# Kissing your husband while black? Not if the LAPD can help it. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 14, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492 "2014-09-14T19:21:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/441 "2014-09-15T18:26:36Z")
It’s like some kind of weird fetish compels him to argue for expansive police powers. Repeatedly. Erroneously - I mean, in clearly demonstratively incorrect fashion. Across multiple threads over weeks and weeks. It’s really, really fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/442 "2014-09-15T18:27:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This detainment was unlawful. Which “detainment” do you think you’re even talking about? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/443 "2014-09-15T18:27:24Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Please state the case law that obligates a cop to fully assess the evidence and determine what criminal charge is to be levied against any potential arrestees _before_ initiating an investigation. The cops are allowed to investigate; but they are not allowed to detain in these circumstances. They acted unlawfully. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/444 "2014-09-15T18:28:04Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s like some kind of weird fetish compels him to argue for expansive police powers. Repeatedly. Erroneously - I mean, in clearly demonstratively incorrect fashion. Across multiple threads over weeks and You’re the one talking about fetishes and blowjobs every couple posts, not me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/445 "2014-09-15T18:28:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Which “detainment” do you think you’re even talking about? The detainment of Watts. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/446 "2014-09-15T18:29:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The cops are allowed to investigate; but they are not allowed to detain in these circumstances. Which circumstances do you even think you’re talking about? The law is clear; if they have the right to investigate, they have the right to demand identification and to detain in order to determine identity. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/447 "2014-09-15T18:29:27Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It’s like some kind of weird fetish compels him to argue for expansive police powers. Repeatedly. Erroneously - I mean, in clearly demonstratively incorrect fashion. Across multiple threads over weeks and weeks. > > It’s really, really fascinating. It’s become more clear that **Smapti** is not really about obeying the law – obeying the law is clearly secondary to obeying authority, according to **Smapti**. In this case, the cops clearly acted unlawfully, and yet he still persists in defending them. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/448 "2014-09-15T18:30:55Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Which circumstances do you even think you’re talking about? > > The law is clear; if they have the right to investigate, they have the right to demand identification and to detain in order to determine identity. Please cite the law that gives them this authority. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/449 "2014-09-15T18:31:02Z")
Everyone is arguing fine legal points. All of those could’ve been determined IN COURT. The main issue is Watts doing the absolute wrong thing by giving the cops a hard time. As soon as the bf showed them her id, the whole incident was over. Had he not, the cop likely would’ve called for backup and arrested her. Upon which if she had resisted further or even if some hothead cop simply PERCEIVED she resisted further, she gets hurt. It is wholly irresponsible for anyone to argue she did the right thing. I wouldn’t advise my black daughter to do what she did. I doubt anyone here defending her would either. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/450 "2014-09-15T18:31:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s become more clear that **Smapti** is not really about obeying the law – obeying the law is clearly secondary to obeying authority, according to **Smapti**. You speak of the two as if they were not the same. > [@](#): > > In this case, the cops clearly acted unlawfully Cite? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/451 "2014-09-15T18:31:30Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The law is clear; if they have the right to investigate, they have the right to demand identification and to detain in order to determine identity. This is factually incorrect. Cops do not have the right to detain anyone who refuses to offer identification in the course of an investigation. They only have the right to detain someone if they are witnessed by the cops in the act of committing a misdemeanor or felony, or if they have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a felony. Reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a misdemeanor in the past is not enough to allow a lawful detainment. In this case the officers only had reasonable suspicion of a misdemeanor, but no reasonable suspicion of a felony. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/452 "2014-09-15T18:32:44Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You speak of the two as if they were not the same. They are different. In some situations, the authorities act contrary to law. This is one of those circumstances. The courts have laid out under what circumstances someone can be detained, and the circumstances of Watts’ detainment do not qualify, so they acted unlawfully. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/453 "2014-09-15T18:35:49Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is factually incorrect. Cops do not have the right to detain anyone who refuses to offer identification in the course of an investigation. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/454 "2014-09-15T18:36:10Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > It applies to the whole country in which stop-and-identify laws exist. CA does not have one, therefore the ruling is irrelevant to CA law. No. The Supreme Court construed the Fourth Amendment in Hiibel, and that portion of the decision does not rest on a stop-and-identify law. The Hiibel decision has been quoted with approval many times by California courts. For example, _People v. Richard_, (Cal App 2009): > [@](#): > > As the court explained in Hiibel, " a Terry [,supra, 392 U.S. 1] stop [must] be justified at its inception and be `reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified’ the initial stop." (Hiibel, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 178.) > [@iiiandyiii](#): > > This is factually incorrect. Cops do not have the right to detain anyone who refuses to offer identification in the course of an investigation. > [@Smapti](#): > > Cite? Answer: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. ; People v Richard; as quoted above. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/455 "2014-09-15T18:37:08Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Cite? Now this guy is clearly just trolling. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/456 "2014-09-15T18:40:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. The Supreme Court construed the Fourth Amendment in Hiibel, and that portion of the decision does not rest on a stop-and-identify law. > > The Hiibel decision has been quoted with approval many times by California courts. For example, _People v. Richard_, (Cal App 2009): > [@](#): > > As the court explained in Hiibel, " a Terry [,supra, 392 U.S. 1] stop [must] be justified at its inception and be `reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified’ the initial stop." (Hiibel, supra, 542 U.S. at p. 178.) Of course, the stop _was_ justified at its inception, so none of this matters anyway. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/457 "2014-09-15T18:40:43Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Is there no value in establishing practical limits to what actions police may or may not take with regards to the people whom they protect and serve? > > Suppose a person fitting your description was reported to be selling narcotics outside a school. They stop you and decide to perform a cavity search. Find nothing because they got the wrong guy. Let you go. > > **You’d be okay with that as long as you had a court with whom to redress your detention and search?** > > Now, before you say, “Yeah, but asking name =/= cavity search!”. And you’re right. But the reason you are not subject to cavity searches at random stops is the same reason you don’t have to provide your name and address to police without probably cause that would stand up to existing laws. Because you should not have to wait for your day in court to be retro-actively protected by laws AFTER they’ve already been violated. The ONLY alternative to taking your grievances to court is a violent altercation. A cop is not likely to back down from your legal arguments. In this case, the cop only backed down when his request was complied with. So to answer your question, would I be ok with the cavity search? No. Am I willing to kill or die in resistance of it? Also, no. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/458 "2014-09-15T18:40:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Of course, the stop _was_ justified at its inception, so none of this matters anyway. No, the stop was not justified. You fail again. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/459 "2014-09-15T18:42:26Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Because clearly, the Jews would have been just fine if only they had refused to show ID. You have an interesting habit of responding with exagerations. But in fact if one knows the history of how the identification records and papers were used in the round ups of Jews in the France and the other occupied territories - and the horrible role played by persons like yourself in attitude, who just obeyed the authorities and produced the paperwork, then yes. It is for this reason to this day in the France there is such great sensitivities about collecting the personal data of this nature. It is the same history with the other totalitarian systems, like the stasi and the nkvd. It is indeed people like you in attitude that sent millions to their deaths. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2014, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/460 "2014-09-15T18:43:41Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Everyone is arguing fine legal points. All of those could’ve been determined IN COURT. The main issue is Watts doing the absolute wrong thing by giving the cops a hard time. As soon as the bf showed them her id, the whole incident was over. Had he not, the cop likely would’ve called for backup and arrested her. Upon which if she had resisted further or even if some hothead cop simply PERCEIVED she resisted further, she gets hurt. > > It is wholly irresponsible for anyone to argue she did the right thing. I wouldn’t advise my black daughter to do what she did. I doubt anyone here defending her would either. I get what you’re saying… but it puts all power and authority in police hands. An average person walking down the street minding his/her own business must therefore submit to any line of inquiry a police officer decides to single him/her out for without just cause. This seems to encourage hothead cop behaviour rather than discourage it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=24)