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

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

I’m simply saying she didn’t make things any better by refusing to identify herself. Are we so onboard the “cops = EVIL” train that we can’t acknowledge that refusing to identify yourself to a police officer who’s already assuming the worst of you is a bad idea?

Bad idea for who? She might get inconvenienced, but she served a greater good. These cops were the bad cops and we deserve to know who they are.

[Smapti]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Bad idea for who? She might get inconvenienced, but she served a greater good.

Would the cops be any less “evil” if she had shown her ID when asked?

Would things have gone any worse for her if she had shown her ID when asked?

[Smapti]

@monstro

The main reason why we have stupid, unethical police officers is because entirely way too many people try to make it easier for them to be stupid and unethical.

It’s unethical to ask a pedestrian to identify him/herself?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

So, pay the danegeld?

Showing ID is a “payment”?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

Would the cops be any less “evil” if she had shown her ID when asked?

Would things have gone any worse for her if she had shown her ID when asked?

The act of stopping her with no probable cause was a bad act. I never said evil- that’s your hyperbole. They don’t need to be evil to be held accountable.

I have no idea how things would have gone if she had. However, she was not obligated to show ID in the absence of cause, so should she acquiesce? Because cops?

[Enter_the_Flagon]

Sometimes you’ve gotta take one for the team.

If Rosa Parks had done what was best for her personally, nothing would have changed.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

It’s unethical to ask a pedestrian to identify him/herself?

Without just cause, it’s none of their damn business, and it’s highly unethical.

[Smapti]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

I have no idea how things would have gone. However, she was not obligated to show ID in the absence of cause, so should she acquiesce? Because cops?

Under California law, she was not required to. However, under Terry, the police have the authority to ascertain her identity - which they did while they detained her.

I’m just saying that it would have gone better for her if she’d shown her ID at the start, and that having to show her ID is not the injustice here.

[TriPolar]

@Smapti

I’m simply saying she didn’t make things any better by refusing to identify herself. Are we so onboard the “cops = EVIL” train that we can’t acknowledge that refusing to identify yourself to a police officer who’s already assuming the worst of you is a bad idea?

I’m not in the ‘cops=EVIL’ camp. These particular cops are bad cops. And it is a bad idea because it gives bad cops the excuse to stop people for no reason and then mistreat them for not showing ID when they don’t have to. And as the stops increase as a result of your thinking the bad cops ending will stop more people for no reason and that also increases the mistreatment of people even after they show their ID. Or do you think that never happens?

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

Without just cause, it’s none of their damn business, and it’s highly unethical.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007

A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime…

Officer safety is just as strongly implicated where the individual being detained for a short period of time is on foot rather than in an automobile. An officer detaining a pedestrian has an equally strong interest in knowing whether that individual has a violent past or is currently wanted on outstanding warrants. The citizen’s interest, on the other hand, is no more robust merely because a short detention occurs while traversing on foot…

An interesting question arises when state law does not make it a crime to refuse to identify oneself but does clearly allow the police to temporarily detain the suspect and determine his identity. The decision in Hiibel suggests that Terry allows officers to ask for identification as long as the request for identification is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial stop.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@zoid

According to the article the police are allowed to detain someone for a reasonable period to determine their identity.

@Smapti

You are if the police suspect you of doing something illegal, which was unfortunately the case here. When is not showing your ID to the police ever a good idea?

I believe you are incorrect here, Smapti; AFAIK the law (as decided in Hiibel) can only require that you identify yourself to police officers, not that you provide documentation of your identity. I’m skeptical that California law allows police to detain people until the can confirm what a person says, but I’m willing to be shown the statute(s).

[Smapti]

@TriPolar

I’m not in the ‘cops=EVIL’ camp. These particular cops are bad cops. And it is a bad idea because it gives bad cops the excuse to stop people for no reason and then mistreat them for not showing ID when they don’t have to. And as the stops increase as a result of your thinking the bad cops ending will stop more people for no reason and that also increases the mistreatment of people even after they show their ID. Or do you think that never happens?

So you’re saying that cops stop people in the hopes that they can mistreat them for not showing ID… and the way to fight this is by not showing ID when the cops stop you so they can mistreat you for not showing ID?

And that by thinking that you should just show ID, I’m encouraging the cops to stop more people hoping they can mistreat them for not showing ID?

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

Showing ID is a “payment”?

Without just cause it is not theirs to ask for, and telling us that they will take us into custody if we do not give them what they want, whether it is money or I.D., is wrong.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Smapti

Because two wrongs don’t make a right.

Because nobody ever came out on top by arguing with the cops, even if the cops were wrong.

Because refusing to ID yourself to the police accomplishes nothing but wasting everyone’s time and making you miserable, because the police can easily identify you in other ways if you insist on being difficult.

I am absolutely not justifying the police’s actions here. They were in the wrong. I’m just saying Watts could have made it easier for herself.

The point is, she didn’t have any reason to make it easier on the police. AFAIK she cooperated with them to the extent that the law compels her to cooperate.

[Smapti]

@Czarcasm

Without just cause it is not theirs to ask for, and telling us that they will take us into custody if we do not give them what they want, whether it is money or I.D., is wrong.

The legal standard is “if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime”, not “just cause”.

[Smapti]

@Snowboarder_Bo

The point is, she didn’t have any reason to make it easier on the police. AFAIK she cooperated with them to the extent that the law compels her to cooperate.

And she made it harder on herself in the process.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

Under California law, she was not required to. However, under Terry, the police have the authority to ascertain her identity - which they did while they detained her.

I’m just saying that it would have gone better for her if she’d shown her ID at the start, and that having to show her ID is not the injustice here.

And I disagree. Police should have to have a solid reason to stop someone who is doing nothing wrong and isn’t appearing yo do anything wrong and to ID them.

Your cite for Terry sure sounds like the cops need to be investigating a crime or show cause to request ID or detain someone, as I read it. Bolding mine. Seems like everything is predicated on suspicion of a crime or while investigating a crime.

A police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian and investigate potential crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime.…

Officer safety is just as strongly implicated where the individual being detained for a short period of time is on foot rather than in an automobile. An officer detaining a pedestrian has an equally strong interest in knowing whether that individual has a violent past or is currently wanted on outstanding warrants. The citizen’s interest, on the other hand, is no more robust merely because a short detention occurs while traversing on foot…

An interesting question arises when state law does not make it a crime to refuse to identify oneself but does clearly allow the police to temporarily detain the suspect and determine his identity. The decision in Hiibel suggests that Terry allows officers to ask for identification as long as the request for identification is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the initial stop.

[Czarcasm]

@Smapti

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007

A man and a woman were kissing. what was the just cause in this case to ask for identification, and to detain her for not giving said identification?

[TriPolar]

@Smapti

So you’re saying that cops stop people in the hopes that they can mistreat them for not showing ID… and the way to fight this is by not showing ID when the cops stop you so they can mistreat you for not showing ID?

I’m saying that showing ID when there is no cause is encouraging this behavior by cops.

And that by thinking that you should just show ID, I’m encouraging the cops to stop more people hoping they can mistreat them for not showing ID?

Yes. Except for the hoping part which is irrelevant and added to the argument by you.

[Smapti]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

And I disagree. Police should have to have a solid reason to stop someone who is doing nothing wrong and isn’t appearing yo do anything wrong and to ID them.

They had a solid reason - they thought she was a prostitute.

It was a stupid solid reason, but it’s solid nonetheless.