Black actress says police handcuffed, detained her on suspicion of prostitution for kissing white boyfriend

An actor who starred in the Oscar-winning movie Django Unchained has claimed she was handcuffed and detained by police officers in Los Angeles who assumed she was a prostitute, because she was kissing her white partner in his car.

Daniele Watts, who is black and who played the slave CoCo in Quentin Tarantino’s acclaimed 2012 film, said she was “humiliated” by the incident, which she said occurred in the Studio City neighbourhood on Thursday.

The Los Angeles police department at first said it had no record of the incident, because no arrest was made. On Sunday a spokeswoman told the Guardian: “We are looking into it and hope to have more information possibly on Monday.”

Watts posted photographs of the encounter on her Facebook page, one highlighting a bloody injury to her wrist she said was caused by handcuffs, another showing the actor in tears, standing next to a low wall with her hands restrained behind her back and an officer questioning her.

veya_victaous wrote:Saw this and why do cops in America act like "Guilty Criminal with out rights unless proven otherwise and even then your a criminal for making me mistaken." for everyone (see Swatting vid) I know it is worse for blacks because racism but Jesus what you all accept is ridiculous.

Tommy Monk wrote:It has been reported that she and her fella were having sex in The car.......



But why let the truth get in The way of a good "is it cos I is black?" story...!?



She tried pulling the race card as well as the old "do you know who I am?" bullshit too apparently....

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Saw this and why do cops in America act like "Guilty Criminal with out rights unless proven otherwise and even then your a criminal for making me mistaken." for everyone (see Swatting vid) I know it is worse for blacks because racism but Jesus what you all accept is ridiculous.

Why do you pose the question and then proceed to exclude the most obvious answer?

This is an unadorned case of racism, plain and simple.  Profiling isn’t just an evil when it’s on the program agenda; it goes on in the tiny crevices of every cop’s mind, every day.

victorisnotamused wrote:I'd rather believe her version of the events, which it appears confirms that in fact she was arrested for failing to give I.D

reading the report on sky news site it seems she refused to do so (as required in LA) and then cam with the "cos I is black" and then with the "do you know who I am" and "I'm gonna make a scene" lark.

In other words another with a chip on her shoulder and far too big ideas of her own over stuffed importance.

all this crap about "I have the power " etc

well she got her come uppance, how much easier would it have been to give the cop some form of ID without all that bull shit.

the cops over here can ask anyone any time to prove who they are with due reason (and THAT can include walking down the road late at night) and they can detain you until you do so properly.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:I'd rather believe her version of the events, which it appears confirms that in fact she was arrested for failing to give I.D

reading the report on sky news site it seems she refused to do so (as required in LA) and then cam with the "cos I is black" and then with the "do you know who I am" and "I'm gonna make a scene" lark.

In other words another with a chip on her shoulder and far too big ideas of her own over stuffed importance.

all this crap about "I have the power " etc

well she got her come uppance, how much easier would it have been to give the cop some form of ID without all that bull shit.

the cops over here can ask anyone any time to prove who they are with due reason (and THAT can include walking down the road late at night) and they can detain you until you do so properly.

Here the constitution trumps all state or municipal requirements, and to the very best of my knowledge there is no constitutional basis for requiring a U.S. citizen to carry I.D. at all times or to produce it when police demand.

Also, if you read so carefully, how'd you miss the fact that she wasn't actually arrested?

Original Quill wrote:The first thing that comes to mind is that this is LA...the most notorious city for police misconduct in the world.  The second thing is the police officer knew he was being taped...probably from the cop's person cam; that's why he is bringing up his excuse, but not inventing 'resisting arrest' stories per usual.  The third thing is, the crime story sounds faked.  Oscar-winning actresses usually have homes, and don't have to use vehicles (I know, I've used one when I lived at home...lol.).  And note, they didn't press charges.

The reason why the race card comes up is...umm, is it called Ferguson, Mo?  It's an old story.  The two cities with a history of police/race incidents are Los Angeles and Oakland.  Oakland PD is currently in Federal Receivership because of the lawsuits.  LA is the same.  Why, the cop who arrested OJ was kicked off the force for a racial lie.

And no...there is no law mandating one has to carry ID, in California or anywhere else.  I have personally backed down cops on that one.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
It has been reported that she and her fella were having sex in The car.......

But why let the truth get in The way of a good "is it cos I is black?" story...!?

She tried pulling the race card as well as the old "do you know who I am?" bullshit too apparently....

Reported where? And why do you choose to believe that story over her own version of events?

victorisnotamused wrote:.................................

the cops over here can ask anyone any time to prove who they are with due reason (and THAT can include walking down the road late at night) and they can detain you until you do so properly.

veya_victaous wrote:....................................

I meant.. I know the Black People are getting the worst of it for that reason...
But even the way they treat Whites is Pretty much in the same same vein although marginally less violent, it is still way more violent I would expect of police officer here.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The first thing that comes to mind is that this is LA...the most notorious city for police misconduct in the world.  The second thing is the police officer knew he was being taped...probably from the cop's person cam; that's why he is bringing up his excuse, but not inventing 'resisting arrest' stories per usual.  The third thing is, the crime story sounds faked.  Oscar-winning actresses usually have homes, and don't have to use vehicles (I know, I've used one when I lived at home...lol.).  And note, they didn't press charges.

The reason why the race card comes up is...umm, is it called Ferguson, Mo?  It's an old story.  The two cities with a history of police/race incidents are Los Angeles and Oakland.  Oakland PD is currently in Federal Receivership because of the lawsuits.  LA is the same.  Why, the cop who arrested OJ was kicked off the force for a racial lie.

And no...there is no law mandating one has to carry ID, in California or anywhere else.  I have personally backed down cops on that one.

All circumstantial your reply, based off now a Police record for LA, that would not even stand up in court, if you were to use that as evidence and in this case here there was reports and complaints, and like any other law abiding citizen and the question you are not answering is why did she refuse to show her ID?
I am against discrimination, but because of countless discrimination, does this justify her refusing showing her identity because she is black, because in reverse here, this is why she refused, because she perceived wrongly she was being victimized, when both of them were questioned in regards to complaints.

You can go on about previous cases, but this case stands on the merits alone, where this all could have been avoided if she had shown her ID, she refused, and nobody is above the law.

Didge wrote:Hi Quill

I am well aware of the poor problems of discrimination against Blacks in America, but that is diverting from the points of the case, here, where nothing is actually pointing to this being discrimination, based on the audio recording witch has been authenticated. You cannot base your case here o previous cases of discrimination, if you cannot point out any fault in what the Officer did?

That is your first dilemma, did he follow protocol?

Yes

Second, did he specifically pick her out only?

No

They were both pulled up based on complaints. Now it speaks more volumes to me, she as a Celebrity was caught out being naughty in the car and she did not go to the press but FB, which is odd, surely if you felt so strongly, you would go to the press, which says to me damage limitation on her part as a celebrity. The reality is I see no indication this had anything to do with race, until she made it about race.

So o all your points, you are in fact ignoring all the points of the case, to me, she was playing hanky panky, got caught out, of which the officer had no interest in making any arrests and thus turns it into a racial issue, to deflect from the fact of the more interesting gossip story of her having sex in her car with her husband, which has as seen clearly so far worked, because as of yet she has failed to comment on the audio.

ACLU wrote:
Racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Racial profiling disproportionately targets people of color for investigation and enforcement, alienating communities from law enforcement, hindering community policing efforts, and causing law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people they are sworn to protect and serve. We rely on the police to protect us from harm and to promote fairness and justice in our communities. The despicable practice of racial profiling, however, has led countless people to live in fear and created a system of law enforcement that casts entire communities as suspect.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Hi Quill

I am well aware of the poor problems of discrimination against Blacks in America, but that is diverting from the points of the case, here, where nothing is actually pointing to this being discrimination, based on the audio recording witch has been authenticated. You cannot base your case here o previous cases of discrimination, if you cannot point out any fault in what the Officer did?

That is your first dilemma, did he follow protocol?

Yes

Second, did he specifically pick her out only?

No

They were both pulled up based on complaints. Now it speaks more volumes to me, she as a Celebrity was caught out being naughty in the car and she did not go to the press but FB, which is odd, surely if you felt so strongly, you would go to the press, which says to me damage limitation on her part as a celebrity. The reality is I see no indication this had anything to do with race, until she made it about race.

So o all your points, you are in fact ignoring all the points of the case, to me, she was playing hanky panky, got caught out, of which the officer had no interest in making any arrests and thus turns it into a racial issue, to deflect from the fact of the more interesting gossip story of her having sex in her car with her husband, which has as seen clearly so far worked, because as of yet she has failed to comment on the audio.

You are making the same argument that all white people in America make.  That is, to deny a fact that is so obvious, that it might a well be presumed.  As the ACLU says:

ACLU wrote:
Racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution. Racial profiling disproportionately targets people of color for investigation and enforcement, alienating communities from law enforcement, hindering community policing efforts, and causing law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people they are sworn to protect and serve. We rely on the police to protect us from harm and to promote fairness and justice in our communities. The despicable practice of racial profiling, however, has led countless people to live in fear and created a system of law enforcement that casts entire communities as suspect.

In the face of reality, it becomes artificial to have this debate about race every time.  It should be presumed, as it is in employment discrimination cases.  Burdine v. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs, 450 U.S. 248 (1981).  Think of what they say every time: I know discrimination exists, I just don't think it's here.  If not here, where?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I've heard some of the voice recording of the incident now.

She definitely played the race and 'do you know who I am and what I can do' card. Shameful and is an insult to those who really surfer from Police racism.

There is a another racist query though: would the person who reported the incident have called the Police, if the couple were both white? It seems like 'the reporter' thought she was a prostitute because she was black and he was white.

Original Quill wrote:Are the demonstrations taking place in Ferguson, Mo motivated by guilt?  A Black male was murdered by a white cop.  Typical...typical.  When will it all end, Didge?
Irrelevant to this case, that is again a deflection from this case, where I have never denied i the case of Ferguson, to me it was racial i that instance, thus you are deflecting

You are arguing the trees, and denying the forests.  First, you accept the police version of events, even though there is a rule of evidence that a witness is a proven liar should establish a bias of presumption against him.  Second, the reason why the charges were dropped is that the case wouldn't/couldn't stick, and the cop knows it.  So now we hear the old schoolyard chant: [i]I was only kidding, anyway.
Incorrect, I have heard the recording, which has been authenticated, that was enough for me and anyone with common sense to see she was playing the race card. The reality is there was complaints, whether those complaints were mistaken in what they saw is another matter, what is not the case though is a Police officer in this instance investigating a complaint for then this actress to play the race card by refusing to cooperate. She has thus created the problem when  there was no need to which at every point you have ignored. I have also taken into account her version of the events and even there, she had no reason not to show her ID, that was poor on her part

This incident, in LA, is just more of the same as Ferguson...only it happens to a Black female, and one of means, no less.  White America should be ashamed...but to the contrary, they are actually out there claiming that it doesn't happen.  And can you believe it...some of them actually believe that sheit.
Again you are deflecting based on real racist events to claim the same, here with no evidence, sorry, but to me she damages such cases where there is real racism, by playing the race card as Zack pointed out, it damages such cases, because as seen there was no racial profiling here and it was her in fact that made it racial

Look at the forests, Didge: Discrimination in America actually happens.  That's the reality.  Of course, there's an excuse every time, in the trees.  But if you believe that excuse--and look, that's just what you are doing--you are not serious.
Yes I know it does happen in America, but that is not the bases for her defense here, when as seen you keep ignoring some basic facts. Was there a complaint? Yes. Did she cooperate? No, thus you are actually supporting someone who clearly has pulled the wool over your eyes, because again as seen you cannot even counter and back her view accept with deflection on the reality of poor discrimination in America, that is not valid, if you cannot prove anything and eve worse you are basing the fact thus every Officer who is white is racist, which would be absurd

If racism actually exists in America, all of these stories deserve at least a jaundiced look.  If not, forget it.  There is no racism in America, and we are all lilly-white...erm, without fault.

Original Quill wrote:Well, I can see my point isn't coming across.  Instead, we are polarizing.

So, we should move on.

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I've heard some of the voice recording of the incident now.

She definitely played the race and 'do you know who I am and what I can do' card. Shameful and is an insult to those who really surfer from Police racism.

There is a another racist query though: would the person who reported the incident have called the Police, if the couple were both white? It seems like 'the reporter' thought she was a prostitute because she was black and he was white.

Interesting point Zack and agree would the complaints have come if both were white?
Unlikely, but the Officer here is responding to a complaint which the caller or callers making the complaint could have had racial intent behind, with a racial stereotype of prostitutes.

eddie wrote:Okay, firstly, how graphic was this "display of affection" for it to upset a member of the public???
Not getting my head round that one tbh. Bet it was more than a kiss occurring in that car.

Secondly, why didn't the boyfriend say "Erm she's my girlfriend!" ??

All sounds a bit of an odd story to me and I'm betting there was more to it than meets the eye....

I'll bet they were displaying more than "affection" in that car....

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay, firstly, how graphic was this "display of affection" for it to upset a member of the public???
Not getting my head round that one tbh. Bet it was more than a kiss occurring in that car.

Secondly, why didn't the boyfriend say "Erm she's my girlfriend!" ??

All sounds a bit of an odd story to me and I'm betting there was more to it than meets the eye....

I'll bet they were displaying more than "affection" in that car....

The boyfriend showed his ID.

California has stop and identify laws, which means Watts was breaking the law by not complying.

Anyway, good publicity for her. Not sure she's done anything since Django.

I hope the cop is not fired or disciplined. He did nothing wrong.

Wiki wrote:"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in the United States that authorize police to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they do not.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating. The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.

eddie wrote:Okay, firstly, how graphic was this "display of affection" for it to upset a member of the public???
Not getting my head round that one tbh. Bet it was more than a kiss occurring in that car.

eddie wrote:Secondly, why didn't the boyfriend say "Erm she's my girlfriend!" ??

All sounds a bit of an odd story to me and I'm betting there was more to it than meets the eye....

I'll bet they were displaying more than "affection" in that car....

eddie wrote:Okay, firstly, how graphic was this "display of affection" for it to upset a member of the public???
Not getting my head round that one tbh. Bet it was more than a kiss occurring in that car.

Secondly, why didn't the boyfriend say "Erm she's my girlfriend!" ??

All sounds a bit of an odd story to me and I'm betting there was more to it than meets the eye....

I'll bet they were displaying more than "affection" in that car....

Didge wrote:Ignoring the facts again I see Quill, did you actually listen to the recording, as to every one it is obvious she created this situation.

Of course as already stated some of us also believe the complaints could be racial in intent, which nobody is denying, what is being denied by you that this woman played the race card, where there was no racial profiling, he was going to question a couple who matched the description of the complaint.

He is innocent of any wrong here, completely

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Ignoring the facts again I see Quill, did you actually listen to the recording, as to every one it is obvious she created this situation.

Of course as already stated some of us also believe the complaints could be racial in intent, which nobody is denying, what is being denied by you that this woman played the race card, where there was no racial profiling, he was going to question a couple who matched the description of the complaint.

He is innocent of any wrong here, completely

What you are doing, Didge, is what millions of white Americans do everyday.  Every presumption is against a Black person, especially a Black male.  In any Black/police confrontation, the Black man is always taken in for questioning.  After the fact, the police shrug and say 'we released him.'  Notice, that is the same sentiment offered by this cop, though he didn't actually take the young woman into custody; you can be sure that if it were an undistinguished male, he would have had a one-way ticket to the hoosegow.

Race is complex in the US.  There are open racists by the millions; then there are racist-sympathizers, who pretend to have no opinion on the subject, but always seem to find themselves sympathizing with the racists.  This thread is a classic example of the latter.

Original Quill wrote:"If you're black in America, race is a factor in your life. Start with that assumption."

–Henry Hampton

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:"If you're black in America, race is a factor in your life. Start with that assumption."

–Henry Hampton

Great and I respect that comment, how about sticking to the facts of this case.

So lets start at the basics.

Judging by these pictures, is it possible some thought they were having sex (it matters little if they were actually having sex, but if it could be construed that they were)?

Thus if your answer is yes which it has to be yes because people could view it that they were, then the Policeman did nothing wrong and there is no case for racism here and she should be ashamed of herrself for playing the race card thus damaging the validity of where others face real racism.

Anyway the first picture gives the game away this was more than kissing.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Great and I respect that comment, how about sticking to the facts of this case.

So lets start at the basics.

Judging by these pictures, is it possible some thought they were having sex (it matters little if they were actually having sex, but if it could be construed that they were)?

Thus if your answer is yes which it has to be yes because people could view it that they were, then the Policeman did nothing wrong and there is no case for racism here and she should be ashamed of herrself for playing the race card thus damaging the validity of where others face real racism.

Anyway the first picture gives the game away this was more than kissing.

As I said, I've a hunch these photos are fabrications.  Why else would they black out the license plate?

Moreover, I can see nothing going on in the photos.  Even if they are real, I don't see any skin, except of a side of a face and a lift arm.  Pffft...

As I say...

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

The boyfriend showed his ID.

California has stop and identify laws, which means Watts was breaking the law by not complying.

Anyway, good publicity for her. Not sure she's done anything since Django.

I hope the cop is not fired or disciplined. He did nothing wrong.

The quickest way to do this is with Wiki:

Wiki wrote:"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in the United States that authorize police to detain persons and request such persons to identify themselves, and arrest them if they do not.

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) established that it is constitutionally permissible for police to temporarily detain a person based on reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and to conduct a search for weapons based on a reasonable belief that the person is armed. The question whether it is constitutionally permissible for the police to demand that a detainee provide his or her name was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that the name disclosure did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Hiibel Court also held that, because Hiibel had no reasonable belief that his name would be used to incriminate him, the name disclosure did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination; however, the Court left open the possibility that Fifth Amendment right might apply in situations where there was a reasonable belief that giving a name could be incriminating. The Court accepted the Nevada supreme court's interpretation of the Nevada statute that a detained person could satisfy the Nevada law by simply stating his name. The Court did not rule on whether particular identification cards could be required, though it did mention one state's law requiring "credible and reliable" identification had been struck down for vagueness.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Ignoring the facts again I see Quill, did you actually listen to the recording, as to every one it is obvious she created this situation.

Of course as already stated some of us also believe the complaints could be racial in intent, which nobody is denying, what is being denied by you that this woman played the race card, where there was no racial profiling, he was going to question a couple who matched the description of the complaint.

He is innocent of any wrong here, completely

What you are doing, Didge, is what millions of white Americans do everyday.  Every presumption is against a Black person, especially a Black male.  In any Black/police confrontation, the Black man is always taken in for questioning.  After the fact, the police shrug and say 'we released him.'  Notice, that is the same sentiment offered by this cop, though he didn't actually take the young woman into custody; you can be sure that if it were an undistinguished male, he would have had a one-way ticket to the hoosegow.

Race is complex in the US.  There are open racists by the millions; then there are racist-sympathizers, who pretend to have no opinion on the subject, but always seem to find themselves sympathizing with the racists.  This thread is a classic example of the latter.

Didge wrote:
Are you having a bubble bath?
They would black out the plates, because that is personal information of the car to the owners, who may not want others to know.
You are clutching at straws now, it is the media that has blacked them out and no doubt as many medias do in such situations when they are famous.

Again these are just pictures, and witnesses state they were having sex and all is needed is for someone to "believe" they were and call the Police (which many thought they were having sex), which is why he responded, the later point you are desperately avoiding, proving there was no racism from the Police and the audio recording has been confirmed as her by the boyfriend. It proves the cop was just responding to people complainig about the couple, he is thus innocent, she in my book is appalling for playing the race card.

You ever have sex with a woman on top quill?
Look where her arms are supporting and his are in the first picture, then tell me they are not having sex?
Would be the oddest position to hold that balance engaged in a kiss.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:
Are you having a bubble bath?
They would black out the plates, because that is personal information of the car to the owners, who may not want others to know.
You are clutching at straws now, it is the media that has blacked them out and no doubt as many medias do in such situations when they are famous.

Again these are just pictures, and witnesses state they were having sex and all is needed is for someone to "believe" they were and call the Police (which many thought they were having sex), which is why he responded, the later point you are desperately avoiding, proving there was no racism from the Police and the audio recording has been confirmed as her by the boyfriend. It proves the cop was just responding to people complainig about the couple, he is thus innocent, she in my book is appalling for playing the race card.

You ever have sex with a woman on top quill?
Look where her arms are supporting and his are in the first picture, then tell me they are not having sex?
Would be the oddest position to hold that balance engaged in a kiss.

You see, this is what I mean about 'sympathizing' as opposed to direct racism.  Why would they black out the license plate, yet give out their names without hesitation?  It’s very suspicious, given that the photos don’t show anything to begin with.  On the other hand, if this were a staged photo shoot, the last thing they would want to do is reveal a real license plate…as belonging to a rental agency.  Lol.


I have not seen any witness statements.  So there is no direct testimony.  I have only heard hearsay by the police officer whose conduct is in question.  And we are supposed to take that as unbiased?  Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with the actresses’ demeanor…she openly admitted she was saying just what I am saying here…police profile blacks.  And here they are harassing her.  

Finally, who calls 911 in order to criticize a harmless good-bye kiss?  God forbid the caller didn’t fault what she was wearing…would have had a whole fashion critique.

Didge wrote:


Oh look the plate has been blacked out of a Celebrity and with it Quills conspiracy theory. 

Second, I asked you could it be construed just by the pictures alone, that they could be having sex?
The answer is yes, and that is not taking into account what could actually be seen, all of which has no bearing on the fact, clearly people thought they did, whether they were having sex is irrelevant, because some clearly thought they were and complained to the Police. 
What is relevant, is that this cop has been wrongfully accused of racism and you are putting up the worst defense ever to back her claim there was racism, when all he did was to respond to complaints, she then played the race card and thus insulted the countless people who do face racism and discrimination, the point you keep missing.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Reported where? And why do you choose to believe that story over her own version of events?

TOMMY M. has either been cruising his usual perverted racist social sites ~ or else now he's making up his own personal little "truths" to keep his blatant racist agendas rolling along...


NOT ONLY the stupidest member on this site, Tommy now seems intent on taking on the mantle of the biggest liar on here ~ especially now that the position has been vacant ever since the happy departure of "her who should not be named" last month..



Firstly I don't 'cruise' any 'perverted racist social sites', or do I make things up for any agenda.

I merely stated earlier that there are reports of more intimate sexual behaviour going on which was the reason for a perfectly reasonable and expected police response, which it turns out is looking completely true!!!

Lone Wolf wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:.................................

the cops over here can ask anyone any time to prove who they are with due reason (and THAT can include walking down the road late at night) and they can detain you until you do so properly.

://?roflmao?/:

HAS Britain really fallen that far of late, Victor ???

Like Britain was up to a decade or two ago, citizens in Australia, NZ, Canada (and, I believe, still in most of the USA ? Ben or Quill might like to clarify that..), still AREN'T required to carry ID on them at all times ~ though they do have to provide "proof of identity" (often on a "points" system..) to fulfill many business and legal transactions..

Many parts of Africa, South America and many Pacific nations, it could also be problematic for many of the natives to be expected to have "ID" on them at all times !   ::resmahauth::

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh look the plate has been blacked out of a Celebrity and with it Quills conspiracy theory. 

Second, I asked you could it be construed just by the pictures alone, that they could be having sex?
The answer is yes, and that is not taking into account what could actually be seen, all of which has no bearing on the fact, clearly people thought they did, whether they were having sex is irrelevant, because some clearly thought they were and complained to the Police. 
What is relevant, is that this cop has been wrongfully accused of racism and you are putting up the worst defense ever to back her claim there was racism, when all he did was to respond to complaints, she then played the race card and thus insulted the countless people who do face racism and discrimination, the point you keep missing.

Well, you would black out the plate of an irrelevant vehicle caught in the photo; that would be wrongful disclosure and invasion of privacy.  But here, the alleged vehicle owner is identified specifically…it’s pretty damning that they are caught in such duplicity.

But my point isn’t just blacking out the license plate, but why they did it.  Obviously, if this was a staged scene, shot after the fact, it would expose what some publicist is doing to ‘sell’ the story.  As I say, if it turned out to be a rental car in some photographer’s name, that would be bad.

Could it be construed as a photo of sex?  The point isn’t to speculate.  Could the Rosenthal photo of soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima actually be four guys having a group hump atop Mt. Suribachi?  It’s possible.  ‘Possible’ means nothing.

What is possible, indeed, is that cops have earned, and rightfully deserve the reputation of being the front-line of racism in America.  This cop didn’t ask for verification of the so-called ‘complaints’.  He probably heard 'Salt and Pepper' and it incensed his strong moral fiber.  It didn’t even bother him that complaints were coming over 911, which is supposed to be for real emergencies.  No…he rushed to the scene of the despicable and potentially tyrannical crime, in order to prevent...what, a mass murder?  No...an alleged booby showing...but she is black!

This is precisely what I mean about fabrication and the gullible white people who swallow this crap.  Enough already!