If it was her husband, why did she refer to him as her boyfriend? The police made no insinuation about prostitution.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think there are a lot of women who wouldn’t get angry and loud if a cop insinuated they were a prostitute. I can’t believe the cop didn’t realize exactly what reaction he would get.
I’m confused. Was she with her boyfriend or her husband?
And you have no idea what the cop did or did not insinuate.
Read the thread, genius.
Regards,
Shodan
(underline added)
They didn’t arrest Watts for failure to produce ID.
Hentor the Barbarian was nice enough to provided a case, U.S. v. Grigg, that seems to suggests that the 9th Circuit Court ruling wouldn’t permit a Terry Stop for a completed misdemeanor, if there were no threat to public safety. I think it’s important to note that Grigg was decided in 2007.
…We hold that under the balancing test set forth in Hensley, a court reviewing the reasonableness of a stop to investigate a past misdemeanor (or other minor infraction) must assess the potential risk to public safety associated with the nature of the offense. Under the circumstances here, it was unreasonable for the Nampa police to pull over Grigg on suspicion of having played his music too loudly where they did not duly consider the lack of any threat to public safety, especially given the untested alternative means of ascertaining Grigg’s identity. The motion to suppress was erroneously denied.10 We reverse Grigg’s conviction and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It’s now 2014 and the LAPD seems to be adamant that their officers can detain Watts and request her to identify herself, but not necessarily producing an actual ID of some sort. (Hello. I’m Daniele Watts and I’m just “acting” like a whore. You know, practicing for a future role in a movie I haven’t been offered yet.)
What part(s) of this puzzle is still missing? Hasn’t a LA not-public-safety-related completed-misdemeanor-detainment been challenged in a California court as opposed to the Nampa, Idaho court? Has another, more recent case, altered the Grigg ruling? Do the LA prosecutors drop criminal charges, or plea bargain down any charges, if there is a chance that a detained person may challenge the LAPD ID detainment policy?
Lawyers, experts, and instructors/professors still seem to disagree on whether a detained person needs to identify themselves. Why isn’t Grigg currently considered the final word in the 9th Circuit district by California PD’s and state attorneys? What’s missing?
Next, as far as I’m concerned, the Hollyweird actress and the chef wanted the public to see them having sex in the car. Broad daylight, car door open, hands and feet sticking out of the car, some 5 feet from a public sidewalk, surrounded by occupied buildings with windows facing their parking place, ignoring the personal request that they stop doing the ol’ hibidy dibity in public, waiting for the cops to show up, ranting like a deranged lunatic when police dared to questioned the chef first, threatening the officer with her publicist, etc.
The lame stream media promoted the one-sided story until eye-witnesses, videos, and pictures began to be released. Oops. Maybe the LSM should have spent a few minutes verifying the story BEFORE they went with the ratings-boosting version?
(post shortened)
Are you requesting a video of the not-married ceremony or a picture ID of an unused marriage license?
Not every relationship is typical. Pennsylvania doesn’t have common-law marriage, yet we’ve taken to introducing ourselves as husband and wife even though we haven’t formalized our relationship with the state.
This was California, and Watts didn’t introduce anyone as her husband.
Regards,
Shodan
Was Watts arrested at all? I thought an arrest would require probable cause of a felony. I thought she was detained for the reason that she either would not identify herself and/or produce ID. How much of this is incorrect?
As far as I can tell at this point, ‘husband’ was the invention of whatever tabloid decided to blow this non-story out of proportion in the first place.
Watts was not arrested.
Watts was detained.
Watts was handcuffed.
Watts was eventually released from the detention.
Watts “acted” in a disturbed manner during the original police interview (IMHO, of course).
Watts walked away from the original interview.
Watts was brought back to the original interviewer by one, or more, other officers.
Watts is an attention-seeking asshole.
I wouldn’t let the horny, attention-seeking chef touch my food.
Except it wasn’t merely kissing, it wasn’t her husband, and it wasn’t because she was black.
The LAPD was involved, so there’s that.
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
I wouldn’t let the horny, attention-seeking chef touch my food.
[/QUOTE]
Sign over the door in his restroom -
“Employees Must Wash Hands After Humping Their Girlfriends Before Returning To Work”
Regards,
Shodan
Damn, that’s a lot of ignorance right there; hard to believe it happened so late in the thread, but there it is.
How is it ignorance. The first couple of days of hearing about this on the news was all “Racist Cop news at eleven.”
I agree with Drunky Smurf and ask you where the ignorance is in that statement. It sounds perfectly accurate.
Honestly, using the term Lame Stream Media causes my eyes to roll into the back of my head, so I tend to miss any relevant points made afterwards.
Yeah, I’d have to agree with that, too.
You may have arrived late to the party? The Hollyweird actress and the chef spent the first several days blathering, unchallenged by the media, about their “ordeal” and made several personal appearances on the morning shows. I guess it pays to have a publicist.
That’s good to know. I’m not sure what I’ll be able to do with such a disclosure but it’s still good to know. Thanks for sharing.
Not sure if this has been posted, but this article came out a few days ago:
Civil rights leaders who initially defended Django Unchained actress Daniele Watts in her dispute with the Los Angeles Police Department are now calling on her to apologize.