|
twodot posted:Probable cause its not the required burden for a Terry stop. Reasonable suspicion is, probable cause is the burden to arrest or search someone. I think there's a valid argument for there not existing reasonable suspicion, but we have to get our facts in order first. The tip provides reasonable suspicion for the initial stop ("questioning persons matching description"). edit: I actually think it's not clear that the uncorroborated tip provides reasonable suspicion for the initial stop either. Refusing to provide ID does not constitute a reasonable suspicion. In fact, ignoring a request for ID and leaving does not constitute a reasonable suspicion. No other facts asserted by the police provide reasonable suspicion for continued detention after the ID question had been answered ("No" is a lawful and acceptable answer that cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion). Specifically, the police do not assert that they forcibly detained for any other reason than verifying ID. Because this was not a "stop and frisk" Terry stop, there can be no other grounds for continued detention, because the only allowed rationale for the detention caused by a stop and frisk is a surface weapons search. The police do not allege that they had reasonable suspicion to perform such a search. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Sep 16, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Pohl posted:He likes the fact that police can lie to you and issue orders that are not legal. He isn't talking about legality, for him, it is about a pedantic use of language. We all know what the previous poster was talking about, but twodot has to insist that the language is wrong, because it is not illegal for the cops to ask for ID. He doesn't care that they are able to lie and manipulate people, he is only worried about the use of language when we talk about the situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm specifically talking about legality, which is why I responded to the post saying the police did something illegal. It turns out that when talking about legality, words and facts matter. I'm ok with police being able to issue orders you are not legally required to follow (I can do that too), issuing orders that are illegal to order are of course bad. You don't care about legality, because the police gave her an unlawful order, which she declined, and then they used that as an excuse to detain her. This is something you support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Welp, looks like the police is trolling the actress pretty hard. Conveniently, the bodycam didn't experience a massive failure!LA Weekly posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Welp, looks like the police is trolling the actress pretty hard. Conveniently, the bodycam didn't experience a massive failure! OK, now the police are alleging that they had probable cause (for "lewd acts", not prostitution). Different ballgame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:OK, now the police are alleging that they had probable cause (for "lewd acts", not prostitution). Different ballgame. Except they didn't because they also claim showing ID would be enough to set her free. How would ID resolve the lewd acts accusation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Except they didn't because they also claim showing ID would be enough to set her free. How would ID resolve the lewd acts accusation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
The police are citing probable cause based on the phone call and the officer's description of them actually having sex, wiping off and depositing a rag on the ground. Like it or not, unless someone has video evidence to the contrary, that's the end of it. Can we shut up about this now?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:OK, now the police are alleging that they had probable cause (for "lewd acts", not prostitution). Different ballgame. So the police are insisting that she wouldn't identify herself now? Not showing ID does not mean you refuse to identify yourself. poo poo, she even tried to have the officer talk to her father on the phone. She brought up the fact that she was an actress and had a publicist... she wasn't complying, however, which makes her guilty. bassguitarhero posted:Can we shut up about this now? Yeah, sorry. I won't contribute to the derail anymore. Pohl fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:The police are citing probable cause based on the phone call and the officer's description of them actually having sex, wiping off and depositing a rag on the ground. Like it or not, unless someone has video evidence to the contrary, that's the end of it. Can we shut up about this now? The police imply a lot of things in a lot of cases
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:The police are citing probable cause based on the phone call and the officer's description of them actually having sex, wiping off and depositing a rag on the ground. Like it or not, unless someone has video evidence to the contrary, that's the end of it. Can we shut up about this now? The officer does not allege that he witnessed this behavior. The caller described this (and based on the account it is not clear whether the caller initially described this to dispatch or only later after being questioned by police). edit: Once again, uncorroborated tips do not constitute probable cause to believe that a crime has occurred, either for lewd acts or anything else. If the officer did not witness lewd acts by the couple in his presence then he did not have probable cause. edit2: Let's assume that the lewd acts occurred and that the caller witnessed them. 1. The call, with accurate descriptions of the individuals, provides reasonable suspicion. 2. The police officer may reasonable approach and ask the persons to identify themselves. 3. Providing only a verbal answer is sufficient. The content of this answer is irrelevant (even if it is a lie). 4. The police officer may also ask for ID (it is not unlawful for the police to ask for it). 5. It is lawful for the detainee to refuse to provide the ID when asked. 6. It is not lawful to further detain after the question is answered (content of the answer is irrelevant). So IMO this all revolves around whether the officer actually had probable cause like he claims. If he did, then he could have arrested her. Because he did not do so, I think that's pretty strong evidence that he did not have probable cause, despite his claims to the contrary. It appears that he was using a false claim of having probable cause (which means: "I have the right to lawfully arrest you right now") to intimidate her into providing ID. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
temple posted:He didn't ask for proof that she wasn't a prostitute. He asked for her ID. That's not how human interaction works, especially for a professional. If you have special legal powers granted to you by legislation, ethical rules laid out by related legislation govern how you use those powers. That this is not the case in practice in a profession as fundamental as law enforcement is indicative of a deeply sick society, and makes a mockery of the idea that conservatives are motivated by respect for the fundamental institutions of Western society and their underlying principles. quote:She was detained, not arrested. The difference between the two is not significant enough to matter in this case. quote:I really think I've made this point clear time and time again. That you prefer to bury your head in pedantic hair-splitting to taking the idea that racism is actually wrong seriously. That's what I'm getting out of this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:The officer does not allege that he witnessed this behavior. The caller described this (and based on the account it is not clear whether the caller initially described this to dispatch or only later after being questioned by police). Hodgepodge posted:That's not how human interaction works, especially for a professional. If you have special legal powers granted to you by legislation, ethical rules laid out by related legislation govern how you use those powers. That this is not the case in practice in a profession as fundamental as law enforcement is indicative of a deeply sick society, and makes a mockery of the idea that conservatives are motivated by respect for the fundamental institutions of Western society and their underlying principles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:6. It is not lawful to further detain after the question is answered (content of the answer is irrelevant). Pohl posted:You don't care about legality, because the police gave her an unlawful order, which she declined, and then they used that as an excuse to detain her. This is something you support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:So you think that police offers are powerless to see that no sexual activity appeared to be taking place outside of social norms (ie, kissing) and consider the idea that the call may have been inaccurate? Establishing whether the call was accurate or not was the purpose of talking to Watts and her husband and checking their IDs, right? Hodgepodge posted:Unless you made assumptions based on the race of one or more of the couple. D&D.txt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
temple posted:He has the right to detain to question. Probable cause is about arresting someone. She was not being arrested. He had reasonable suspicion she had committed a crime. So he questioned her. Obtaining her identity was important information to the investigation. He had the ability to detain her until he could confirm her identity for a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:D&D.txt. "Hey you have stupid naive opinions about racism"  "Heh, what a bunch of message board nerds"LOL you are not even trying here, dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:D&D.txt. This is the second time you move made this joke in as many pages. It wasn't half as witty as you thought it was then, and it's even less so now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
bassguitarhero posted:The police are citing probable cause based on the phone call and the officer's description of them actually having sex, wiping off and depositing a rag on the ground. Like it or not, unless someone has video evidence to the contrary, that's the end of it. Can we shut up about this now? So I'm assuming the plan for the moving of the Grand Jury case is to literally hope they can freeze out any protestors, right? Is there any other possible reason for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
"Prejudice is real" - D&D
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So I'm assuming the plan for the moving of the Grand Jury case is to literally hope they can freeze out any protestors, right? Is there any other possible reason for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So I'm assuming the plan for the moving of the Grand Jury case is to literally hope they can freeze out any protestors, right? Is there any other possible reason for it? That's pretty much all there is to it. Put the grand jury results after the election and in the middle of the cold season. That way if the grand jury spikes it you'll have frozen out most of the anger. There's no way it should take that long to compile a case when you have that many eye witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is the second time you move made this joke in as many pages. It wasn't half as witty as you thought it was then, and it's even less so now. If you want, just read it as this: Not every interaction between a black person and ______ is because of racism and claiming racism when the facts or the law suggest otherwise degrades the quality of the discussion and makes it hard to take you all seriously - you sound just like the tumblr SJW's you mock in other contexts. There's plenty of actual racism to get incensed about so LOL at _______ who is all butthurt about _______ and at the circle jerk that has developed without anyone stopping to question whether it's worth getting worked up about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Nothing was moved, the grand jury's term was extended. Which may really be because someone thought they wouldn't finish during the original term. Exactly how long do you think they need?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you want, just read it as this: Nah, I'm just going to read it as shorthand for how you're an unfunny idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about but damned if you aren't gonna whitesplain it to people anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Not every interaction between a black person and ______ is because of racism and claiming racism when ... the law suggest otherwise
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:whitesplain Can you do this somewhere else thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
temple posted:He has the right to detain to question. Probable cause is about arresting someone. She was not being arrested. He had reasonable suspicion she had committed a crime. So he questioned her. Obtaining her identity was important information to the investigation. He had the ability to detain her until he could confirm her identity for a reasonable amount of time. On grounds of reasonable suspicion he has the right to detain her to ask for ID, but does not have the right to continue to detain her if she declines to provide the ID. In the recording, the officer specifically claims that he has probable cause, and that this required her to provide ID. If he really had probable cause then he had the right to detain or arrest her if she refused to provide it. He detained, but did not arrest her. So once again the question is: did he have probable cause as he claimed or was he claiming to have probable cause in order to coerce her into providing her ID? twodot posted:I still have an issue here, of course it's not lawful to detain someone based solely on the content of the answer, but asking the question doesn't invalidate other reasons for being allowed to detain someone (it's fine to argue those other reasons didn't exist, or that the length of the detention wasn't justified by those other factors, but this bullet point isn't doing either of those). I am only arguing that absent other evidence at the scene that could provide probable cause, merely declining to provide ID cannot in itself provide it. Never mind that the officer claimed that he already had probable cause. edit: It certainly seems prudent for police officers not to claim probable cause if they don't have it. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ amanasleep fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
If a police offer says the words "probable cause" then that means he has it. Click here to find out this one weird trick that black people hate!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Neo Duckberg posted:Can you do this somewhere else thanks. I can't imagine a place where it would be more appropriately used than this thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Nah, I'm just going to read it as shorthand for how you're an unfunny idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about but damned if you aren't gonna whitesplain it to people anyway. Letting things like "facts" and "laws" get in the way of someone's indignant rant about SOCIAL JUSTICE: whitesplaining.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Letting things like "facts" and "laws" get in the way of someone's indignant rant about SOCIAL JUSTICE: whitesplaining. Social justice: Something that is independent of laws, facts, and people laughing at white people telling minorities what it's like to be a minority. Tell us how you feel about Political Correctness. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I can't imagine a place where it would be more appropriately used than this thread. I can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Social justice: Something that is independent of laws, facts, and people laughing at white people telling minorities what it's like to be a minority. Who's telling minorities what it's like to be a minority, Mr. Whitest-Man-In-This-Thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Neo Duckberg posted:I can. Seriously dude? It's a pretty appropriate term and if you're just kneejerking about "SJWs" or whatever that's pretty dumb. wateroverfire posted:Who's telling minorities what it's like to be a minority, Mr. Whitest-Man-In-This-Thread? I glow in the dark but I'm also not making GBS threads on the idea of social justice, so where are you going with this? Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Who's telling minorities what it's like to be a minority, Mr. Whitest-Man-In-This-Thread? Its ok he beats a black person just like the police do, he knows what they want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
could someone tell me why the cops needed to identify her still if her husband was free to go? if they concede her husband is not a john, then how can they suspect she's a prostitute. if her husband is not charged with whatever you get charged with for having sex in public, how could she be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:could someone tell me why the cops needed to identify her still if her husband was free to go? if they concede her husband is not a john, then how can they suspect she's a prostitute. if her husband is not charged with whatever you get charged with for having sex in public, how could she be? To hassle her because they realized they hosed up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Its ok he beats a black person just like the police do, he knows what they want. This is really loving stupid. His consensual sex life has nothing to do with anything, but somehow it has become a thing in D&D to bring it up anytime he posts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:37 |
|
|
Neo Duckberg posted:Can you do this somewhere else thanks. You know this really is a thing, and the post he quoted is a perfect example of it. Apparently, black people don't know what real racism is or something and he has to explain it to us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:37
|
|
