# 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:** 69
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1361 "2014-09-27T16:24:19Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > So, it is your position that she has every right to fornicate in clear view of the public walking by. This is not a violation of any statute in the city of Los Angeles or the state of California? > She committed a misdemeanor. So did her husband. This gave the police officers every right to demand her identification. You may need to catch up. The police do not have a right to DEMAND anything from them because they are suspected of committing a completed misdemeanor (that didn’t pose a safety threat). They can ask anything they want, you can ignore them unless they have the right to demand it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1362 "2014-09-27T16:28:45Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > That’s a definite possibility and could explain why the LAPD, ACLU, several media legal experts, and lawyers seem so adamant that the officer acted properly. Seven years after Grigg, no one has legally challenged the LAPD’s position in court. > > I would have assume that an ACLU-type organization would have already provided the legal expertise and covered the costs of such a case. The ACLU said that? Really? > **[Civil Rights Activists Call on ‘Django Unchained’ Actress to Apologize to LAPD](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/civil-rights-activists-call-django-734505/)** > > Several advocates are changing their stance on Daniele Watts' incendiary Facebook post: "It's like crying wolf" This article seems to say that some people from organizations I never heard of have called for an apology and their call for an apology is based in Watts playing the race card not on the notion that her civil rights were not violated. So, CITE please. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1363 "2014-09-27T17:34:05Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So lots of photos but none of them having sex?:dubious: Is anyone taking pictures of you right now? Why not? Isn’t everyone constantly being photographed 24/7? :smack: Eyewitnesses said the couple was having sex. The eyewitnesses must obviously :rolleyes: be lying because they didn’t take pictures of the chef’s dick. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1364 "2014-09-27T17:35:03Z")
In this matter, two wrongs do not make a right. The detention was wrong because it was illegal as per Grigg (and if anyone does not believe that Grigg is the leading case, please provide cites for proof). The race card was wrong, because it most likely appears to have made false accusations. Those two wrongs did not make the first wrong (the detention) right. They are separate issues. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1365 "2014-09-27T17:37:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You may need to catch up. The police do not have a right to DEMAND anything from them because they are suspected of committing a completed misdemeanor (that didn’t pose a safety threat). They can ask anything they want, you can ignore them unless they have the right to demand it. Just to clarify, as far as it’s related to a LEO requesting you identify yourself, what’s the difference between DEMAND vs ask? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1366 "2014-09-27T17:41:06Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > That’s a definite possibility and could explain why the LAPD, ACLU, several media legal experts, and lawyers seem so adamant that the officer acted properly. Seven years after Grigg, no one has legally challenged the LAPD’s position in court. > > I would have assume that an ACLU-type organization would have already provided the legal expertise and covered the costs of such a case. Either Grigg is the law or it is not. Please provide a cite that established that Grigg is not the law in California. Your not providing a cite for Grigg being successfully challenged in the courts and your not providing a cite to a law that negates Grigg does not establish that Grigg is not the law in California. In short, Grigg is the law in California until you prove otherwise, so let’s see the proof please. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1367 "2014-09-27T17:43:08Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > In this matter, two wrongs do not make a right. > > The detention was wrong because it was illegal as per Grigg (and if anyone does not believe that Grigg is the leading case, please provide cites for proof). > > The race card was wrong, because it most likely appears to have made false accusations. > > Those two wrongs did not make the first wrong (the detention) right. They are separate issues. What does the police report indicate was the actual cause for the Watts detention? I can’t find the officer’s official report. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2014, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1368 "2014-09-27T18:11:31Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Either Grigg is the law or it is not. Please provide a cite that established that Grigg is not the law in California. > > Your not providing a cite for Grigg being successfully challenged in the courts and your not providing a cite to a law that negates Grigg does not establish that Grigg is not the law in California. > > In short, Grigg is the law in California until you prove otherwise, so let’s see the proof please. I do not disagree that Grigg is the law within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. The LAPD seems to disagree with the Grigg ruling. Or maybe they’re just ignoring it? I have questioned how that could be possible. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1369 "2014-09-28T15:11:51Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You may need to catch up. The police do not have a right to DEMAND anything from them because they are suspected of committing a completed misdemeanor (that didn’t pose a safety threat). They can ask anything they want, you can ignore them unless they have the right to demand it. Although in fairness it’s worth mentioning that at least one knowledgeable person (a UCLA law prof who Bricker emailed) disagrees with that analysis, and thinks that (I hope I am describing this right) the fact that the cop had a clear idea that these specific people were the offenders in the now-committed misdemeanor means that they CAN in fact be temporarily detained. I’m guessing that in his view difference is between a situation like: -You get a report that there was some misdemeanor vandalism. You show up there, and there are 5 or 6 people hanging around nearby, and you want to identify all of them vs -You get a report that there was some misdemeanor vandalism. You show up there and there and there is one guy nearby who matches the description you were given and has what looks like spray paint on his hands. You want to identify him. **Bricker** : does that sound approximately like the distinction your correspondent was making? ---
**Author:** ![LurkerInNJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ed655f/32.png) [@LurkerInNJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkerInNJ)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1370 "2014-09-28T18:14:09Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Maybe they were accurate and maybe they were not. Maybe they were racially biased and maybe they weren’t. > > What I like about the US v Grigg decision and all the other case law that established the point, is that it says when the stakes are low, the cops shouldn’t hassle you just on the say so of someone else. > > Maybe it’s because of the crazy woman who lived next door when I was a kid who would make up shit and call the police regularly to have them hassle us. Different than a terry stop, I know. Hopefully I would still support the principle involved without that. Oh please … How many people do you think park outside their office in LA every day? Do you think they call the police every time a black person parks outside their office? Whip out their cell phones and take pictures every time they see a black person? Do you think their office has an appointed sentry to look out the window and wait for a black person to park so they can summon all their co-workers over to the window, whip out their cell phones, make up a story together and call the cops in their master plan to stop the blacks of LA from parking near their office? Get real. Even the boyfriend/husband tried making up some half-assed story on one of his FB pages about how they were doing some “yoga pose” in the passenger seat with her mounted on him and his own friends were laughing him down and calling bs on his story. Now he is claiming they weren’t really having sex, but they were having “fun”. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![LurkerInNJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ed655f/32.png) [@LurkerInNJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LurkerInNJ)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1371 "2014-09-28T18:32:44Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So wait. Someone had a camera out (and everyone has a camera these days) and they only took the PG rated pictures? :dubious: > > What office full of people saw them thrusting and grinding and wiping off their private parts because if I had my camera out, I would think that would be one of the pictures I take rather than the one where they are fully clothed and sitting ina car with the woman straddling the man. The Director’s Guild office directly above the spot where they were parked. 11900 block of Ventura Boulevard. The office also sent a couple of employees down to ask them to stop. ---
**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 28, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1372 "2014-09-28T18:59:07Z")
> [@LurkerInNJ](#): > > Oh please … How many people do you think park outside their office in LA every day? Do you think they call the police every time a black person parks outside their office? Whip out their cell phones and take pictures every time they see a black person? > > Do you think their office has an appointed sentry to look out the window and wait for a black person to park so they can summon all their co-workers over to the window, whip out their cell phones, make up a story together and call the cops in their master plan to stop the blacks of LA from parking near their office? Get real. > > Even the boyfriend/husband tried making up some half-assed story on one of his FB pages about how they were doing some “yoga pose” in the passenger seat with her mounted on him and his own friends were laughing him down and calling bs on his story. > > Now he is claiming they weren’t really having sex, but they were having “fun”. :rolleyes: What are you not getting about this, Slick? Read the fucking thread. It doesn’t matter if they were fucking. Respond to the relevant issue, if you can. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2014, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1373 "2014-09-28T21:17:53Z")
Yeah. It does matter if they were fucking. It just doesnt matter to YOU. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1374 "2014-09-28T21:57:02Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > So, it is your position that she has every right to fornicate in clear view of the public walking by. This is not a violation of any statute in the city of Los Angeles or the state of California? > She committed a misdemeanor. So did her husband. This gave the police officers every right to demand her identification. > [@Cartooniverse](#): > > Yeah. It does matter if they were fucking. It just doesnt matter to YOU. You are confused as to the difference between legally asking for identification, and illegal detention. If they had not been fucking, then the detention was illegal. If they had been fucking but had stopped before the police arrived, then the detention was illegal. Had they been fucking when the police arrive, then the detention would have been legal, but in fact they were not fucking when the police arrived. Please provide a cite of the precise law that you are relying on to assert that the detention was legal despite Grigg. ---
**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 28, 2014, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1375 "2014-09-28T23:03:46Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > Yeah. It does matter if they were fucking. It just doesnt matter to YOU. Well, when it comes to me, on the one hand, no I don’t really care if they were fucking. On the other hand, generally I’d prefer that people don’t fuck in public. I don’t have any problem considering that sort of thing both distasteful and worthy of a misdemeanor charge. But, in reality, where it matters is in the Fourth Amendment, and at the Supreme Court and in the 9th Circuit District Court. So, yeah, it matters if they had completed their misdemeanor prior to the cops rolling up. > [@Muffin](#): > > You are confused as to the difference between legally asking for identification, and illegal detention. Well, to be clear, the cops could _ask_ if she would provide identification, or what she thought of the Dodgers chances, or if she knew what time it was. They could not do anything further, including compelling her to say who she was or to produce identification. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2014, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1376 "2014-09-29T14:40:38Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > …Please provide a cite of the precise law that you are relying on to assert that the detention was legal despite Grigg. (post shortened) Maybe you can clear up one of the questions I still have about this Watts debacle? At what point in the interview was Watts actually considered to be detained? The use of handcuffs is usually a good indicator but that occurred after Watts had left/fled the scene. If Watts wasn’t allowed to leave the scene, she would have already been considered detained. Was it when the interviewing officer requested that another officer, a female officer, bring Watts back to the scene? Was it while Watts was originally going through her repertoire of acting skills, yelling, crying, threatening, interspersed with a calm demeanor that led an officer to believe Watts needed to be detained (if only for her own safety)? Was it when Watts continued to refuse to identify herself? Was it when Watts originally refused to identify herself? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1377 "2014-09-29T17:48:27Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > (post shortened) > > Maybe you can clear up one of the questions I still have about this Watts debacle? At what point in the interview was Watts actually considered to be detained? The use of handcuffs is usually a good indicator but that occurred after Watts had left/fled the scene. If Watts wasn’t allowed to leave the scene, she would have already been considered detained. A person is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when he is in a position from which a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave; when a person’s liberty is restrained by police action, they are ‘detained.’ > [@](#): > > Was it when the interviewing officer requested that another officer, a female officer, bring Watts back to the scene? Was it while Watts was originally going through her repertoire of acting skills, yelling, crying, threatening, interspersed with a calm demeanor that led an officer to believe Watts needed to be detained (if only for her own safety)? Was it when Watts continued to refuse to identify herself? Was it when Watts originally refused to identify herself? It’s true a person can be detained for their own safety. But the criteria for that was not satisfied here. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1378 "2014-09-29T23:05:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A person is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when he is in a position from which a reasonable person would believe he was not free to leave; when a person’s liberty is restrained by police action, they are ‘detained.’ (post shortened) Then Watts would know that she was detained when the 2nd and 3rd officers attempted to return Watts to the original interview site. Watts left the interview when she was not allowed to leave the interview. I’m hoping that the 1st responding officer’s report will identify when he felt Watts should be detained and for what reason. The LAPD is supposed to be (reported to be?) investigating their own policies and the various policemen’s performances. Maybe the Grigg ruling will be a featured addition to LAPD policy? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1379 "2014-09-30T01:57:18Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Is anyone taking pictures of you right now? Why not? Isn’t everyone constantly being photographed 24/7? :smack: > > Eyewitnesses said the couple was having sex. The eyewitnesses must obviously :rolleyes: be lying because they didn’t take pictures of the chef’s dick. :rolleyes: So they were there. They were already taking pictures but they waited until they got their clothes back on. Almost everyone carries a camera around with them everywhere, the notion that people took pictures of a clothed couple dry humping in a car but didn’t take pictures of them actually fucking beggars belief. All this talk about what they were doing is a distraction. Because it doesn’t matter if they were fucking or not, the cops didn’t have the right to detain her for not providing ID. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2014, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1380 "2014-09-30T01:58:44Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > In this matter, two wrongs do not make a right. > > The detention was wrong because it was illegal as per Grigg (and if anyone does not believe that Grigg is the leading case, please provide cites for proof). > > The race card was wrong, because it most likely appears to have made false accusations. > > Those two wrongs did not make the first wrong (the detention) right. They are separate issues. I still don’t see where there is any proof that the race card was inappropriately played here. Cops happen upon mixed race couple and assume the woman was a prostitute. Has there been any evidence that the cops didn’t do what the chef said they did? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=68) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=70)