"Black celebrity" claims police herassement for kissing white man in public

[Meshugger]

It's true, in the socialist people free republic europia today i got 'blowjoy' on the parking lot, all while high-fiving my fellow police officer who just accidently got some dirty sanchez at the same time. My boss said he couldn't believe his eyes of the whole kerfuffle, but he was shooting up legal state-subsidized heroin at the time, so what would he know.

[Valsuelm]

California as no statute requiring individuals to present identification when detained on suspicion of criminal activity.

 

Nor does any other state. You are not obligated to even carry an identification card in the U.S..

 

If you are carrying one, you don't have to show it or identify yourself unless you've been arrested for a crime, or in some cases ticketed for a violation.

[Gromnir]

So the bottom line, the cops were untrained/incompetent and had no right to ask for her ID, she freaks out and suddenly everyone's on cops' side ("aw come on, she should've just shown her id and that would've been it"). Slave logic. Next time a cop wants you to inspect your anal cavity for no reason or search your house, just bend over, cause it's just better to let them search it. Americans as a nation just love to have their rights violated.

incorrect. the cops were called because two people were alleged involved in an illegal activity. is this a a shell game wherein folks is losing track? a citizen don't need produce id without cause, but the cops were called to investigate a crime, albeit a minor and silly one. this is Not simple a stop & identify scenario, so don't get confused.  

 

furthermore, and we know people has a hard time distinguishing, but real world cops always ask for id- is a way they gauge suspicion. like it or not, but cops asking for id is hardly compelling you to provide such even if you feel the weight o' authority 'pon you. however, if you don't provide id and refuse to answer simple questions, then cops who already had some level o' suspicion may become convinced that you really is guilty o' something. if you go bat-crap crazy while refusing to provide id and answer questions, they can claim that you were appearing drugged or intoxicated. illegal arrest is possible an outcome, but you is extreme unlikely to win any kind o' judgement 'gainst cops if they already has cause for suspicion, and in the meantime they can bring you down to the station and put you through a full intake process. 

 

 

"If you are carrying one, you don't have to show it or identify yourself unless you've been arrested for a crime, or in some cases ticketed for a violation

people get very confused."

 

law says you don't need provide info, but real world has you getting arrested needlessly for such defiance is jackarse stoopid.  in All case you should show id if you are ticketed 'cause you can be detained for failing to do so.  this ain't a "some cases" scenario. you get ticketed? show id. people get defiant with cops for various reasons and it rarely benefits the angry citizen. when cops show up and question you someplace other than your home, ask if you can leave. if they answer "yes," well, problem solved-- leave. if they answer "no," then you ask, "why" and they gotta explain. if cops wanna search you (or your home) ask for a warrant. if they don't have a warrant, make sure they know you is not agreeing to the search. IF you are stopped for questioning pursuant to a crime, give the cops your gosh darn name and ID, duh. that don't mean you gotta get chatty with the cops. if you don' wanna talk to cops, tell cops you don't wanna talk After providing id. if you are arrested, make sure the cops tell you why you is being arrested. do not resist a patdown pursuant to an arrest, and for the love o' gawd, do not run... particularly from a k-9 unit. those dogs do not f around. make sure cops know you is not volunteering, but don't resist or run. 

 

car situations is similar, but in all cases in which you are stopped while driving, you are required to provide id, so there is no ambiguity. refuse to sign a ticket doesn't do you any good, so find some other way to vent spleen. again, make sure you clear state that you is not volunteering to submit your vehicle or person to a search.

 

regardless, not providing id is always a stoopid move.  am knowing some folks gets angry 'bout what they see is their Right to be defiant, and you do have such a right, but it is, from a practical perspective, stoopid to exercise such a right without having a particular compelling reason to do so. you is likely to get yourself arrested, and you ain't gonna win some kinda multi-million dollar case 'gainst police department. 

 

oh, and while it sounds silly, particular if you is a minority, keep your car free of interior clutter. "plain view" rules is such that if cops are able to see possible evidence in plain view, they can seize that evidence. once the cops justifiably (or arguable justified) get you outta your car and they get into your car... *shrug* having a messy car interior is arguably providing cops with reason enough to search.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 16, 2014 by Gromnir

[AGX-17]

That thread title is loaded.

 

That said, I don't know why anyone would be surprised by American police doing something like this.

Edited September 17, 2014 by AGX-17

[Bester]

when cops show up and question you someplace other than your home, ask if you can leave. if they answer "yes," well, problem solved-- leave. if they answer "no," then you ask, "why" and they gotta explain. if cops wanna search you (or your home) ask for a warrant. if they don't have a warrant, make sure they know you is not agreeing to the search.

 

This guy acted according to your instructions, see how it worked out for him:

 

 

On Friday, August 13, 2010, a jury found Pastor Steven L Anderson not guilty of both misdemeanor charges brought against him.

 

The two charges were “obstructing the highway” and “resisting an order directing, regulating, or controlling a motor vehicle,” and involved an incident on April 14, 2009, when Pastor Anderson refused a warrantless search of his vehicle at an internal border patrol checkpoint at mile marker 78 of eastbound I-8, 75 miles east of Yuma, AZ (55 miles north of the international border). The 1 hour and 15 minute standoff ended with Border Patrol and Arizona DPS officers shattering out the car’s windows, tasering Pastor Anderson for 18 seconds, and maliciously shoving his face into broken glass and roughing him up before taking him to the hospital and then ultimately to jail.

 

A six person jury from Wellton, AZ, found Pastor Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church not guilty on the count of “obstructing the highway.” When asked why, one of the jurors stated that “they were the ones who stopped [Pastor Anderson] and caused [him] to be in the roadway against [his] will, and they had no right to send [him] to secondary to be searched.”

 

The jury found Pastor Anderson not guilty of “resisting an order directing, regulating, or controlling a motor vehicle” because the statute states that you must be resisting an order from a peace officer directing your motor vehicle, and border patrol agents are not peace officers. The DPS officers who later arrived on the scene were peace offices, but although DPS Officer Jones testified in court that he twice ordered Pastor Anderson to move his car to secondary, video evidence revealed that in fact he never ordered Pastor Anderson to go to the secondary inspection area. He only ordered him to get out of his car, which is not an order regulating a motor vehicle. Therefore he could not have resisted an order that he never received. In addition, before Officer Jones even spoke with Pastor Anderson, he had already put stop sticks in front of the tires of the car which would have made it impossible for him to send Pastor Anderson to the secondary inspection area.

 

A few new facts about the incident surfaced in the course of the two day trial as the state’s witnesses were questioned and cross examined. A detective with DPS who is an expert in dog handling and dog training and which had actually had experience with the border patrol K-9, “Jerry C”, that supposedly alerted to “concealed humans or narcotics” in Pastor Anderson’s vehicle, explained that the dog did not actually alert to the Pastor’s vehicle. In his words, the dog “was on the fringe” or on the verge of an alert by dragging its handler toward the vehicle, but that an actual alert would have consisted of the dog sitting down where the supposed contraband was located. The dog never sat down.

 

Another discrepancy was clarified by the same witness about the length of time that Pastor Anderson was tasered. The first deployment of the taser lasted for 13 seconds, and the second deployment lasted for 5 seconds. It was previously thought that the two deployments were back-to-back, but the state’s witness produced evidence that there was a 3-4 second break between the 13 second deployment and the 5 second deployment. “I sure didn’t feel that break!” said Pastor Anderson. “That just tells me that the 50,000 volt torture session lasted for 22 seconds instead of 18 seconds.”

 

Another interesting piece of testimony was when DPS Officer Jones and DPS Officer Jeff Mitchell were questioned about the photographs showing large amounts of Pastor Anderson’s blood in the exact shape of his head on the jagged broken glass of what used to be the driver’s side window. Both officers stated that they had no clue as to how or why the Pastor’s head made contact with the jagged edge of the window. According to Pastor Anderson, one of the border patrol agents grabbed his head and purposely shoved it down into the broken glass while he was being tasered in order to “control” his head.

 

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, don't argue with the Border Patrol.

 

It should probably be pointed out that the pastor in question is actually the head of one of those hate-group churches that spout nonsense for media attention.

 

Well played Bester.  Well played.  

[Gromnir]

figures you would have a link to a notorious leader o' an anti-gay hate group. nevertheless, gay hating has nothing to do with the video. that being said, your curious discovery o' pastor anderson's plight is illuminating. 

 

however, am not sure what your point is. according to your own info, the guy were found not guilty o' the charges brought against him, including the "resisting an order directing, regulating, or controlling a motor vehicle." what we got is cops who exceeded their authority. in spite o' that, we said quite clear, in the event o' an actual arrest, "make sure cops know you is not volunteering, but don't resist or run." the guy got beaten and tasered for no reason. the guy woulda' won his case regardless, but he wouldn't have been tasered and beaten by cops if he had utilized Gromnir advice.

 

so, if your intent were to be showing that Gromnir's advice is spot-on, good show, but in the future, please find less loathsome examples o' victims. Gromnir has had neo-nazis and crips as clients, but it always makes our gut hurt when we help such folks. is our job, but we don't like doing so.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps hurl beat us by 1 minute on the hate-group linkage. oh well, fact remains that Gromnir advice would have served the gay hating monster very well. we can giggle on the inside knowing he didn't get a chance to read this thread and benefit from our sage advice.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Gromnir

[Bester]

So your advice is to actually let cops inside your car/house without a warrant, and just to protest verbally? I thought it was protest and not do anything, like not open doors you don't have to.

 

Wow, you really must hate your freedoms in america.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Bester

[Gromnir]

So your advice is to actually let cops inside your car/house without a warrant, and just to protest verbally?

am gonna chalk this up to poor reading skills on bester's part. we were pretty clear what to do in the aforementioned scenario and your video highlights why we gave such advice. yes. make clear to cops that you disagree with their actions, then comply and let the court system exonerate as the court system did in your own freaking example.  the alternative were to spark an unwinnable confrontation with armed and seemingly volatile "peace" officers. what did he achieve? he got lit up by a taser and had his face shoved in broken glass, not that we feel bad for him. is actual an interesting theological conundrum: can divine justice come from police abuse? maybe God has a sense o' whimsy. perhaps pastor anderson should contemplate that question.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09kuOAr_wkc

 

but yeah, when confronted by cops or soldiers acting with color o' authority, express that you is not complying voluntarily, but nevertheless, comply. you then go to court and win... and everybody wins.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps added video... just 'cause.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

"It should probably be pointed out that the pastor in question is actually the head of one of those hate-group churches that spout nonsense for media attention."

 

Absolutely totally irrelevant.

 

I'd also agrue that the police are very often the biggest hate group out there. They HATE civilians. They have no problem torturing, murdering, raping, and enslaving them.

 

This video proves they're nothing but a gang of thugs.

 

And, people like you who defend the bad ones are spitting in the face of good, decent cops who are trying to do their atcual job of PROTECTING and SERVING the PUBLIC.

 

DISGUSTING NAZI LOVERS ARE DISGUSTING.

 

 

"you then go to court and win... and everybody wins."

 

No, you don't. Getting your thrown in a broken window, tazed, tortured, treated liek a criminal, etc., is not 'winning'. And, he got off easy.  Plenty of people - non racists even! - get treated worst. Even little babies aren't immune to police violence.

[HoonDing]

Not even British hooligans are treated that badly over here.

[Bester]

 yes. make clear to cops that you disagree with their actions, then comply and let the court system exonerate as the court system did in your own freaking example.

Ok, but when do you stop complying to unreasonable and unlawful orders?

 

Do you comply in this case or do you start resisting?

 

 

10 men identified only by their initials told prosecutors the officers searched them between February 2010 and February 2012. Their stories are strikingly similar. They allege that Officer Michael Vagnini stopped them, placed his hand down their pants and probed their anus or shifted their genitals, saying he was looking for drugs.

[...]

Vagnini pinched his anus, causing him to yell out "Man, what are you doing? Don't touch me like that! You can't be doing that!" Vagnini replied with words to the effect of "Be a man and give it up."

[...]

Vagnini is accused of taking the man to a room in a district police station, throwing a box in the room and told him if he defecated once in the box he would let him go. The man tried to comply, investigators said in the complaint, but couldn't.

[...]

Another victim testified that this past February Vagnini saw him coming out of his aunt's house, cuffed him, and then searched his anus. When the man tried to pull away, Vagnini put him in a chokehold. Two officers held his arms and one pressed a gun to his head, the victim said.

http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/four-milwaukee-police-officers-charged-for-alleged-illegal-strip-searches/article_e28b24b4-1254-11e2-8511-001a4bcf887a.html

 

 

 

On a side note, kinda makes you wonder why his fellow officers allowed it. Maybe they feared a finger in the butt reprisal themselves?

 

Edited September 17, 2014 by Bester

[HoonDing]

Officer Vagnini? Figures one with a name like that would over-overcompensate.

[Gromnir]

logic and reason are beyond bester. surprise? you don't see a difference between advice to comply with officer when he informs you that you are under arrest so as to avoid pointless and unnecessary abuse and injury and complying with orders that will cause unlawful abuse and injury? no wonder you are so messed up in the head.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Bester]

Sorry, I don't live in america and therefore am not a specialist on how to deal with police abuse. All this is confusing to me.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Bester

[Volourn]

If they're unlawful abuse, why are you blaming the victim and not the perpetrator?

 

VICTIM SHAMING.

 

 

Does. not. compute.

[Gfted1]

'Django' Actress We Got the Pictures And It Looks Like Sex.

[HoonDing]

This case reminds me of Hugh Grant getting caught with a hideous black prostitute when he had the ravishing Liz Hurley at home. What a loser.

[JadedWolf]

'Django' Actress We Got the Pictures And It Looks Like Sex.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see it.

[Gromnir]

 

'Django' Actress We Got the Pictures And It Looks Like Sex.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see it.

 

am agreed that we can't say we sex from the pics.  whatever they is doing is kinda weird, but not necessarily sex. stationary pictures of clothed people is not gonna show much. that being said, the pictures do make obvious that folks had a clear view o' what were going on in the car. 

 

text along with pictures is more telling.

 

An eyewitness who saw Daniele and Brian as he worked in a nearby office tells TMZ ... Brian was sitting in the passenger seat with his feet on the curb and Daniele was straddling him with her shirt pulled up -- breasts exposed.  The eyewitness says she was grinding on top of him, rocking back and forth.

 

Someone from the office went down and asked Daniele and Brian to stop because everyone in the office could see them but they continued.

 

The eyewitnesses say Brian then began "horizontally bongoing her boobs back and forth." He says she eventually reached into the center console, grabbed a tissue, wiped him down and then herself and tossed it on the grass.

 

if cops arrive and no sex is occurring, they likely ask some questions o' the two folks in the car who, unless they actual admit wrongdoing, is sent away with cop kinda advice such as, "whatever you did or didn't do, don't do it again, at least not here." 

 

act like a loon with the cops is not illegal, but it is likely to cause you trouble. why this "newsworthy" event would surprise anybody once context is understood eludes us.

 

folks not from the US got some very strange notions 'bout our cops. we can bring up UK police brutality videos that is quite graphic, and am certain we can do the same for many nations. nevertheless, we got an extreme diverse population: ethnic, cultural, economic diversity. confrontations with cops will occur and best way to handle is with the practical advice we offered. however, trying to make THIS situation an example of genuine police excess or brutality is kinda an insult to anybody that has actual suffered from police malfeasance.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"confrontations with cops will occur and best way to handle is with the practical advice we offered."

 

You mean bend over, take the **** up the butt, THEN whine about it afterwards? The cop gets 2 weeks paid vacation, the media dies down, and the cops go find their enxt butt victim? NO THANKS.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Volourn

[Valsuelm]

It's already been established that the wanna be big star actress was not harassed.

 

What are we talking about here?

[Volourn]

Nothing has been established. there's no real proof either way.

 

that's irrelevant.

 

Someone having sex is not an excuse to physically attack them. PERIOD.

[obyknven]

Black Power! Niburu delenda est!

[Walsingham]

So I was reading this today:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/14/django-unchained-actor-alleges-racial-bias-arrest-los-angeles?commentpage=2

 

Apparently this Daniele Watts, who had an acting role in Django Unchained, claims that when she was kissing her white boyfriend, someone called the cops. And rather than telling the person who called the cops to mind their own damn business, she claims, they came to see why a white man and a black woman were kissing in public. She felt that she was profiled as a prostitute just for being black and kissing a white man, and then refused to show her ID and tried to walk away. At this point she was handcuffed and detained, and only released when her identity was established. Her boyfriend claims the police had threatened to call an ambulance and have her drugged because she was displaying psychologically unstable behaviour.

 

Now, obviously this is only one side of the story, and the police has not yet given their side of the story as they're still "looking into it". And the woman admits that she didn't give her ID when asked, which probably could have solved the incident a lot sooner. Some people in the comment section claim that she should not have had to give her ID when she did nothing wrong - I am not an expert on U.S. law so I have no idea if you're obligated to ID yourself in all cases. And I have no idea how she behaved, she may indeed have behaved in a way that the police might think psychologically unstable.

 

So I am quite open to see the other side of the story here, and awaiting what the police will say. What puzzles me though is why they were asked to show their ID's in the first place and why the police would think it necessary to respond to a complaint about two people kissing in their car. So, to those United Statians reading this, can you guys explain this or maybe give some more background? I am trying not to jump to conclusions here, and maybe there is another spin on this story which would suddenly turn it upside down, but it looks quite bad from where I am sitting if a white man and a black man kissing in a car is reason enough for the police to come have a look.

 

Any public incident involving the cops in the US is going to get futzed fifteen ways from sunday.

 

I think this was a mistake, but wouldn't this be down to a dispatcher error, rather than the cops themselves?