I don't know what happened. But any certainty that the woman is in the wrong claiming this audio as proof is sketchy at best, as the situation makes it clear that the cop saw they weren't breaking the law, and very likely that he had established their identity to his satisfaction. I'm not saying that this demonstrates that the woman is right, but it certainly doesn't show she's definitely wrong.
Pretty much the regular lying cop line. Invented justification for anything. They never say who the complainant is. Everyone should have the right to know their accuser. Cops should investigate the complaint first and find out if there was a crime before arresting anyone. Failing to show your ID to a cop should never be a crime. People don't have to have ID to vote and are not required to carry ID at all times like in the USSR.
The actual complainants have revealed themselves. What do you think the cops were doing when they went to the alleged scene of the alleged crime to talk to the alleged perpetrators? Goodness, do you actually work out hard and practice at appearing this dense?
Well generally a complaint should go through a court and a warrant be issued for the arrest of the person committing the crime. It should not be up to a cop at all. If he sees a crime being committed that is one thing. To act on the hearsay of others and arrest someone is an outrage to liberty. I think we need to send all cops like the to Russia so they can live in that world. I don't think a cop should be asking for a fucking thing unless he has seen evidence of a crime. You obviously think it is ok to wreck someone's like by phoning in a complaint. I think a cop needs just cause and not " just cause someone complained". I saw a boy beat down bad at the beach one time by cops with night clubs because he didn't show ID. He was in swim trunks and lots of people put their wallets in the room safe. We have gone so far toward a police state so quickly. Cops have way to much authority now days. If the lady in the OP had truly committed a crime requiring identification, why was she then released? The cop did not have any just cause. This shit is out of hand.
Yes, because that's highly efficient when the actual crime is in progress. I read the rest of your post, but it wasn't written by an intelligent person, and contained no intellectual value. I therefore decline to comment on its (low quality) content.
Probably why they were in such a pissy mood. They were promised hot full penetration action, and it was just boring kissing.
Note that the crime, no longer in progress when the cop arrived if it ever had been, was victimless anyway. I'm not necessarily blaming the cop, but I'm having a very hard time getting behind the system that would have him pester the woman in the first place.
Why not check out the complainant first? Jack them up, check their ID, make sure they are the real deal. That should be the first step. Then take that person out to the accused and hear both sides of it. That way people see the accuser and it's not just made up cop bullshit.
From what I understand the copper only need have reasonable suspicion that a crime was in progress to request ID. He had multiple reports of actual sexual activity in public. Therefore that was surely sufficient to ask for ID. Asking for ID is not arresting and charging someone is it? What's more, what's so fucking threatening about showing your ID to a policeman?
How does asking for an ID constitute "pestering"? You know, if you're offered a job in the UK, open a bank account, hire a lawyer or a whole host of other things, you have to present your ID. Is that a bad system as well?
It's not a victimless crime. I mean sure it's not murder but no it's not totally victimless either. They were in a parking lot. Probably no big deal right? Until you and your kid walk up on them and see them doing what they are doing.
Agree. Her reaction was stupid, but I find the ID requirement highly suspect. We have a lot of jay walking in Boston, and the law against it is essentially not enforced, in large part because pedestrians are not compelled to carry ID or present ID to an officer. Can't write a ticket without an ID, so I can see why cops would prefer the California law, but "your papers please," is a mark of fascism.
You have to understand that in America we've lost our bearings when it comes to cops. I blame the internet where it's almost 99.99% the bad stuff the police do and .01% of the good stuff they do. This skews everyone's perception of cops to almost all cops at all times are civil rights violating, racist, corrupt, and mustache-twirling villains. To top that off you then have people like Enlisted Person who refuse to learn the law and therefore misinterpret the law. This case is a perfect example. In California you do not have to show ID to a cop. However the exception in that is if they have reasonable suspicion that you've committed a crime then they can legally ask you for identification and if you don't give it they can even arrest you for not giving your ID. This is why this lady, who was under investigation for a possible crime, was not free to leave and why they detained her and placed her in handcuffs. Once she finally relented and gave up the ID the police did their warrants check and determined no crime could be proven and she was let go. But to the Enlisted Person's of the world they never go beyond the can't ask for ID part of the law. I've argued this on other sites even going as far as to tell people to go to the ACLU and other civil rights organizations. These sites all say to show ID to the police if you are under suspicion of a crime and not doing so may lead to your arrest. But people don't want to listen, they don't want to learn their actual rights. It's far easier to be an ignorant fuck and scream and holler about the evil police then it is to accept that the police where in the right in this situation and the lady was in the wrong by acting the fool.
It's not California law. It's the law of the land in every single state in the country because of the Supreme Court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada If police have reasonable suspicion to believe that you're committing a crime or have committed a crime they are legally allowed to ask you for identification. Refusal to identify yourself could lead to you being arrested even if it's determined that you weren't involved in a crime. In Boston the police ignore jaywalking because the fine is $1. http://www.mass.gov/courts/selfhelp/tickets/jaywalking.html
So what? There are a hundred perfectly legal things that could actually hurt a child who sees it. Fucking won't.
Name some of the legal things that could actually hurt a child who sees it. Explain how fucking won't.
Racial slurs. Abusive words among spouses, among strangers. Drunk escapades. Clowns, Barry Manilow, and political rallies. How could sex hurt them?
How? All the things I named are hurtful, painful, stupid, or downright evil. Sex isn't. And remember that in order to defend the law, you'll have to show that sex is worse, since all the other stuff is legal.
Americans hang ups with sex come from having a church on every block and a long history of purtianical douchebaggery. Which is why there's so much tsking about the immoralities of sex, and porn is one of our biggest industries.
