patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Even then, she was arrested, not for having sex in public, but rather for refusing to show ID. So the arrest itself was illegal regardless of any charges made after the fact.

The arrest itself WAS A CRIME. So she is an innocent victim as far as that arrest is concerned.

Remember that in the state of California, where this arrest took place, a person is under NO legal obligation to present ID to the police. Period. That's the bottom line.

The arresting officer should lose his job and be prosecuted for false arrest. If she isn't convicted for lewd behavior, any officer or DA pressing such charges should be arrested as well for filing false charges.

Please don't start this again Dan. You have again turned yourself around here. Go back to post 94 - you yourself admitted she was NOT arrested.

After that, please go back and review the caselaw surrounding Terry vs. Ohio. Understand this, and I promise you, all your misunderstandings about what happened back in September when she was legally detained will become much much clearer.

lakermania says

You can argue til your blue in the face on whether or not you need to show ID in California, but it's just best for everyone to do what the ACLU of California advises you to do, show your ID or you will likely be arrested.

Ah, but that's a damn important point. First off, you aren't required to carry ID. Second, you aren't require to show it to the police in CA even if its convenient to them or to you. It's irrelevant if it's sensible to show ID; it's not illegal not to. Third, the police cannot make up laws on the spot.

If YOU want there to be a law requiring citizens to show ID to the police then you should petition your legislators do pass one. It is not a valid statement that an arrest is legal simply because someone did something you want to be illegal. If that were the case, ever person going to church would be arrested because I want religion to be illegal. My wanting it does not make it law. The same applies to you and to cops.

Strategist says

It's happened, but not this time.

Insert evidence here.

Strategist says

His penis was inside her vagina when she was pumping away. I think it's called sex.

Insert evidence here.

Strategist says

What do you think she was doing?

The same thing I do with your mom, make out vigorously.

Strategist says

The cop arrived to find out. She was arrested for walking away from a crime scene.

That's not true. It wasn't even a crime scene. It was just an anonymous tip.

She was arrested for refusing to show her ID. And although that would be perfectly valid in any state that had a law requiring people to identify themselves to the police, that isn't the case in California. Just because police want such a law doesn't mean they get to make it up on the spot. The police don't pass laws. The legislative body does.

Maybe this video will help you understand. It's about the federal government, but it applies to states as well.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/x5M50xBz1cU

Strategist says

I would love to see her ass in jail.

Ah, but why is that? Is it because she's a threat to society? No. It's because she didn't placate to a cop and you feel that reflects your bad relationship with your son. You don't really want to punish her. You want to punish your son, but you're using her as a proxy for your anger. And that is why you should never be allowed on a jury.

Dan8267 says

Ah, now we see the reason Strategist has such a hard-on for authority. Whenever he sees cops he thinks of his relationship with his son. Strategist probably has fantasies of being a cop and taking his frustration with his son out on other people as proxies.

You are not a cop and suspects are not your son. The cop-civilian relationship has nothing to do with your relationship with your son. Get over it.

Call it Crazy says

Dan won't acknowledge anything unless he can view the video on Youtube. Then he'll accept the evidence.

Empirically false. Evidence is evidence. You just choose to discard YouTube because there is so much video evidence on that site that you cannot refute. You have yet to show a single reason why any evidence I have ever reference is invalid.

Strategist says

There can't be no video to show the penis entering her vagina. Therefore, according to Dan, it never happened.

And what evidence of any sort is there that she was having sex in public? The photographs shown nothing of the sort. Eyewitness testimony is utterly unreliable and there is no way that eye witnesses could tell the difference between sexual intercourse, dry humping, and simply making out.

Once again, you bigots are left with zero evidence to support your case.

CDon says

Please don't start this again Dan. You have again turned yourself around here. Go back to post 94 - you yourself admitted she was NOT arrested.

You have no problem with bold-face lying, do you? Here's what I actually said...

Dan8267 says

Yep I made a mistake. I meant to say the police would have booked her rather than arrest her. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect. Occasionally, I err.

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest as defined here. And to back that up, New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.

The fact that conservatives want this woman to be imprisoned without any evidence to support she did anything illegal is a demonstration of how despicable conservative culture is and how the conservatives are indeed fighting a War on Women.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

I would love to see her ass in jail.

Ah, but why is that? Is it because she's a threat to society? No. It's because she didn't placate to a cop and you feel that reflects your bad relationship with your son. You don't really want to punish her. You want to punish your son, but you're using her as a proxy for your anger. And that is why you should never be allowed on a jury.

I want to see her ass in jail because she deserves it.
Me having issues with my son is just what every other father has. Nothing out of the ordinary. I am extremely proud of him. At age 18 he achieved junior standing at his University. He got himself a campus job at the gym, the paycheck he will invest. He got his own credit card when he turned 18, and so far has always paid it on time, 2 weeks before due date. I put money in his account, and he pays the tuition and housing cost on his own.
Trust me, I am extremely proud of him, and he knows it. :)

black ppl

Strategist says

I put money in his account,

So he's a freeloader.

Call it Crazy says

Dan, why are you resorting to personal attacks?

You can't tell the difference between a rational judgement and a baseless personal attack? Stop watching Fox News.

Dan8267 says

You have no problem with bold-face lying, do you? Here's what I actually said...

Dan8267 says

Yep I made a mistake. I meant to say the police would have booked her rather than arrest her. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect. Occasionally, I err.

I still stand by that my statement that handcuffing a person is a form of arrest as defined here. And to back that up, New York v. Quarles, supra; United States v. Purry (D.C. Cir. 1976) 545 F.2nd 217, 220.

Actually, I have a huge problem with baldface lying so I sincerely apologize if you think I was accusing you of that.

I seriously did not think you were going to rely on Quarles, the landmark Supreme Court public safety case for exceptions to Miranda as being relevant here. That is a pretty extraordinary view.

You also cite US v. Purry. As you know these cases are very fact specific, and Purry involved shotguns, skimasks, getaway vehicles, tear gas, the works! Putting aside this was in the DC circuit so its only persuasive authority for California (9th) - in what way are the facts of Purry relevant to a person being handcuffed in broad daylight in the middle of Studio City?

Put another way, how is a woman being handcuffed for alleged prostitution by an assholeish, snarky, bullying cop a "form of arrest" under the maxims set forth in Purry and especially Quarles??? Really???

I mean, we can get back to the other parts of your view of what happened later, but I simply don't see how someone as anti-law enforcement as you would ever advocate for a case like Quarles as being even persuasive authority. Did you really mean that???

CDon says

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect.

That is another error

indigenous says

CDon says

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not perfect.

That is another error

Contrary to popular belief, Dan thinks he is perfect.

There should be an ID # & a list of all Rep/Con/Tea individuals & businesses that are receiving any form of Big Govt. Socialism.