Black Actress Detained - WRONG: Joker; RIGHT: Mitch Rapp, halfback20, 00Rocket28

[halfback20]

I know what you're saying but basically every time an officer runs a name it's logged in a report related to that call and those can end up being public record (or at least disadvantageous to you).

 

Since she eventually had her name ran while she was detained, she could have felt nothing to lose then.

 

Just from a perspective of someone not wanting your name to be in a report when no good can come from it for you and you aren't required to give it, I can see why someone would decline to give it.

 

I don't even know if she actually knew that herself even though, so it's all speculation.

 

That's just a guess and I can't really say that's what was going through her mind, just that if that was going through her mind, I can understand why given tabloids and all that.

 

So then why did she go to Facebook and CNN and the NAACP? That's why your theory doesn't make sense, IMO.

[JokersWild24]

So then why did she go to Facebook and CNN and the NAACP? That's why your theory doesn't make sense, IMO.

 

Because once she was in handcuffs in the back of a car and an officer is saying things like, "we'll get your name one way or another", it's essentially compelled her to give it up one way or another, they've gotten her name and ran it (or will once she's arrested), but either way, it's going to be in there for sure then. If the reason is that she didn't want it out like that and now it is, what's left to lose?

 

 

California and New York seem to have "stop and identify" laws for detentions (this) that basically say that you aren't required to show an ID in some situations. I don't know how far that reaches in California and whether or not it would even matter here, or whether or not she was even aware of the law, but without knowing more, I think it's fair to say there's at least a chance that it could be something that helps her here.

 

 

I'm not saying I think she's right or that she handled it well, any of that. As more comes out, it looks more like I was dead wrong and Mitch was spot on. I said last night I'd eat crow and it appears I'll be doing just that.

 

At the same time, I'm just saying that without knowing the contents of the 911 call or what an officer observed, you might see a court take her side and find that there wasn't probable cause, only (potentially) reasonable suspicion, and that based on that, she might have been perfectly within her rights not to show an ID or give identifying information. I'm not overly familiar with the ins and outs of California law, but that's the basic premise of a stop and identify.

[Bluegrasscard]

If you are in handcuffs and still have not given your ID to the officer....worse than dumb.

 

Is it time to tell Ms. Laura goodbye on this?

[JokersWild24]

If you are in handcuffs and still have not given your ID to the officer....worse than dumb.

 

Is it time to tell Ms. Laura goodbye on this?

 

 

Agreed and not saying I'd have played it like that at all.

 

Honestly, what do you think of it as is though?

 

In a stop and identify state, there's basically: 1.) an anonymous tip of a "silver Mercedes with a door open" (apparently in a movie studio's parking lot where there are probably some nice cars); 2.) the police's ambiguous "they matched suspects who matched that description", and 3.) an account of what they saw based on what's been given and what we've heard.

 

Is that enough probable cause to say you'd be confident going to court with just that in a stop and identify state where in at least some instances, reasonable suspicion alone isn't enough to compel someone to identify themselves and your officer is on video saying "we'll get your ID one way or another and you've cuffed a suspect and sat them in the car after they wouldn't show ID"?

 

I'm asking because I'm curious and don't really know of circumstances in Texas where you wouldn't be required to show ID (though I'm sure there probably are some). I haven't had Con Crim in around 1.5 years now and haven't really had much exposure to criminal work, so I'm honestly asking for your opinion.

 

Not saying she's right or that it wouldn't have been easier on her if she just showed her ID, but do you see this as a slam dunk based on what's given right now?

[Jumper_Dad]

According to one of the Hollywood "news" programs this afternoon, the 911 caller claimed they were having sex in the car and police were investigating that call.

 

The lawyer said that under those circumstances a person would be required to ID themselves, if the police had Probable Cause that they had committed a crime.

 

I think (based on the story I just saw on TV) the police assumed it was a case of prostitution and proceeded as such until they realized they were in a relationship and it wasn't prostitution.

[JokersWild24]

According to one of the Hollywood "news" programs this afternoon, the 911 caller claimed they were having sex in the car and police were investigating that call.

 

"Someone is having sex in a Mercedes car with it's door open in an LA parking lot." That's not really much of a tip.

 

If they have a specific location, plates, description of something distinguishing about the car, a description of the people inside, a pretty specific location of where the car was parked, then yes, I'll agree that you have much, much more and that's pretty incriminating.

 

So far, I've not really heard lots of details that seem to indicate that (and not saying that there aren't any in the least), just that given the fact that she was outside of the car and talking on the phone, with general things like that and nothing else, you probably don't have a very good tip from an unidentified caller given that the officers arrive there and are not seeing anything themselves. If you're talking about making that stick and nothing else, then you might be having trouble.

[Jumper_Dad]

"Someone is having sex in a Mercedes car with it's door open in an LA parking lot." That's not really much of a tip.

 

If they have a specific location, plates, description of something distinguishing about the car, a description of the people inside, a pretty specific location of where the car was parked, then yes, I'll agree that you have much, much more and that's pretty incriminating.

 

So far, I've not really heard lots of details that seem to indicate that (and not saying that there aren't any in the least), just that given the fact that she was outside of the car and talking on the phone, with general things like that and nothing else, you probably don't have a very good tip from an unidentified caller given that the officers arrive there and are not seeing anything themselves. If you're talking about making that stick and nothing else, then you might be having trouble.

 

Los Angeles police Lt. Andrew Neiman said citizens are required to identify themselves if requested to do so by an officer who has reasonable suspicion to believe an offense may have been committed. In this case, he said, reasonable suspicion was created by the 911 call, and Watts and Lucas fit the description and location described by the caller.

 

Celebrity website TMZ posted audio of the exchange between Watts and police. Neiman and Bill McCoy, a spokesman for the couple, say the audio is authentic, though its origin is unknown.

 

On the recording, a police sergeant is heard telling Watts, “Somebody called, which gives me the right to be here, so it gives me the right to identify you by law.”

 

Read more at Police: Officers Followed Protocol In Detention Of Daniele Watts | Access Hollywood

[Bluegrasscard]

Agreed and not saying I'd have played it like that at all.

 

Honestly, what do you think of it as is though?

 

In a stop and identify state, there's basically: 1.) an anonymous tip of a "silver Mercedes with a door open" (apparently in a movie studio's parking lot where there are probably some nice cars); 2.) the police's ambiguous "they matched suspects who matched that description", and 3.) an account of what they saw based on what's been given and what we've heard.

 

Is that enough probable cause to say you'd be confident going to court with just that in a stop and identify state where in at least some instances, reasonable suspicion alone isn't enough to compel someone to identify themselves and your officer is on video saying "we'll get your ID one way or another and you've cuffed a suspect and sat them in the car after they wouldn't show ID"?

 

I'm asking because I'm curious and don't really know of circumstances in Texas where you wouldn't be required to show ID (though I'm sure there probably are some). I haven't had Con Crim in around 1.5 years now and haven't really had much exposure to criminal work, so I'm honestly asking for your opinion.

 

Not saying she's right or that it wouldn't have been easier on her if she just showed her ID, but do you see this as a slam dunk based on what's given right now?

 

I have had a former Federal judge tell there is a good saying to follow - do not argue with a bureaucrat. And a police officer in the field is the ultimate bureaucrat.

[Hellbird]

http://www.newsweek.com/django-unchained-actress-daniele-watts-mistaken-prostitute-handcuffed-lapd-270316

 

I saw the story on this today on the news. She was a butt hole

[JokersWild24]

I have had a former Federal judge tell there is a good saying to follow - do not argue with a bureaucrat. And a police officer in the field is the ultimate bureaucrat.

 

 

:thumb:

 

 

I definitely wouldn't have played it like she did, I was just wondering if she had a puncher's chance given. Not really much coming back to me from Con Crim on stop and identify, just one of those things that doesn't really seem to come up in classes.

[halfback20]

Joker, I Haven't read through the entire thread, but are you still standing by the "police probably lied about the 911 call" thing, even though there was never a shred of evidence to support it?

[JokersWild24]

Joker, I Haven't read through the entire thread, but are you still standing by the "police probably lied about the 911 call" thing, even though there was never a shred of evidence to support it?

 

Hahaha, no, not at all. I was just throwing that out as unusual given that this whole thing went down on Thursday and there was nothing heard about it until Sunday when stuff started going nuts and it was one of the few things that would indicate that there was a reason to investigate.

 

I would like to know what was actually said in the call itself, but I'll say that it wouldn't be the first time I've heard the "we got a call about" as either an excuse to investigate or something that they didn't want to bring out in court during the discovery process and just dropped the charges.

 

Knowing that this would blow up in the media, I didn't see why they wouldn't mention a 911 call that led them to the area when they were initially interviewed by the press. It's not like they said "no comment" or anything like that during the first interviews they gave. I can see where the discrepancy came up and I guess I took all of the "no record of the incident because no one was taken to jail or into the station" responses different than they were meaning it there, if that makes sense. To me, you have a record of your officers responding to a 911 call and you have press blowing you up, so why do you just sit on it as long as they did?

 

Given that LA is basically America's capital of race riots and they've dealt with this kind of thing once or twice, I don't know why they wouldn't have just let that out to cut the legs off the story before it went viral. IMO, with that instead of their initial response, there's a much better chance that there isn't an IA investigation into the incident and all that.

 

I know what Mitch is saying when he's like, "why is this national news", but it really doesn't change the fact that this one had the potential to be national news regardless.

[LIPTON BASH]

I waited to comment because the original charge at the police seemed way to crazy. This story is hilarious and a poor attempt to be famous.

[Hellbird]

I waited to comment because the original charge at the police seemed way to crazy. This story is hilarious and a poor attempt to be famous.

Bingo!!! You are 110% correct!!

 

Trying to make something out of nothing. All she had to do was show her ID and the entire incident would have been over with in seconds, but the feeling that they must seek out attention makes this just another celebrity begging for attention.

[lawildcat]

I can't tell anything from these pics but here you go; you decide.

 

'Django Unchained' Actress -- We Got the Pictures ... And It Looks Like Sex | TMZ.com