<p>The question was about why he is getting so much attention not about whether the NAACP was worthwhile. Sigh.</p>
<p>Oh, then I mistook your NAACP comment as criticism, did I? No more input from me on this thread, henceforth.</p>
<p>Yes. And, I’m also tiring of his thread and taking a much needed break.Carry on.</p>
<p>Oh LAPD… <a href=“Django Actress Claims She Was Handcuffed for Kissing While Black [Updated]”>http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/django-actress-detained-for-kissing-while-black.html</a></p>
<p>Uhm, she refused to show ID. </p>
<p>What was the alleged crime here, for which she needed to show ID? Is kissing illegal now?</p>
<p>Indecent exposure. A resident called in a complaint. </p>
<p>But she was not indecently exposed.</p>
<p>The couple was reportedly making out in a Silver Mercedes with the door open when someone reported indecent exposure or sex on the street or whatever. Cops asked the couple for ID’s and she refused for some reason and then ranted about racism on Facebook. LAPD says there was no arrest. </p>
<p>How horrible. They are married and yet they suspected she was a prostitute. Because prostitutes always dress like cute, elfin children and enthusiastically kiss their clients? Not only racist but stupid. </p>
<p>Well, she says they suspected she was a prostitute. They say they asked for identification and she refused to get off the phone and cooperate. </p>
<p>Unless there has been a reversal or a new ruling, didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court hold that police cannot compel citizens to identify themselves when there is no explicit indication of a crime?</p>
<p>Wow. This one is pretty bad. I doubt many sex workers kiss their johns because it is a business arrangement not a romantic relationship. So why would the cops as for ID? This makes no sense and the cops better have a good explanation. </p>
<p>^I agree, razorsharp. </p>
<p>actingmt, should we all warn our teenagers never to make out in public with their boyfriends/girlfriends–you know, because it might look like prostitution? </p>
<p>Also, your defense of the cops makes no sense at all. If they were two people engaged in an illegal act, why would they do it in plain view–and broad daylight–with the car doors open?</p>
<p>What? I’m not defending anyone. I answered a question about what the cops say happened. I do think if they ask for ID it would be a good idea to show it. They say they had the right to ask under the penal code after the lewd conduct complaint. The chef/husband or boyfriend showed his, btw. She was put in the cop car until they figured out who she was. Also in photos the cops are looking at her as though she is a nut while she cries for the camera. Yes, I’m skeptical.</p>
<p>I wonder what the caller who called in the ‘indecent exposure’ said she saw? Maybe it’s an area known for hookers, I don’t know. I do know that it was over 90 and no one is going to be doing a sex act in a car for any length of time in this kind of heat.</p>
<p>It’s Studio City. And, yeah, hookers are in plentiful supply in that area . My sister was mistaken for a hooker there some years ago. She’s not black, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no law requiring anyone to show ID.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Studio City?</p>
<p>More detailed article: <a href=“Daniele Watts: Django Unchained actor alleges racial bias after being held by LA police | Race | The Guardian”>http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/django-unchained-actor-alleges-racial-bias-arrest-los-angeles</a></p>
<p>The photos of her crying do look a little odd, but I am not sure how faking this would advance her career. For what it is worth, she is a terrible actor. I guess she needs all the help she can get. </p>
<p>I don’t know Calif law but I think the police have to have some legitimate reason to ask for ID and if they can’t prove one, they should get in trouble.</p>
<p>California Penal Code 647 </p>