# 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:** 77
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1521 "2014-10-25T15:40:32Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. What outrage are you referring to? Your own? Was there a particular post that you wanted to discuss or are you just telling people to get off your lawn? Wow. You quoted the post and then asked if it was my outrage I was referring to when I said “your outrage”. Wow. That’s a serious disconnect you have goin’ on there. I admit that somtimes the laughter gives way to gaping surprise; somtimes the stupid is just overwhelming in your posts like that. > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Isn’t it remarkable? I don’t usually get to interact with people who are so dumb. Unfortunately, I do and it’s a lot less fun usually. This is a nice change of pace, being able to laugh at him instead of having to patiently explain AGAIN why what they’re saying makes little or no sense. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1522 "2014-10-25T15:49:49Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > Wow. You quoted the post and then asked if it was my outrage I was referring to when I said “your outrage”. Wow. That’s a serious disconnect you have goin’ on there. (post shortened) If you feel outraged, that’s OK. It’s your claim that I’m outraged that’s redickuless. 😃 ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1523 "2014-10-25T15:55:07Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Hahahaha. How many posts did it take for you to finally realize that I was questioning why the LAPD was ignoring the Grigg ruling? It took essentially one post. What has persisted is my difficulty understanding why you think you have a point. Perhaps you’re just wallowing in stupidity? As an exploration, consider the fact that many courts obligate fathers to pay child support. Did you know that many of those fathers do not do so? The fact that they do not has no bearing on the legitimacy of the decision of the court. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1524 "2014-10-25T16:03:11Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > It took essentially one post. What has persisted is my difficulty understanding why you think you have a point? Perhaps you’re just wallowing in stupidity? > > As an exploration, consider the fact that many courts obligate fathers to pay child support. Did you know that many of those fathers do not do so? The fact that they do not has no bearing on the legitimacy of the decision of the court. I’m not interested in hearing about your personal life, but thanks for sharing. I asked questions, you treated the questions as a statement of fact, you provided answers but not to the questions I had ask, and now you blame me for making you look like an ass. I can’t take any credit for that. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1525 "2014-10-25T17:15:02Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > I’m not interested in hearing about your personal life, but thanks for sharing. > > I asked questions, you treated the questions as a statement of fact, you provided answers but not to the questions I had ask, and now you blame me for making you look like an ass. I can’t take any credit for that. Really? The “I’m rubber and you’re glue” gambit? No wonder you seem to have a third grader’s grasp of legal issues! Now I feel bad for mocking you. Go in peace, my retarded little buddy. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1526 "2014-10-25T18:24:26Z")
Aye, he’s just a pathetic trolll: no subtlety, no style. Ah well, it was fun for a while. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1527 "2014-10-25T18:46:36Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > What law? There is a law against shoplifting. As opposed to a court ruling from a case (U.S. v Grigg) originating in Nampa, Idaho where the 9th Circuit tossed the conviction of a convicted felon for illegal possession of a firearm because the justices didn’t believe that police should ask for identification based on the lack of a public safety issue (for the loud radio). The word “law,” in the United States validly refers to three things: 1. The common law. 2. Statutory law. 3. Case law. It also can refer to regulations made in accordance with the statutory law. For example, the statute may say that prohibited contraband is “All substances determined by the Attorney General to be ‘dangerous narcotics’ and published on Schedule C.” The issuance of Schedule C is regulatory in nature, but serves as the basis for the criminal law’s substance. Do you need cites for any of these claims? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1528 "2014-10-25T18:51:46Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Is there a strict definition of this? As in, misdemeanors X,Y and Z are PS issues, and A,B and C are not? No. The court provided examples in dicta, but not a definitive list. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1529 "2014-10-25T21:42:33Z")
And then there’s admiralty law as interpreted by freemen on the land. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1530 "2014-10-26T00:33:48Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > And then there’s admiralty law as interpreted by freemen on the land. Oh, yeah. That’s “law,” too. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1531 "2014-10-26T01:07:55Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > And then there’s admiralty law as interpreted by freemen on the land. I believe that’s “ADMIRALTY LAW as interpreted by freemen, of the family, on the land”. 😉 CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1532 "2014-10-26T01:24:25Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > I believe that’s “ADMIRALTY LAW as interpreted by freemen, of the family, on the land”. > > 😉 > CMC fnord! You were close; I had my crazy uncle look it over tho and he says it should be: “ADMIRALITY Law as interpreted _by_ FREEMEN, of the FAMILY, on THE LAND” He says that randomly capitalizing words is key to really understanding what someone is saying. I mentioned that they were already capitalized and he said “see? and that’s how you know he means the same thing that you do.” I told him this made no sense but he just muttered “goddamn hippy fascist liberals” and resumed his whittling. He wouldn’t answer any questions about the colors, tho; I assume it’s some sort of code. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1533 "2014-10-26T01:29:59Z")
Are you trying to strawman me? 😉 CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1534 "2014-10-27T14:39:22Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Really? The “I’m rubber and you’re glue” gambit? No wonder you seem to have a third grader’s grasp of legal issues! Now I feel bad for mocking you. Go in peace, my retarded little buddy. That’s some serious regression you’re experiencing (or a poor attempt at cyberbullying). Schoolhouse Rock? Rubber and glue? I think it’s important for you to know that I do not hold you responsible for the LAPD, LA county’s prosecutors office, LA city council, the California State Attorney’s office, or the California legislators apparent disregard of the Grigg ruling. Nobody is blaming you. It’s going to be OK. Just hang in there. I didn’t mind your inability to recognize my questioning why the LAPD hadn’t incorporated the Grigg ruling after seven years. I’m sure you’re a busy guy and probably overlooked the obvious. Your multiple responses to my question didn’t answer my question but I’m sure they answered yours. Maybe you can answer this question - Considering what you now know about the Watts debacle and the LAPD’s response, what legal advice would you give Watts? For instance, would you advise Watts to verbally provide her name to the officer? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1535 "2014-10-27T15:08:32Z")
Added for reference only - > [@kayaker](#): > > If the police are allowed to flagrantly disregard the law and it’s “no issue”, why shouldn’t I get away with shoplifting a pack of gum? Also added for reference - > [@doorhinge](#): > > What law? There is a law against shoplifting. As opposed to a court ruling from a case (U.S. v Grigg) originating in Nampa, Idaho where the 9th Circuit tossed the conviction of a convicted felon for illegal possession of a firearm because the justices didn’t believe that police should ask for identification based on the lack of a public safety issue (for the loud radio). > [@Bricker](#): > > The word “law,” in the United States validly refers to three things: > > 1. The common law. > 2. Statutory law. > 3. Case law. > > It also can refer to regulations made in accordance with the statutory law. For example, the statute may say that prohibited contraband is “All substances determined by the Attorney General to be ‘dangerous narcotics’ and published on Schedule C.” The issuance of Schedule C is regulatory in nature, but serves as the basis for the criminal law’s substance. > > you need cites for any of these claims? (underline added) Thanks for the info but I was questioning **kayaker’s** reference use of the term law. I don’t think any more cites are needed. I still have a previous post of yours that I had obviously misunderstood. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but in my own defense, the law in the Ninth Circuit is not precisely the same as the law in the Fourth Circuit (my own home territory). When I first spoke up here in the the thread, I gave a statement that accurately reflects the law in my own circuit, and (incorrectly) assumed it was homogeneous across the whole country. > > The law governing this precise situation was clarified by the Ninth Circuit in August of 2007 --relatively recently, in other words, and in a decision that applied only to the Ninth Circuit. (The Sixth Circuit, I have since learned, has an even more restrictive rule than the Ninth). In either event, I’d expect police officers within the Ninth Circuit to become aware of this without necessarily expecting a lawyer on the East Coast to be. > > It’s equally unreasonable to demand that a citizen relinquish the Fourth Amendment rights to which she is entitled simply because the police are unaware of their precise application. Much better now, though. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1536 "2014-10-27T15:46:34Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Much better now, though. OK. I took your “what law?” question to suggest that it was error to characterize the Grigg decision as “law.” Obviously it can be called law; equally obviously, it can be more specifically identified. ---
**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:** [October 27, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1537 "2014-10-27T17:28:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. > > I took your “what law?” question to suggest that it was error to characterize the Grigg decision as “law.” > > Obviously it can be called law; equally obviously, it can be more specifically identified. Have you ever heard of a decision (e.g., Grigg) being legitimately referred to as “ **a** law” before? That’s what I was specifically responding to. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1538 "2014-10-27T20:13:21Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Have you ever heard of a decision (e.g., Grigg) being legitimately referred to as “ **a** law” before? That’s what I was specifically responding to. Yeah, that’s an awkward construction… ---
**Author:** ![Hooleehootoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/eada6e/32.png) [@Hooleehootoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hooleehootoo)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1539 "2014-10-27T21:24:08Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This is why “comply, then sue” is not a practical solution in most situations involving law breaking cops. Even if someone could show monetary damages for cop harassment, they’d have to give up a lot of their time and money just to make that case in court. So if we subject ourselves to this philosophy,this means that cops can pretty much get away with whatever they want as long as they pick on someone too broke or too busy to sue them. Which is almost everyone. Having the losers pay court costs as is done in some other jurisdictions would go some way towards remedying this. It makes it less costly to sue, and the cops will know this, so in equilibrium it makes them do less false arresting. Of course it is not a panacea. People like Larry Hiibel probably don’t want to recover money so much as lost … respect, or something. Good luck to us in getting that. Would that be covered by statute, or would it take changes to state constitutions? ---
**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:** [October 27, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492/1540 "2014-10-27T21:24:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yeah, that’s an awkward construction… Thanks for giving your thoughts on this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=76) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kissing-your-husband-while-black-not-if-the-lapd-can-help-it/698492.md?page=78)