LAPD Confuses Woman Kissing Husband for Prostitue, Arrests Her
124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45980909]Once again, its your fucking ID.
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
What are you talking about? State laws are applicable to you just when your in the state.[/QUOTE]
no, they're not. I don't really care to explain why, because it would just lead to an unnecessary argument that would leave you pretty much unconvinced unless you took the time to look into it yourself. But, think about this, if the laws already apply to you, why do you have to sign a contract that says you'll comply with said laws?
[QUOTE=3picFail;45981083]no, they're not. I don't really care to explain why, because it would just lead to an unnecessary argument that would leave you pretty much unconvinced unless you took the time to look into it yourself. But, think about this, if the laws already apply to you, why do you have to sign a contract that says you'll comply with said laws?[/QUOTE]
Are you high?
[QUOTE=Bridger;45981113]Are you high?[/QUOTE]
High on freedom!
But seriously, I've taken interest in how laws work, and how backwards modern law is in comparison to the constitutionand the ideals that America was founded on. Like I said before, its a lot of knowledge amd effort, but if you know your rights, the way you look at laws will change forever.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45981022]Hence why she was detained, not jailed. They needed her ID for investigating to see if they really were married through records, but they refused to. Do any of you know basic police procedure at all?[/QUOTE]
They were detained because the officers thought a crime was being committed. They weren't detained because they needed to prove that they're married, they were detained because the officers were soliciting information. They didn't see anything wrong being done, they were actively looking for something to be wrong. Is that was police procedure is?
Why are you so against someone exercising their rights? People tend to forget why the police exist, to serve us.
[QUOTE=3picFail;45981083]no, they're not. I don't really care to explain why, because it would just lead to an unnecessary argument that would leave you pretty much unconvinced unless you took the time to look into it yourself. But, think about this, if the laws already apply to you, why do you have to sign a contract that says you'll comply with said laws?[/QUOTE]
Please try to explain it to me.
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=3picFail;45981271]High on freedom!
But seriously, I've taken interest in how laws work, and how backwards modern law is in comparison to the constitutionand the ideals that America was founded on. Like I said before, its a lot of knowledge amd effort, but if you know your rights, the way you look at laws will change forever.
[/QUOTE]
I feel like you've looked at a bunch of bs websites.
[QUOTE=3picFail;45981271]
They were detained because the officers thought a crime was being committed. They weren't detained because they needed to prove that they're married, they were detained because the officers were soliciting information. They didn't see anything wrong being done, they were actively looking for something to be wrong. Is that was police procedure is?
Why are you so against someone exercising their rights? People tend to forget why the police exist, to serve us.[/QUOTE]
They didn't know if a crime was taking place so they where investigating, that's kinda how it works.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45981293]Please try to explain it to me.
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
I feel like you've looked at a bunch of bs websites.
They didn't know if a crime was taking place so they where investigating, that's kinda how it works.[/QUOTE]
Google bill thornton. There are hours and hours of lectures by this highly regarded professor. Whether listening to them is worth your time or not is up to you.
And the answer to the last question biols down to nobody was being hurt, so why were officers whose job is to serve and protect involving themselves?
[QUOTE=3picFail;45981359]Google bill thornton. There are hours and hours of lectures by this highly regarded professor. Whether listening to them is worth your time or not is up to you.
[B]And the answer to the last question biols down to nobody was being hurt, so why were officers whose job is to serve and protect involving themselves?[/B][/QUOTE]
Because prostitution is against the law, you know the thing they are supposed to be serving for? They had two suspects that were suspected for prostitution and soliciting sex, they were asked for ID to find out if they really were married (which is a very common lie to try to get away with) and they refused. So to investigate they detained them and took their fingerprints, load them into the database, and let them go finding out they were married after all. If they gave their IDs, he would go to his car, run the IDs in the databases, find out they are married, then he would let them on their way. Believe it or not, the government keeps tabs to know if you're married to someone or not.
lol dude if they were going to lie they'd just say they are dating not married
[QUOTE=3picFail;45981359]Google bill thornton. There are hours and hours of lectures by this highly regarded professor. Whether listening to them is worth your time or not is up to you.
And the answer to the last question biols down to nobody was being hurt, so why were officers whose job is to serve and protect involving themselves?[/QUOTE]
He sounds like a nut if he says state law doesn't apply to those in the state.
And your sounding like a nut too, police investigate crime, regardless if it was violent or not. Even a third grader knows that.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45981577]lol dude if they were going to lie they'd just say they are dating not married[/QUOTE]
That doesn't help your point since the police had a sure fire way to prove they were telling the truth by just pulling up their information in like 30 seconds if they gave their IDs. Stop acting like the cop is apparently a pig because hes following fucking protocol.
The only people who should feel guilty are the people who refused to let the police use their IDs since they are the ones who got themselves into this mess in the first place.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;45981615]He sounds like a nut if he says state law doesn't apply to those in the state.
And your sounding like a nut too, police investigate crime, regardless if it was violent or not. Even a third grader knows that.[/QUOTE]
Are we forgetting that there was no crime committed?
And of course I sound like a nutcase, I'm presenting things that are outside of the norm, challenging standard (uneducated) knowledge. No, Bill Thornton is not a nutcase. Apparently you didn't google him. The idea behind state laws applying to oneself comes from our sovereignity (bare with me, try being objective and give his lectures a chance if you really want to debunk my argument). Just in case you tag him as a typical "muh sovereign, muh freedom" american without giving him a chance, I'll just let you know now thay he has proven himself in practicing law, and is well vetted.
Once again, if you aren't willing to look at this objectively, then there really isn't more to discuss. Sorry for troubling everyone. Just one last point, to try to give some insight as to why I'm arguing with such outrageous principals.
Both parties are at fault here. The officers were just doing their job, but not very well if they see people kissing and think a crime is being committed (who pays for kissing lol). On the other hand the couple could have just provided the required information and would have been well. The situation was simply that of a bunch of people being wrong. So why would I take a side? Officers contract themselves to upholding the law, unlike the people, and I feel like many of them do so inadequately, and evem when their job is done correctly, sometimes no one is really being helped and more harm is being done than npt. What if she was a prostitue? Jailtime, fines, bullshit from doing something where no one was being wronged.
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45981750]That doesn't help your point since the police had a sure fire way to prove they were telling the truth by just pulling up their information in like 30 seconds if they gave their IDs. Stop acting like the cop is apparently a pig because hes following fucking protocol.
The only people who should feel guilty are the people who refused to let the police use their IDs since they are the ones who got themselves into this mess in the first place.[/QUOTE]
So they should have to comply and show ID even though there is no lawful obligation for the people to have one? Whatif they legitimately did not have IDs, and were unable to comply entirely? Should they be arrested? Should yhey have to go out of their way to find a way to prove themselves?
sounds pretty dystopian, almost like the guilty until proven innocent standard that our justice system was created to be the exact opposite of. I know I said I was done, but you've been saying the same thing over and over to the same people, so a few what ifs might lead to new discussion.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45981750]That doesn't help your point since the police had a sure fire way to prove they were telling the truth by just pulling up their information in like 30 seconds if they gave their IDs. Stop acting like the cop is apparently a pig because hes following fucking protocol.
The only people who should feel guilty are the people who refused to let the police use their IDs since they are the ones who got themselves into this mess in the first place.[/QUOTE]
they applied handcuffs so tight her wrist bled to investigate a victimless sex crime that didn't exist
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45982157]they applied handcuffs so tight her wrist bled to investigate a victimless sex crime that didn't exist[/QUOTE]
It was a little scratch
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45982157]they applied handcuffs so tight her wrist bled to investigate a victimless sex crime that didn't exist[/QUOTE]
its still a crime, just like smoking pot, jaywalking, loitering, pirating, ect. Plus it was a little scratch which is normal for most handcuffs.
Still the people's fault for justn ot handing over their ID and getting it sorted out instantly.
What's so difficult about showing your ID? When you refuse you're basically asking for attention/trouble. You guys are such little angsty shits who think being asked for your ID is the equivalent of living in 1984.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45982285]its still a crime, just like smoking pot, jaywalking, loitering, pirating, ect. Plus it was a little scratch which is normal for most handcuffs.
Still the people's fault for justn ot handing over their ID and getting it sorted out instantly.[/QUOTE]
Except you are missing a huge part of this.
That if the woman was white there was a 99.99% chance that this whole thing would never have happened.
You say, oh they should just turn over their ID, its not that hard. The issue isn't about how hard it is to get your ID out. The issue is people getting accused of crimes for no reason, especially minorities, and having to deal with it. Even if she had showed them her ID, that doesn't necessarily mean that incident or other incidents would just end.
Should she have to prove she isn't a prostitute to every officer that thinks she is?
[QUOTE=Valnar;45982539]Except you are missing a huge part of this.
That if the woman was white there was a 99.99% chance that this whole thing would never have happened.
You say, oh they should just turn over their ID, its not that hard. The issue isn't about how hard it is to get your ID out. The issue is people getting accused of crimes for no reason, especially minorities, and having to deal with it. Even if she had showed them her ID, that doesn't necessarily mean that incident or other incidents would just end.
Should she have to prove she isn't a prostitute to every officer that thinks she is?[/QUOTE]
How sure are you this is racially charged? Or are you just buying into the whole race bullshit the media created? The damn officer talking to her is Hispanic.
[QUOTE=Valnar;45982539]Except you are missing a huge part of this.
That if the woman was white there was a 99.99% chance that this whole thing would never have happened.
You say, oh they should just turn over their ID, its not that hard. The issue isn't about how hard it is to get your ID out. The issue is people getting accused of crimes for no reason, especially minorities, and having to deal with it. Even if she had showed them her ID, that doesn't necessarily mean that incident or other incidents would just end.
Should she have to prove she isn't a prostitute to every officer that thinks she is?[/QUOTE]
I don't think race has really anything to do with it. It could've been an area where prostitution is a recurring problem.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;45982609]The damn officer talking to her is Hispanic.[/QUOTE]
Where have I heard that one before?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;45982609]How sure are you this is racially charged? Or are you just buying into the whole race bullshit the media created? The damn officer talking to her is Hispanic.[/QUOTE]
Officer doesn't matter. The guy who called the cops probably explicitly told them she was a prostitute, which could have easily been racially motivated
[QUOTE=zakedodead;45982752]Where have I heard that one before?[/QUOTE]
No where because Zimmerman wasn't an officer?
[editline]14th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;45982798]Officer doesn't matter. The guy who called the cops probably explicitly told them she was a prostitute, which could have easily been racially motivated[/QUOTE]
that makes zero fucking sense because the officer is the one who is doing the arresting and if they would have given their fucking IDs to begin with, nothing would happen.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;45982803]that makes zero fucking sense because the officer is the one who is doing the arresting and if they would have given their fucking IDs to begin with, [B]nothing would happen[/B].[/QUOTE]
What makes you so sure that handing over her ID would have been the end of it? Police must have probable cause to even begin investigation, and yes, getting people's ID IS investigation.
[QUOTE=Dukov Traboski;45975294]You still haven't answered the question, what do they have to lose from showing them the ID and what do they have to gain from withholding it?
I honestly can't see a reason for someone to withhold it.[/QUOTE]
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th Amendment US Constitution
Police must be able to establish probable cause before they can demand anything of you. They can ask you questions but you have absolutely no obligation to tell them anything and not telling them anything [B]does not constitute probable cause[/B] because you have that right to privacy.
The police (and everyone else for that matter) have no right to anything that you possess and acquiring it against your will without probable cause is illegal.
why the fuck are you guys arguing over they needed the id to prove marriage or anytime of long term history between the two?
What if they just starting dating? What if they were just hanging out and decided to kiss? Do you need to be married to kiss someone in california?
ID's don't prove shit, it's just a way for police to force authority onto you. Asking for ID isn't valid unless there is a dead fucking body on the ground.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;45982609]How sure are you this is racially charged? Or are you just buying into the whole race bullshit the media created? The damn officer talking to her is Hispanic.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously saying you need to be white to be a racist? Now that is pretty fucking racist.
[QUOTE=3picFail;45981866]some guy advertising for a nutjob[/QUOTE]
looked up Bill Thorton, in short,
[img]http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/uQSQE0_Qe3k/0.jpg[/img]
this is him and this
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5293778/BillThortonWebsite.png[/t]
is his website.
If you believe [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law"]common law[/URL] allows you to ignore the law of the state in which you live, you are an idiot. I don't have time to argue with idiots.
[QUOTE=Crimor;45983976]Are you seriously saying you need to be white to be a racist? Now that is pretty fucking racist.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman[/url]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;45984645][url]https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman[/url][/QUOTE]
What was the reasoning behind you mentioning the race of the officer while you were saying it couldn't have been racially charged then?
[QUOTE=Crimor;45985078]What was the reasoning behind you mentioning the race of the officer while you were saying it couldn't have been racially charged then?[/QUOTE]
The Officer being Hispanic makes it much less likey that there's some Caucasian bias like the user above mentioned.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45983754]What makes you so sure that handing over her ID would have been the end of it? Police must have probable cause to even begin investigation, and yes, getting people's ID IS investigation.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - 4th Amendment US Constitution
Police must be able to establish probable cause before they can demand anything of you. They can ask you questions but you have absolutely no obligation to tell them anything and not telling them anything [B]does not constitute probable cause[/B] because you have that right to privacy.
The police (and everyone else for that matter) have no right to anything that you possess and acquiring it against your will without probable cause is illegal.[/QUOTE]
They were called for prostitution by some nutjob in the first place. So when a cop came to investigate it he was told they were married. All they had to do was give their IDs for him to look it up to see if it was true by their records and they would be free to go. They didn't want to show ID so he was forced to detain them and find out if they really were married. Dont be so fucking stupid about this and just think for five seconds by using common sense.
[editline]15th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;45983808]why the fuck are you guys arguing over they needed the id to prove marriage or anytime of long term history between the two?
What if they just starting dating? What if they were just hanging out and decided to kiss? Do you need to be married to kiss someone in california?
ID's don't prove shit, it's just a way for police to force authority onto you. Asking for ID isn't valid unless there is a dead fucking body on the ground.[/QUOTE]
Except ID has always been one of the questions cops ask first to make sure you're not a dangerous person or wanted when suspected of a crime. Thank god you didnt make it far in politics.
[QUOTE=CubeManv2;45983808]why the fuck are you guys arguing over they needed the id to prove marriage or anytime of long term history between the two?
What if they just starting dating? What if they were just hanging out and decided to kiss? Do you need to be married to kiss someone in california?
ID's don't prove shit, it's just a way for police to force authority onto you. Asking for ID isn't valid unless there is a dead fucking body on the ground.[/QUOTE]
Cop: "Sir, can I see some ID?" Civilian: "Excuse me Mr. Jackboot government thug but I don't see a dead body on the ground, do you??? "
Apparently police do have the right to see your ID if they suspect a crime is taking place. The police where also responding to a call that lewd acts where taking place in their car.
If you listen to the recording its apparent she is just upset she is being questioned, its totally overblown.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.