I’m curious now: what was it you saw in the videos that made you think it was after hours? Was it all the people walking thru the area? The sunlight coming through the door? The fact that the doors were unlocked and in near constant use? Did the time stamp confuse you? What caused you to think this happened “after hours”?
I think you’re acting uncivilized.
See, here’s another example of you ignoring that words have meanings and just using them however you want. Like I said, it’s cute in a child; are you a child?
Factually incorrect. You should start every sentence you write with “IMO”, since you want nothing to do with facts.
Then you should feel free to enslave him and beat him.
The cops in the link were “investigating” Loitering, you don’t need a name to investigate that either. He gave a phony name and they charged him with that act as a crime.
No, they were investigating Indecent Exposure, and no one gave a Phony name. Watts refused to ID herself, but her husband did.
And once he’s enslaved, assuming you’ve moved to a country in which it’s legal, Smapti has stated that it would be wrong to try to help him escape.
You should probably change this title to “Banging your husband in public while black? Not if the LAPD can help it.”
TMZ had photos last night taken from the street and from an office building above, and people don’t take photos of a couple “kissing”. None of the poses matcher her demonstration for the cameras. They got multiple statements that the car was rocking and the couple was indeed going at it and that’s why the police were called. It got pretty graphic; she was grinding, her breasts were exposed, she cleaned herself with kleenex afterwards, etc.
It was a person from that office who went down and asked them to stop, and when they didn’t, that person called the cops.
I’m confused…are they married or not? I thought I read he was her boyfriend. 
Sorry, nope.
I believe there are far more black people who are racist towards the cops than vice versa, and that actual racism by police towards black Americans is exceedingly rare and not the cause of any of the high-profile incidents we’ve seen lately.
Noone in this thread is acting uncivilized. Not even the anarchists and terrorist sympathizers.
You may be confused as there’s a couple trolls here that keep nattering on about a completely different incident.
The arguments I’ve heard boil down to “Stop-and-frisk is racist because they’re arresting black people for committing crimes”.
Your post 922:
It’s not impossible for this to be true generically.
But:
Probable cause exists where the facts would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person under consideration is guilty of a crime. Each case must be determined on its own facts and circumstances, and the facts present must justify more than mere suspicion but less than a conviction. In applying this test, a court should not be unduly technical and should view the circumstances in light of the whole of the arresting officer’s experience and knowledge as of the time of the arrest.
At 9:49:57 on the bank camera’s video timestamp, Lollie leaves. Prior to that point, what facts establish probable cause?
I have no idea what the guard reported. It’s possible that he called in a report of a man, explained that he asked the man to leave, and that he had told the man the area was private and that he (the guard) was either the lawful possessor thereof or was authorized by the lawful possessor to demand that trespassers depart.
And it’s possible that the dispatcher then communicated to the officer all of that information.
But it’s unlikely, because that kind of attention to detail is almost unheard of in these types of incidents.
But if, in fact, all that happened, then the officer would have had probable cause for arrest.
I agree with everything you’ve said, and I don’t see how it in any way is relevant to what I said.
It’s 100% the case that cops should know the law and follow the law. And it seems fairly well established in the LA case that the cop failed to do so. I think that there’s a distinction between cops who violate laws just because they are self-entitled assholes and don’t give a damn and assume they’ll get away with it (which is something that all decent people should be outraged by) and cops who violate laws due to an honest misunderstanding of the law (which is something that is inevitably going to happen from time to time due to human error), and reasonable people can disagree as to where on that scale they suspect the cop in the LA incident fell – but in neither case is it OK for the cop to have violated the law.
There is no bank, no-one named Lollie and no guard.
That’s closer to trolling than anything else in this thread. The thread title is what’s confusing about the husband/boyfriend thing, and I suspect you know that, but just wanted to dig at other people.
“Troll” does not mean “person I don’t agree with on the internet”.
There’s something a bit weird about the legal status of cases like the LA one, which is that assuming my understanding of the law as described by Bricker et al is now correct, there’s a weird situation where a person literally can NOT possibly know what their rights are.
Do you have the right to refuse to provide your ID to cops who ask for it? Well, that depends on whether the cops have the right to ask for it. Do they have the right to ask for it? Well, that depends on why they’re talking to you. Why are they talking to you? Well, that depends on information that you do not have.
For instance, let’s say the cops get a call that a 40-something white guy wearing a Red Sox shirt and a blue baseball cap just held up a convenience store at gunpoint. And they drive to the area, and they see a 40-something white guy wearing a Red Sox shirt and a blue baseball cap. If my understanding of the earlier legal discussion is correct, they DO have the right to detain him temporarily, verify his ID, etc., because they have some kind of reasonable belief that there was a felony committed and he might have been involved. Of course, HE doesn’t know that. As far as he knows, assuming he’s a random innocent guy unlucky enough to be wearing the wrong clothes in the wrong place, the cops are overstepping their rights by detaining him and requiring that he provide ID. Are the cops legally required to tell him WHY they’re asking for his ID?