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

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Bricker

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.

If I had to guess I would say all that did happen. Not in such a formal manner, with all the legalese, but in effect.

Because the same facts that you are saying establish probable cause are the same ones which would also help the officer in dealing with the situation when he got there (who the complainant is, what the suspect did prior to the officers arrival etc.)

And the same goes for the Watts case. Guy reported witnessing them having sex in a car. ISTM that this is probable cause for indecent exposure.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

And the same goes for the Watts case. Guy reported witnessing them having sex in a car. ISTM that this is probable cause for indecent exposure.

For the Watts case, this wouldn’t have mattered – the crime in question was a misdemeanor, and it wasn’t going on when the officers arrived, so the detainment of Watts to identify her was unlawful.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

You’re missing the boat. Reread the exchange.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You’re missing the boat. Reread the exchange.

What did I miss? In an earlier post, Bricker laid out what’s required for an arrest/detainment, and the circumstances you described for Watts do not appear to qualify.

[Hooleehootoo]

@DrDeth

No bank, nor any City attorney involved in the Daniele Watts incident, so what the fuck are you babbling about?

I want to say hear, hear to DrDeth. Mixing (hijacking) this other MN case in with this thread makes it hard to follow for people who are interested in the specific facts of the Watts case.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Smapti

Well then, do feel free to define the specific statute under which a police officer can be arrested for asking someone their name.

They did more than that.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Smapti

Of course, the stop was justified at its inception, so none of this matters anyway.

The whole reaswon for the controversy is that the stop wasn’t justified. When Hentor pointed out that you cannot stop someone for suspicion of an already completed misdemeanor, Bricker realized that everything that everything that followed was an unlawful exercise of police power.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

The arguments I’ve heard boil down to “Stop-and-frisk is racist because they’re arresting black people for committing crimes”.

Nope. Try again.

[LurkerInNJ]

@XT

I’m confused…are they married or not? I thought I read he was her boyfriend.

Her/their story is so full of shit and they are both looney toones so I wouldn’t hazard a guess.

He now claims they were “doing yoga” in the car to explain their unique positioning in the leaked photos.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

What did I miss? In an earlier post, Bricker laid out what’s required for an arrest/detainment, and the circumstances you described for Watts do not appear to qualify.

You’re wrong.

Reread the exchange.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

You’re wrong.

Reread the exchange.

I did. Whether or not it’s a Terry stop, I still don’t see how the circumstances qualify as a legitimate detainment/arrest in the Watts case.

[DrDeth]

@Hooleehootoo

I want to say hear, hear to DrDeth. Mixing (hijacking) this other MN case in with this thread makes it hard to follow for people who are interested in the specific facts of the Watts case.

Thank you! Not that that case might not be fully worthy of a thread by itself.

[Cheesesteak]

@DrDeth

No, they were investigating Indecent Exposure, and no one gave a Phony name. Watts refused to ID herself, but her husband did.

You’re not my supervisor!

[Smapti]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Nope. Try again.

Well, with an ironclad refutation like that, I may as well just go rethink my entire life.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Smapti

Well, with an ironclad refutation like that, I may as well just go rethink my entire life.

Then my work here is done.

Alternatively you could actually look into yourself rather than relying on things you’ve “heard” or start to demonstrate an interest in learning, so as not to waste the time of anyone willing to try to present the arguments.

[Ethilrist]

@Smapti

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.

Given that the black people in America have the cops outnumbered over 50:1, that’s not too terribly surprising.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@iiandyiiii

I did.

Finally.

Even if it’s not a Terry stop, I still don’t see how the circumstances qualify as a legitimate detainment/arrest in the Watts case.

What’s this supposed to mean? You “still don’t see” …?

Are you some sort of legal expert? Do you even have the slightest clue as to what grounds the cops need to ask for ID when they have probable cause?

In the unlikely event that you do, please trot it out. “I still don’t see …” adds nothing.

[Smapti]

@Ethilrist

Given that the black people in America have the cops outnumbered over 50:1, that’s not too terribly surprising.

I meant per capita, not in raw numbers.

[iiandyiiii]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

What’s this supposed to mean? You “still don’t see” …?

Are you some sort of legal expert? Do you even have the slightest clue as to what grounds the cops need to ask for ID when they have probable cause?

In the unlikely event that you do, please trot it out. “I still don’t see …” adds nothing.

Bricker laid out specifically, in an earlier post, what constitutes a lawful detainment or arrest. The circumstances you describe – a phone-call reporting lewd behavior (a misdemeanor) for Watts and her partner, followed by the cops arriving after any such behavior was complete, does not fit those requirements laid out by Bricker for a lawful detainment or arrest.

I’ll see if I can find Bricker’s post.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Smapti

When there is absolutely zero evidence of a racial motive, or reason to believe one is going to be summarily arrested and handed off to a slavemaster? It absolutely is.

Do you think that cops are just as likely to have assumed prostitution if the woman was white?