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

[Hellbird]

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

She sounds like a word that sounds like Witch in that recording.

[Jumper_Dad]

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

She even says that they were "making out" in the car on the audio.

 

I like how the cop tells the boy friend, "I'd be gone" when discussing her actions

[HammerTime]

She needs to fix that bumper on the car and go away.

[Jumper_Dad]

She needs to fix that bumper on the car and go away.

 

Yeah, what's up with that Bumper!!!

[halfback20]

The case against her racist claims is building. Some here shouldn't jump to conclusions so quickly when someone accuses the police of doing something wrong.

Edited September 17, 2014 by PurplePride92
Rule 8

[halfback20]

According to this article the police had a full description the make of the car including license plate number. Also a description of what they were wearing.

 

 

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/603515

[00Rocket28]

Can't wait to hear the explanations and defenses for this one...

 

So what's your thoughts now? Once again everyone assumes the police are wrong before letting the internal investigation play out.

[doomer]

She's not a good enough actress to be able to capitalize off of this "publicity". She refused to show ID which is her right. Cops handcuffed her until they knew she wasn't a prostitute. Am I missing anything?

 

There are "rights", and there is common sense.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled when police ask for your name while suspecting illegal activity, it does not violate your constitutional rights.

 

But the court has never made the decision on a Minnesota case.

 

Police stops in a vehicle are different.

 

An officer always has the right to ask for your id if you are behind the wheel.

 

When must you show ID to police?

 

If an officer of the law stops and asks me for an ID, I am going to produce it 100% of the time....why??? Because I don't want to get detained, I don't want to get arrested by mis-identification, and I don't want to anger him/her, and maybe out of respect.

 

I am tired of hearing the sob stories about a person being asked for ID and then making a national story out of it.

[Jumper_Dad]

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 would say the reason for the delay is that they come in contact with people that blow up like that 100's if not 1000's of times a week. If they had came out first, the actress would have claimed they were dragging her through the mud for a "Private Matter".

 

I would say the reason for the delay in information from the police is that once it started to blow up they had to go back and track down which officers were involved, check the 911 call and get the body mike recording. As far as the police go this was probably a non-issue for them until she blew the story up.

[PurplePride92]

There are "rights", and there is common sense.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled when police ask for your name while suspecting illegal activity, it does not violate your constitutional rights.

 

But the court has never made the decision on a Minnesota case.

 

Police stops in a vehicle are different.

 

An officer always has the right to ask for your id if you are behind the wheel.

 

When must you show ID to police?

 

If an officer of the law stops and asks me for an ID, I am going to produce it 100% of the time....why??? Because I don't want to get detained, I don't want to get arrested by mis-identification, and I don't want to anger him/her, and maybe out of respect.

 

I am tired of hearing the sob stories about a person being asked for ID and then making a national story out of it.

 

Wrong guy, doomer. You're quoting a post of mine from days ago. It's already been discussed that the police were in the right to request her ID. Not to mention I'd fork over my ID to a policeman if requested. As I always say, I have nothing to hide.

[doomer]

Wrong guy, doomer. You're quoting a post of mine from days ago. It's already been discussed that the police were in the right to request her ID. Not to mention I'd fork over my ID to a policeman if requested. As I always say, I have nothing to hide.

 

That's the risk when I get to page two of five pages of posts. :ohbrother:

 

Sorry if I took you out of context! :banghead:

[PurplePride92]

That's the risk when I get to page two of five pages of posts. :ohbrother:

 

Sorry if I took you out of context! :banghead:

 

It's all good, homey! I just wanted to know I am on the same page with you today. :thumb:

[JokersWild24]

So what's your thoughts now? Once again everyone assumes the police are wrong before letting the internal investigation play out.

 

 

My thoughts are that someone would have to try hard to be much dumber than those two were.

 

I've said earlier in the thread that if it was proven they were lying about it that, then I'd not pity them for whatever came their way.

 

I also said that I think it's a dangerous game to go to the media with accusations if you can't prove what you are claiming or if you aren't being 100% truthful.

 

I didn't think people as successful as them would be as stupid to do what they did, so I feel dumb for giving them too much credit because I didn't think anyone in their situations would be as dumb as they've been in this whole thing, but hey, live and learn.

 

 

As far as the "internal investigation" goes, I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of times where IA investigations do police officers no favors. I'll also say that there are plenty of times where "internal investigations" are nothing more than a PR move to let the emotions on both sides die down, let the story get out of the news cycles, then let everything go back to normal. I'm not speaking so much with Internal Affairs investigations into police conduct, but general situations. Still, that happens in the cases of police officers too. Put politics and things like that into play just like you would in any avenue of life and you'll wind up getting some messy results.

 

 

For a real world example, look at the Ray Rice "internal investigation". No one can question that the NFL won't take action. He's been replaced in the news by Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, Dwyer, and others. That's cooling off now. But until they take action, no one can say that they aren't going into or that they aren't looking into it, etc. and that's despite the appearance of improper influence in the fact that they guy they hired to conduct the investigation works for a firm who has done a lot of work for the NFL.

 

 

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I don't always just assume the worst about police officers. Here, I was guilty of that, yes, but I think you'd actually be surprised in instances where I'd take up for them even when it wasn't the popular opinion or anything like that. It's something that cuts both ways. There are police officers who get raw deals when it comes to accusations, there are citizens who interact with police officers who get raw deals when it comes to accusations. I know that doesn't make all police officers bad, because I know plenty of them who are top notch people and professionals. At the same time, given what I went to school to do, I'm always thinking about these issues from the other side because that's kind of what I know and how I've been thought to think.

 

If the LAPD's PR people had laid out what they had when they were called by the press on Friday (the incident happened Thursday) and were giving them quotes, then obviously I wouldn't have been defending them. Plenty of times the public isn't going to have perfect information, but when an actress is making claims like that and the police are only saying they "have no reports of the incident", then I think you can understand how that looks by the time you are on your couch watching kickoff on Sunday and you don't know any different, then I'd think you can understand at least how I was guilty of jumping to a conclusion, even if you don't understand the reasoning behind the why.

[JokersWild24]

There are "rights", and there is common sense.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled when police ask for your name while suspecting illegal activity, it does not violate your constitutional rights.

 

But the court has never made the decision on a Minnesota case.

 

Police stops in a vehicle are different.

 

An officer always has the right to ask for your id if you are behind the wheel.

 

When must you show ID to police?

 

If an officer of the law stops and asks me for an ID, I am going to produce it 100% of the time....why??? Because I don't want to get detained, I don't want to get arrested by mis-identification, and I don't want to anger him/her, and maybe out of respect.

 

I am tired of hearing the sob stories about a person being asked for ID and then making a national story out of it.

 

 

Well, I must have missed that day in Con Crim.-- had absolutely no idea until now.

 

I've said that I'd do the same. I would show my ID. I think we all agree that it'd be easiest to do that if you don't have anything to hide.

If a police stops you for most any reason and asks for your ID, then you've probably already been detained. I don't think it's always fair that someone who is exercising their rights in a lawful manner should really have to worry about "angering" a police officer. If I'm accused of something and have a right to a jury trial and insist that it be decided by a jury, then there are reasons I could see a prosecutor being mad, but that's still my right.

 

In any State but New York and California, this is all a moot point given that they are really the only States where there isn't a law requiring you to show ID in certain circumstances, but this one was in California, which has "stop and identify" laws (or lack thereof) where someone who is only being detained under reasonable suspicion is NOT required to identify themselves if to do so would be incriminating (it's based on 5th Amendment grounds).

 

Until you knew the contents of the 911 call, (which Halfback20 described and which everyone would most likely agree are definitely enough to rise to the level of probable cause), then there was an argument that her refusal to show ID would have been completely lawful because the contents and observations alone might have amounted to nothing past reasonable suspicion.

 

Maybe she's being difficult not showing it, but that's her right. She knows that, gets arrested, and it's deemed illegal, then it's not her fault that she might have known the law better than the police officer (or that the officer knew it and just didn't care).

 

If there were only reasonable suspicion and she declined to show ID, it's really no different than police coming to your door without a warrant and with no probable cause, asking to search the place, and you declining.

 

Police don't really get to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce when it comes to taking away a citizen's rights. Not really any two ways about that. They aren't the people making the laws who've been elected by the public. They aren't the judges, also elected by the public, who are trying the facts of the case. Police obviously perform a vitally important civic function, but they don't get to repeal state laws. They can possibly make a collective effort at relaxing enforcement against some laws, but the same doesn't work in reverse and they can't punish for legal activity.

 

To her, that right may be worth taking a trip to jail and having the case dismissed. I know it isn't to me, so I'd just show an ID, even if I knew I wasn't required to and was 100% certain all charges would be dropped.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's as much common sense for a police officer to not make illegal arrests and take a chance on getting fired, sued, etc. as it is for someone to be calm, polite, and exercise their rights under the law.

 

I don't think it's a "sob story" when someone gets arrested unlawfully, but I also don't think it's right when it happens either. If you don't agree with that, then how would you feel if you were arrested for lawfully having a gun in your home because someone didn't like your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? Or how would you feel if you were leaving church and were arrested because someone didn't like your interpretation of the 1st Amendment?

 

 

Again, all of this looks pretty moot when it comes to her, because based on what HB20 has provided, probable cause shouldn't be a problem at all. The above is just my line of reasoning as to why someone might not show their ID, why it's not illegal if they do, and why I have a problem with the perception that someone know actually knows their rights well and sees to it that they are upheld is a "problem".

[halfback20]

 

My thoughts are that someone would have to try hard to be much dumber than those two were.

 

I've said earlier in the thread that if it was proven they were lying about it that, then I'd not pity them for whatever came their way.

 

I also said that I think it's a dangerous game to go to the media with accusations if you can't prove what you are claiming or if you aren't being 100% truthful.

 

I didn't think people as successful as them would be as stupid to do what they did, so I feel dumb for giving them too much credit because I didn't think anyone in their situations would be as dumb as they've been in this whole thing, but hey, live and learn.

 

As far as the "internal investigation" goes, I think it's fair to say that there are plenty of times where IA investigations do police officers no favors. I'll also say that there are plenty of times where "internal investigations" are nothing more than a PR move to let the emotions on both sides die down, let the story get out of the news cycles, then let everything go back to normal. I'm not speaking so much with Internal Affairs investigations into police conduct, but general situations. Still, that happens in the cases of police officers too. Put politics and things like that into play just like you would in any avenue of life and you'll wind up getting some messy results.

 

For a real world example, look at the Ray Rice "internal investigation". No one can question that the NFL won't take action. He's been replaced in the news by Adrian Peterson, Greg Hardy, Dwyer, and others. That's cooling off now. But until they take action, no one can say that they aren't going into or that they aren't looking into it, etc. and that's despite the appearance of improper influence in the fact that they guy they hired to conduct the investigation works for a firm who has done a lot of work for the NFL.

 

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that I don't always just assume the worst about police officers. Here, I was guilty of that, yes, but I think you'd actually be surprised in instances where I'd take up for them even when it wasn't the popular opinion or anything like that. It's something that cuts both ways. There are police officers who get raw deals when it comes to accusations, there are citizens who interact with police officers who get raw deals when it comes to accusations. I know that doesn't make all police officers bad, because I know plenty of them who are top notch people and professionals. At the same time, given what I went to school to do, I'm always thinking about these issues from the other side because that's kind of what I know and how I've been thought to think.

 

If the LAPD's PR people had laid out what they had when they were called by the press on Friday (the incident happened Thursday) and were giving them quotes, then obviously I wouldn't have been defending them. Plenty of times the public isn't going to have perfect information, but when an actress is making claims like that and the police are only saying they "have no reports of the incident", then I think you can understand how that looks by the time you are on your couch watching kickoff on Sunday and you don't know any different, then I'd think you can understand at least how I was guilty of jumping to a conclusion, even if you don't understand the reasoning behind the why.

 

Shouldn't hitch your horse to a wagon so quickly. I, along with rocket and JD have always advocated waiting for facts before saying who's right or wrong. Because of this some here have accused me and probably them to of supporting police at every turn when that is not true. There is no denying there are some bad police in this country. There are a lot of bad people and some of those bad people become the police. If a police officer does something wrong and it's proven, I'm all for firing them, prosecuting them or both...whatever the situation calls for.

 

Like JD said before I think, it takes time to look in to an incident. They may have screwed up the PR side of things, and they should fix that for their own sake if they did. But they got it right in the end. Problem is most people won't see the rest of the story because it'll likely never make it to CNN. Not like CNN is going to look for it...it went bring them ratings like a racist cop harassing an innocent actress will. If they do show it ill be pleasantly surprised and I'll eat my crow.