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

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

This hypothetical someone who calls a woman “fugly bitch”, or anyone who calls Danielle Watts in particular “fugly”, is not someone whose opinions on either community values or aesthetics have any worth, IMHO.

Racist.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Racist.

Regards,
Shodan

I don’t know if they’re a racist, but their judgment on community values and aesthetics certainly can’t be trusted.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Shodan

Racist.

Regards,
Shodan

Is that an admission? Because that was pretty much the vibe you’ve been giving off.

[Shodan]

Keep trying, Hentor - I am sure I’ll fall for it eventually.

[QUOTE=iiandyii]
I don’t know if they’re a racist, but their judgment on community values and aesthetics certainly can’t be trusted.
[/QUOTE]
Good heavens no - how dare they try to impose their prudish and repressed standards of not wanting people to dry hump in the parking lot.

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

Good heavens no - how dare they try to impose their prudish and repressed standards of not wanting people to dry hump in the parking lot.

I thought we were talking about the “fugly bitch” guy.

[Shodan]

That’s the same one who complained about dry humping in the parking lot (hypothetically).

Regards,
Shodan

[iiandyiiii]

@Shodan

That’s the same one who complained about dry humping in the parking lot (hypothetically).

Regards,
Shodan

Okay, the one you called racist, and whose views on community values and aesthetics can be safely dismissed ('cause of the “fugly bitch” statement).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

Yes. The police never mention the words “prostitute,” “hooker,” “whore,” or the crime of prostitution.

The chef didnt claim they mentioned the words “prostitute,” “hooker,” “whore,” or he crime of prostitution. He claims they insinuated or implied it by repeatedly asking him if she was “really” his girlfriend.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Seems like a pretty accomplished guy to me.

What have you got?

Well, I stand corrected. He is not just some adjunct working at a law school clinic to puff up their resume. With that said, the plain meaning of the statute and caselaw means seems to be on my side and while he probably has more expertise in criminal procedure than a tax lawyer but his xpertise seems to be in evidence adn criminal law.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Shodan

Is there a legal standard for when it is determined that it was a completed misdemeanor not involving a threat to the public, and therefore brief detention would be illegal? As opposed (I would guess) to sexual assault or drug dealing or something else.

It seems a bit less than cut-and-dried than simply ‘Griggs said it, I believe it, that settles it.’ Thus the police get a complaint of public sex, they show up to find a couple swabbing up the cumstains, and then attempt to determine what is/was going on. The couple refuses to identify themselves or give any other information besides a shit fit. I don’t see that the police can tell only on that either that there was or wasn’t anything going on.

And thus it is hard for me to get too upset if the police don’t let Ms. “Do Me in the Parking Lot” walk away even if she has a tantrum and starts hollering that if she were white the police would scatter rose petals on their bower of love instead of trying to figure out why they were doing the bump-and-grind in front of the public.

Okay, so the detention was illegal. Maybe - expert opinon seems to differ. It would appear to be at least a miild shade of gray instead of black and white (heh).

Regards,
Shodan

Wait. they were wiping up cum stains when the police approached them? Do you have a cite for that?

[Cartooniverse]

The day this broke, there was mention of the partner throwing out a kleenex or napkin with cum all over it. I’ve Googled and find nothing. Which is weird.

Ah. Well, it’s TMZ and so may be thin gruel. No idea how to get the actual police report that quotes this. Article stating that sex evidence was thrown away at scene by one of the participants.

The eyewitnesses said the guy was sitting in the seat, she was straddling him and it was for everyone to see. One eyewitness told cops they cleaned themselves up afterward with a tissue.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Steophan

Yeah, I doubt that. It, at absolute minimum, gives reasonable suspicion of disturbing the peace, and could reasonably count as assault if the officer felt threatened by it.

The fourth amendment protects against *unreasonable *search and seizure. It says nothing about providing your name. Are you maybe thinking of the fifth? That sounds like the only one that could justify not allowing a cop to make someone identify themselves, if there’s a warrant out on them.

The idea that the police can’t identify someone to see if they’re wanted is absurd. Telling the police your name, and showing ID if you have it, is not in any way an imposition. And if you are wanted by the police, you should have turned yourself in earlier. You don’t have a right to ignore it, just because you may have the ability to.

So, again, why do you want to make it difficult for the police to do their job?

We have branch of government here in the USA that determines what the says and the highest court in our judiciary disagreees with almost everything you say.

[Bricker]

@Damuri_Ajashi

The chef didnt claim they mentioned the words “prostitute,” “hooker,” “whore,” or he crime of prostitution. He claims they insinuated or implied it by repeatedly asking him if she was “really” his girlfriend.

That’s an inferential leap. Surely, in an age that thrives on hooking up and FWBs, the mere suggestion that a sexual partner is not limited to a girlfriend doesn’t mean she’s a prostitute?

[Evil_Economist]

@Damuri_Ajashi

We have branch of government here in the USA that determines what the says and the highest court in our judiciary disagreees with almost everything you say.

**Steophan **is a one-trick pony–his trick is getting angry at people who think that something they don’t like must be illegal. Yet here he is, doing that exact thing. What a stupid fucking hypocrite.

Steophan, you have one trick! Can’t you manage to avoid being a hypocrite at that one fucking thing!?

[Evil_Economist]

@Bricker

That’s an inferential leap. Surely, in an age that thrives on hooking up and FWBs, the mere suggestion that a sexual partner is not limited to a girlfriend doesn’t mean she’s a prostitute?

Clearly the police were interested in whether the woman was his girlfriend or just his FWB, because that would be crucial to the investigation.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

That’s an inferential leap. Surely, in an age that thrives on hooking up and FWBs, the mere suggestion that a sexual partner is not limited to a girlfriend doesn’t mean she’s a prostitute?

Can you think of another legitimate reason the police would be interested at all in knowing whether she was his girlfriend or not? It seems like a pretty reasonable inference.

[Bricker]

@Steophan

Yeah, I doubt that. It, at absolute minimum, gives reasonable suspicion of disturbing the peace, and could reasonably count as assault if the officer felt threatened by it.

Nope. To disturb the peace in California, one must engage in acts which are themselves violent or that tend to incite others to violence.

In re Bushman, 463 P. 2d 727 (Ca. 1970), quoted with approval by Burquet v. Brumbaugh, 223 Cal. App. 4th 1140 (2014).

The terms “disturb the peace” and “breach of the peace,” which are substantially synonymous, have long been understood to mean disruption of public order by acts that are themselves violent or that tend to incite others to violence. Thus, one may be guilty of disturbing the peace within that part of section 415 if he engages in “tumultuous” conduct, i.e., violent conduct that wilfuly and maliciously endangers public safety or order. He may also be guilty of disturbing the peace through “offensive” conduct if by his actions he wilfully and maliciously incites others to violence or engages in conduct likely to incite others to violence.

Assault similarly requires a threat of offensive touching. You can’t point to a single thing Watts said or did that credibly threatens an offensive touching. Merely loud yelling does not transform itself into a criminal action.

@Steophan

The fourth amendment protects against *unreasonable *search and seizure. It says nothing about providing your name.

The issue here is seizure. She was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Are you maybe thinking of the fifth? That sounds like the only one that could justify not allowing a cop to make someone identify themselves, if there’s a warrant out on them.

The idea that the police can’t identify someone to see if they’re wanted is absurd. Telling the police your name, and showing ID if you have it, is not in any way an imposition.

Yes, it is. It’s a seizure. When the police seize you in California, they have to have at least reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have committed a felony, or a misdemeanor involving public safety. Of course the police are free to ask you to provide ID at any time, and as long as you are free to disregard their request and go about your business, no violation of the Constitution has occurred. But when the police seize you, they must have a Constitutionally valid reason to do so.

You say “it’s absurd,” but quote no case law in support of your position.

Once the police have lawfully seized you, they may prolong the detention in order to identify you. The state’s “strong interest in officer safety,” (US v. Villagrana-Flores and US v. Hensley, 469 US 221 (1985)) overcomes the slight additional intrusion.

But here, Ms. Watts was not lawfully seized. That’s the part you don’t seem to be getting: The police had no lawful reason to detain Watts.

Do you disagree? If so, what, specifically, is the lawful reason?

[Bricker]

@iiandyiiii

Can you think of another legitimate reason the police would be interested at all in knowing whether she was his girlfriend or not? It seems like a pretty reasonable inference.

The police have already demonstrated that they were uninterested in “legitimate reasons” during their conduct towards Watts.

I think they simply decided they were entitled to answers to any question they asked. This drove them to illegally detain Watts.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

The police have already demonstrated that they were uninterested in “legitimate reasons” during their conduct towards Watts.

I think they simply decided they were entitled to answers to any question they asked. This drove them to illegally detain Watts.

This is true, but I think it’s also reasonable to infer (without 100% confidence) that the reason they asked the girlfriend question was because they were suspicious of prostitution.

[Bricker]

@iiandyiiii

This is true, but I think it’s also reasonable to infer (without 100% confidence) that the reason they asked the girlfriend question was because they were suspicious of prostitution.

It’s certainly possible.