<p>All of the initial stories came from her Facebook post, which is a dumb source of information. TMZ got audio of the incident and everything changed. And, she didn’t help herself on CNN, imho. I have no idea why anyone thinks a white person in the same circumstance wouldn’t have been asked for ID. The white boyfriend was asked for ID first and complied he says because of his history with law enforcement, whatever that means. </p>
<p>Wasn’t it TMZ that got the Rice elevator video too? At least they do actual investigative reporting; too many of the respected media seem to rely on press releases etc.</p>
<p>Bay and Flossy, you may not have read the entire thread. We know that if police have probable cause, they can detain someone. The issue here, as has been repeatedly stated but maybe you missed it, is whether the officer had probable cause to believe this couple had committed a crime. According to Lergnom, for misdemeanors (for example having sex in a public place) a phone call to the police is not probable cause. </p>
<p>I’m dubious about the reports that she was straddling him and they were having sex. I don’t see how that works with those shorts. She could have taken the shorts off, but I think more likely it was vigorous PDA.</p>
<p>I find the officer’s attitude appalling. “I don’t work for you, I have more power than you.” He’s a police officer. Of course he works for us-- he’s a public servant. And I don’t want officers who brag about their power over ordinary citizens.</p>
<p>Bay, we have audio (linked upthread) of the police approaching the couple and asking the guy something like, “What is this woman to you?” He’s not asking because he wants to make fine distinctions between wife, fiancee, girlfriend, friends, best friend’s wife that the guy is having an affair with… He thinks the woman is a prostitute.</p>
<p>CF- The cops explains to her that he is working for the citizens who reported the lewd act. But, I do see how some may find him a tad condescending. Of course, she is a tad hysterical, so yeah. Lergmom’s post is interesting but there are legal experts all over the TV who say the cops were allowed to detain her until she was identified. Here’s one…</p>
<p><a href=“LAPD defends tactics used on 'Django' actress Daniele Watts”>http://www.today.com/entertainment/lapd-defends-tactics-used-django-actress-daniele-watts-1D80152387</a></p>
<p>Who sold the tape to TMZ is interesting because if it was the boyfriend/chef/photographer he is not helping her one bit. </p>
<p>Isn’t it interesting that everybody assumes the woman is the potential prostitute whether she’s white or black?</p>
<p>The cop explicitly denies that he is working for her. That is not just condescending; it is wrong. </p>
<p>I doubt that the cop meant it this way (although I’m not clear on what he did mean, and whatever he meant, what he said was incorrect) but if I were a black woman who was repeatedly hassled for being in an interracial relationship, and if I believed I’d done nothing wrong, what I’d hear from that cop is, “I don’t work for you. I work for white people.”</p>
<p>Male prostitutes are not uncommon, but male streetwalkers with female clients are so rare that I’ve never even heard of one. I don’t think there’s a business there.</p>
<p>Well, the prostitute storyline came from her boyfriend on Facebook.</p>
<p>"I could tell that whoever called on us (including the officers), saw a tatted RAWKer white boy and a hot bootie shorted black girl and thought we were a HO (prostitute) & a TRICK (client). "</p>
<p>He talks like a surfer dude. Frequently using all caps and saying “NOT COOL!”</p>
<p>Is Lergnom a CA criminal law specialist? If so, I missed that. </p>
<p>It could well be that the cop was out of bounds in insisting on seeing her ID, but I don’t see how anyone on this thread can definitively conclude that he was, without knowing all the evidence, circumstances, and applicable law. </p>
<p>Cops don’t work for individual people, they work for the State. </p>
<p>That’s not what Condescending Cop said. He said he didn’t work for the actress, he worked for the people calling in the complaint. And that’s appalling.</p>
<p>L’etat, c’est moi. Et vous, in America, at least.</p>
<p>Cops have an obligation to investigate all reports of criminal activity, so that is what he probably meant. Although I agree that it was a poor choice of words if that is what he said. </p>
<p>Well, it started with her saying, “You work for me”. He said, “No, I don’t. I’m responding to a citizen complaint.” Or some such thing. I mean the cops work for the people but you cannot have suspects demanding deference, either. </p>
<p>Yes, it’ is ludicrous to insist that cops “work for” rapists and murderers and other criminals and therefore have no right to investigate them.</p>
<p>
Again, it’s my belief–which I can’t prove–that a similarly situated white person wouldn’t have to demand deference.</p>
<p>I think what makes some of these cases hard to grasp (and the Henry Louis Gates case was like this as well) is that some black people are famous enough to realize that they actually can’t be pushed around as much as a non-famous black person–and so they sometimes react pretty strongly to what they perceive as a racially-motivated effort to push them around. Perhaps they overreact (I thought Gates did, for example)–but I think they are the tip of an iceberg of people who don’t have the power to push back–people who know they’ll have to show ID, even if there is no probable cause, because if they don’t they will get arrested and taken to the police station–and even when they are ultimately released because there is no probable cause and no crime, they won’t get an apology or any kind of reparation, because they are weak. So I think these cases are helpful, because they may lead to police officers getting better training on when they are allowed to ask for ID.</p>
<p>Were they allowed or not is still unclear to me. Most of the commentators seem to be saying they were allowed. LAPD put out another statement saying they followed procedure. And, it’s all on tape so that’s an easy one.</p>
<p>“LAPD Lt. Andy Neiman said the officers were investigating complaints from a 911 caller, who said there were people engaging in “sexual acts” in a car outside the caller’s building.“The courts have opined that an officer does have the right to identify you when they have reasonable cause to detain you,” said Neiman. As such, Neiman says police can detain you while they investigate an alleged crime. Neiman says officers also have the right to ask for your identification.”</p>
<p>So, if they need better training fine. But, they do this every day so I would expect them to know the law and be getting legal advice before putting out these statements. They seem pretty sure they were right this time.</p>
<p>Hunt, for whatever reason you want to believe the officer wouldn’t have asked a white woman for ID. He asked the white guy for ID, and my guess would be different than yours, that it’s standard in an awful lot of situations that an officer asks for ID, doesn’t matter who it is he’s talking to. He’s there to investigate a complaint. An officer also is expected to contain/control out of control situations so if people are not cooperating an officer is probably going to clamp down more. I have no idea what’s okay/not okay, standard procedure for that. They’re not necessarily there to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. They’re there to maintain the peace.</p>
<p>As an aside, who the heck calls 911 to complain about a couple making out (or whatever) in a car? I mean, 911 is for emergencies is it not?</p>