Kissing your husband while black? Not if the LAPD can help it.

[Smapti]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

If he was randomly stopped? Yes.

Just the same as I would be okay with the possibility that a multiple murderer not being incarcerated if that was the result of due process under the law.

See, I’m not willing to tolerate just any police behavior - to sacrifice individual liberty - in order to maximize security. Your kneeling may vary.

And let’s say that his next victim was your wife/daughter/other significant relation.

Would you still be so willing to throw your hands up in the air and say “That’s the price we pay for freedom”?

[Smapti]

@Marley23

So close. So desperate.

So you’re saying Dzokhar Tsarnaev should be a free man today.

Noted.

[you_with_the_face]

@Omar_Little

Yes, but you said hookers and johns don’t do it in broad daylight…obviously some do.

Great, another idiot has come in to announce his idiocy.

This is what I posted:

@ywtf

I’m not getting the leap from PDA to prostitution. Hookers and the men who pay them generally go about their transactions surreptitiously, not in broad daylight on a busy street.

You see that great big ole “generally”? Literate people understand this to be an important qualifier. When the word is used, it means that that the existence of rare exceptions (like Hugh Grant) has been tacitly acknowledged and arguing the point officially makes you an idiot.

[Marley23]

@Smapti

So you’re saying Dzokhar Tsarnaev should be a free man today.

Noted.

You’re not even good at this. What are you good at?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Smapti

And let’s say that his next victim was your wife/daughter/other significant relation.

Would you still be so willing to throw your hands up in the air and say “That’s the price we pay for freedom”?

Ah, a classic! Let’s say your wife/daughter/other significant relation was the next one falsely detained/taken into custody/convicted without due process/incarcerated?

Would you simply say, “That’s the price we pay in order to maximize security”?

Fucking moron.

[JesterX]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

See, if you paid attention to the point I was making to Smapti, you wouldn’t say such stupid shit.

Well, that’s actually a duck. The point is, what you’re saying the cops SHOULD do when interacting with potential criminals, would actually allow hardened, wanted, criminals to get away on occasion.

[iiandyiiii]

@Marley23

You’re not even good at this. What are you good at?

He’s good at ignoring the fact that he’s defending the one party that definitely broke the law here.

[you_with_the_face]

@JesterX

Not “assumed”, INVESTIGATED.

Edited to answer . . . And yes, I think anyone walking around openly with a gun should be questioned. Hands down.

You are moving goal posts. Open carry is prohibited in most jurisdictions, but merely owning a gun is federally protected right.

So let’s try this again: do you think anyone who owns a gun should be stopped, detained, and questioned by police, just because they own a gun?

[iiandyiiii]

@JesterX

Well, that’s actually a duck. The point is, what you’re saying the cops SHOULD do when interacting with potential criminals, would actually allow hardened, wanted, criminals to get away on occasion.

Cops should not immediately summarily execute every possible suspect for murder during a murder investigation. By not doing this, cops will “actually allow hardened, wanted, criminals to get away on occasion”.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@you_with_the_face

Great, another idiot has come in to announce his idiocy.

This is what I posted:

You see that great big ole “generally”? Literate people understand this to be an important qualifier. When the word is used, it means that that the existence of rare exceptions (like Hugh Grant) has been tacitly acknowledged and arguing the point officially makes you an idiot.

Hugh Grant was arrested around 1:30 in the morning. How is that broad daylight?

He was also observed in the act - it wasn’t a completed misdemeanor.

Fail. Fail.

[JesterX]

@iiandyiiii

Cops should not immediately summarily execute every possible suspect for murder during a murder investigation. By not doing this, cops will “actually allow hardened, wanted, criminals to get away on occasion”.

Less so, than simply following up on suspicious behavior such as one of them refusing to show their id.

[Cheesesteak]

@you_with_the_face

Rosa made a pre-meditated attempt to buck the system, so in some ways she was more of a “fool”.

Fools are people who don’t know what they’re doing. Rosa knew damn well what she was doing, and why, and had a good idea what was going to happen to her when she challenged an unjust law.

Watts is a fool. Do you think she knows the fine legal points that attorneys like Bricker and legal experts on the media got wrong the first time around? She’s a blind squirrel that stumbled on a nut. It’s not even a nut that actually has anything to do with race, except in her own mind. There was nothing inappropriate about the police investigating the complaint, they just had no right to demand ID.

[iiandyiiii]

@JesterX

Less so, than simply following up on suspicious behavior such as one of them refusing to show their id.

There are competing concerns here. The courts have made determinations about when a cop can detain someone to identify them, and “this lady wouldn’t give me her ID” isn’t one of those causes.

[Smapti]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

Ah, a classic! Let’s say your wife/daughter/other significant relation was the next one falsely detained/taken into custody/convicted without due process/incarcerated?

Would you simply say, “That’s the price we pay in order to maximize security”?

How did we go from “being asked your name” to “incarcerated without due process”?

For the record, if my wife/daughter/other significant relation was asked her name by a police officer, I’d be OK with that.

Now, answer the question I asked you, please.

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

He’s good at ignoring the fact that he’s defending the one party that definitely broke the law here.

What law forbids an officer from asking a suspect her name?

[Smapti]

@iiandyiiii

There are competing concerns here. The courts have made determinations about when a cop can detain someone to identify them, and “this lady wouldn’t give me her ID” isn’t one of those causes.

You misspelled “This lady wouldn’t give me her ID or tell me her name, last or first, and fled the scene when I asked”.

[JesterX]

@you_with_the_face

You are moving goal posts. Open carry is prohibited in most jurisdictions, but merely owning a gun is federally protected right.

So let’s try this again: do you think anyone who owns a gun should be stopped, detained, and questioned by police, just because they own a gun?

Well, how would you know they own a gun unless they were openly carrying it? If you’re asking if, for instance, at a traffic stop, a cop sees a gun in the car and asks the person to show their permit? If I have a problem with that, no I don’t.

[QuickSilver]

@Smapti

What law forbids an officer from asking a suspect her name?

This has been explained already.

There is no law that prohibits a police officer from asking your name.

[iiandyiiii]

@Smapti

What law forbids an officer from asking a suspect her name?

They can ask her name, though she doesn’t have to answer. They broke the law by detaining Watts. The courts have determined that it is unlawful to detain someone in those circumstances, as Bricker and Hentor have explained. The cops broke the law. You are defending the party that broke the law here.

[you_with_the_face]

@Cheesesteak

There was nothing inappropriate about the police investigating the complaint, they just had no right to demand ID.

Or handcuff her.

Or hold her in their car for how ever long they did.

If you agree that, in addition to the above, they also had no right to demand ID…why exactly, are you so focused on her actions again?

Oh I see. She got angry. When cops are breaking the law and falsely detaining you, it’s incumbent on you to put on a happy face and be polite.