of the only things that could have provided some justification for an investigation the way the officers carried it out, an anonymous call, only starts getting referenced days after the incident and when it becomes obvious that there's going to be an internal investigation. Maybe it's coincidence, but whew, what some luck (or lack thereof if some officer's PR people didn't just go ahead and report that when questions were initially being asked). What luck, the one thing that could save the cops job comes out a few days later.

 

Again, I've said if she faked this or whatever, it will come out in the media and think that if you are guilty, going to the media is an awful idea. Maybe we find out more that exonerates one party and destroys the other, but I'd imagine that if it were something where the officers get vindicated, then it's at least a PR gaffe on part of the LAPD by not just giving the press any report of the anonymous call initially. It's not like this is LAPD's first rodeo with an issue like this, so you'd think they'd have learned to handle them by now.

That's fair. I just don't understand the motive of making a 911 call given the place they were at and that there was probably security on site already.

 

 

Maybe I'm jaded by being in a position to see plenty of times when police officers blatantly lie to cover up their backside when things go south and questions start getting asked, but from my experience, yes, that happens and I'll question everything.

 

Did you ever think that maybe the police just said they received a call when they didn't and used that as a pretext for stopping and questioning them? I know it'd probably be the first time in history that a police officer ever said they received an anonymous call when they didn't and used it as an investigatory tool when they had nothing legitimate to go on, so maybe that's a huge jump on my part.

 

Sorry, I just can't see actors faking a 911 call, I don't see why officers respond to a call of indecent exposure and get there but make no arrest, then jump to it being an investigation of prostitution.

 

Most of all, I don't understand why the LAPD didn't get out in front of a legitimate call and just provide that detail to reporters. I don't see it mentioned anywhere before late Saturday/early Sunday. This happened at 3 pm Thursday. Do I think you can understand why I'd be skeptical of a "911 call" that we just hear about late Saturday/early Sunday once the story goes viral and the police have to save face with an internal investigation. Seems they could have avoided a lot of the steam that this whole thing is getting if they'd just released things like that once the initial questions started coming.

 

Maybe the police will release a tape of the 911 call and we'll get to hear it for ourselves, but given that it didn't come out until right around the time that news of an internal investigation was being launched, I won't hold my breath.

I don't think that you are following the storyline here. The couple did not deny kissing in public, but the husband said that his wife was on the phone to her father when police arrived. If the couple had been kissing and the officers did not witness them kissing, then from where do you think that information came?

 

Also, I do not recall reading that there was a 911 call. 911 calls are supposed to be used only for reporting emergencies. Even if this had been a report of a real prostitute and her client going at each other in a car, it would not have warranted a 911 call. Do police departments routinely record every call that they receive? Maybe they should but I doubt that they do.

 

As for the phone call not being mentioned in Newsweek, as I explained, that kind of omission is par for the course. The Daily Mail story was apparently a reprint of a story that ran in the Chicago Tribune. I don't know whether it ran on Friday or Saturday, but stories do not write themselves. The fact that it took awhile to find its way to London does not surprise me at all.

 

This is not national news. There is no reason why the LAPD would have seen it as something that warranted spending much manpower getting its version of events out to the media. This kind of story is why I hate Facebook and Twitter. People read poorly written stories intended to polarize the country or simply to call attention to themselves ...this is a story that does both...and yet it is being retweeting and reposted countless times.

I don't think that you are following the storyline here. The couple did not deny kissing in public, but the husband said that his wife was on the phone to her father when police arrived. If the couple had been kissing and the officers did not witness them kissing, then from where do you think that information came?

 

Also, I do not recall reading that there was a 911 call. 911 calls are supposed to be used only for reporting emergencies. Even if this had been a report of a real prostitute and her client going at each other in a car, it would not have warranted a 911 call. Do police departments routinely record every call that they receive? Maybe they should but I doubt that they do.

 

As for the phone call not being mentioned in Newsweek, as I explained, that kind of omission is par for the course. The Daily Mail story was apparently a reprint of a story that ran in the Chicago Tribune. I don't know whether it ran on Friday or Saturday, but stories do not write themselves. The fact that it took awhile to find its way to London does not surprise me at all.

 

This is not national news. There is no reason why the LAPD would have seen it as something that warranted spending much manpower getting its version of events out to the media. This kind of story is why I hate Facebook and Twitter. People read poorly written stories intended to polarize the country and then retweet or repost them instead of dismissing them as spam or worse...

 

 

According to the LA Times and most non-tabloids like the Daily Mail, it was a 911 call that was placed. Yes, 911 calls are generally recorded. Should be easy enough to prove, but I won't hold my breath on that.

 

My point the whole time has been that, even if there was this 911 call which we're just hearing about now were placed, I don't see that as a valid reason to demand ID from them when they arrive on the scene and don't see anything other than a woman who is fully clothed and talking on her phone, but maybe that's just me.

According to the LA Times and most non-tabloids like the Daily Mail, it was a 911 call that was placed. Yes, 911 calls are generally recorded. Should be easy enough to prove, but I won't hold my breath on that.

 

My point the whole time has been that, even if there was this 911 call which we're just hearing about now were placed, I don't see that as a valid reason to demand ID from them when they arrive on the scene and don't see anything other than a woman who is fully clothed and talking on her phone, but maybe that's just me.

Just because you did not hear about a 911 call in a trivial local story sooner - a story that you only heard about because a minor celebrity seeking the kind of publicity that comes from a story gone viral on social media - does not mean that the call was fabricated by the police.

 

You are totally ignoring the couple's own account of the story. The police did not see the couple kissing - the woman was on the phone when they arrived. The couple did not deny kissing. So if the police did not witness a kiss and the couple admitted to the kiss, why are you having such a hard time believing that the LAPD received a phone call.

 

I may be proven wrong, but I believe that this story is nothing but a poorly executed hoax and I am through participating in it.

Edited September 15, 201412 yr by Mitch Rapp