Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > Chatter > General Discussion


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-29-2007, 11:42 AM   #1 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Craven Morehead's Avatar
 
This is so wrong

I doubt if I'd expose myself to her in a public place but I can certainly see the temptation to do so. This guy is acting like a normal hetro male and gets labeled a pervert. I'm sorry, I usually side with the police is situations like this but this one seems to be too stacked against the so-called pervert. In the picture she's got her leg on the guy's shoulder. Talk about a come-on. I don't support this at all.


http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1
Quote:
Topless Woman Lured Perverts in Police Sting
Firefighter Busted for Exposing Himself to Sunbather Appeals 'Entrapment' Conviction
By MARCUS BARAM
Dec. 28, 2007 —


Robin Garrison, an off-duty 42-year-old firefighter, was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a woman sunbathing topless under a tree.

He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point.

Eventually, she asked to see Garrison's penis; he unzipped his pants and complied.

Seconds later, undercover police officers pulled up in a van and arrested Garrison; he was later charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor, based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park. While topless sunbathing is legal in the city's parks, exposing more than that is against the law.

The case is just one of the more extreme examples of police stings aimed at luring people into committing crimes, a tactic that has resulted in hundreds of arrests, many convictions and plenty of controversy.

Law enforcement officials say that such sting operations are an extremely effective means of lowering crime rates and stopping the criminally minded before they commit worse offenses. From early 2006 to the spring of 2007, there were 160 citations for public indecency in the city, according to an investigation by 10TV News. Among those who were caught in the stings: an Ohio State University doctor, government employees and a retired highway trooper.

But such operations veer dangerously close to entrapment, say lawyers, civil libertarians and defendants who've been caught in sting operations.

At Garrison's trial, his attorney argued that it was a case of entrapment. "Columbus police utilized this topless woman to snare this man," said Sam Shamansky. "He sees her day after day. He's not some seedy pervert."

The argument failed to sway a Franklin County Municipal Court jury that found Garrison guilty of public indecency last month. He was ordered to stay away from the park, placed on a year's probation and fined $250. Currently, Garrison remains on paid desk duty while the fire department conducts an internal investigation into his behavior.

"We want to be held to a higher standard, we are in the community every day and we put our best foot forward, but sometimes we stumble and make a mistake," said Columbus Fire Battalion Chief Doug Smith.

Garrison could not be reached for comment.

Shamansky plans to appeal the verdict on the grounds that the jury wasn't instructed on the definition of entrapment.

Other police departments across the country have dangled other temptations, from big-screen plasma TVs, Xbox 360 consoles and a shopping bag containing a cell phone and an iPod to catch people breaking the law.

In New York City, nearly 300 people, many of whom had no criminal record, have been snared this year through the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag, in which undercover officers leave a wallet, iPod or cell phone in a subway station and wait to see who picks it up.

Although deputy police Commissioner Paul Browne says the program has helped cut subway grand larcenies by half, critics say that the police have gone too far.

"It's pretty straightforward that this is a police-created crime," said Legal Aid Society lawyer Alex Lesman, who defended a man arrested for taking a bag containing an Xbox video game box, a Sprint cell phone and cash. "The police set this whole thing up. They shouldn't be doing that and luring people in that situation, especially in this age of terrorism where the transit system is always telling you to be on the lookout for suspicious bags."

The judge agreed with Lesman, acquitting his client, Antonio Arroyo. "The police should concentrate their noble efforts on behalf of the city on countering real crimes committed every day," wrote Kings County criminal court judge Matthew A. Sciarrino Jr. "They do not need to manipulate a situation where temptation may overcome even people who would normally never think of committing a crime."

Other lawyers have argued on behalf of their clients that the operation may also violate New York's personal property law, which allows someone who finds property worth more than $25 10 days to turn it in to the owner or the police.

An NYPD spokesperson emphasized that Operation Lucky Bag does not use abandoned property; rather it is property actively left by an officer who is still in the vicinity. In addition, it is used at stations where similar crimes have been reported.

Another sting operation that made headlines involved police in El Paso, Texas, and U.S. Marshals sending out messages to wanted felons stating that they had "won" free Xbox 360 consoles and/or big-screen plasma TVs. The operation led to 115 arrests last month and the police picked up more than $25,000 in traffic fines.

This ploy, which has been used in other cities in recent years, is a new twist on an old trick, because sting operations involving drugs and prostitutes have been around for decades. And though defendants often claim entrapment, that argument rarely works in those kind of cases.

"The definition of entrapment is police activity that induces somebody to commit a crime that they otherwise wouldn't do," said Gabriel Chin, law professor at the University of Arizona. "It's not entrapment to give somebody an opportunity to commit a crime."

Chin explains that entrapment involves an officer cajoling and persuading someone who's resistant to the idea of committing a crime. "Just preying on a predisposition is not necessarily entrapment."

But he said that Operation Lucky Bag seemed to cross a line, especially when compared to longstanding police operations involving officers posing as drunks to lure muggers to take their wallets or jewelry.

"Very few people who see a drunk with gold chains or an old lady with money sticking out of her purse succumb to temptation and assault that person," he said. "But lots and lots of people wouldn't turn in a wallet when it's full of money. You could ask whether it's an appropriate use of police resources. If we really want to criminalize people who do what we don't want them to do, a lot of people would be in jail."

The temptation may just be too powerful. "I've found $5 on the street and put it in my pocket," said Chin. "If I found $5,000 on the street, I hope I would do something different."


Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures
Craven Morehead is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 11:57 AM   #2 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
At what point do these things essentially become entrapment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Language from the ruling of Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932)
whether the defendant is a person otherwise innocent whom the government is seeking to punish for an alleged offense which is the product of the creative activity of its own officials.
Bingo, entrapment. FREE THE MAN WHO FREED HIS JUNK!
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 11:59 AM   #3 (permalink)
Let's put a smile on that face
 
blahblah454's Avatar
 
Location: On the road...
I think this is terrible! You can't force people into these situations and then arrest them for it. This is like waving a needle in front of a recovering heroin addict and saying "come on, just one more, no one but me and you will know about it".
This is just wrong. I hope the police stop with these tactics.
blahblah454 is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 12:00 PM   #4 (permalink)
Riding the Ocean Spray
 
BadNick's Avatar
 
Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa
wrong ...what a lame setup. I can only hope this kind of police tactic is limited to Columbus Ohio but we know it's not. If anything is to be learned from this, it's that the officials involved should be run out/voted out of office and sent back to school for another round of basic education.
BadNick is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 12:02 PM   #5 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
how ridiculous.

Obviously there are no violent crimes in this city which the police can spend their resources solving?
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 12:33 PM   #6 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit. The worst thing about these things, to me, is that it makes people even less trusting of people they meet.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 12:46 PM   #7 (permalink)
Here
 
World's King's Avatar
 
Location: Denver City Denver
I'm gonna walk around with my cock hangin' out all day in protest...
__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown
World's King is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 02:50 PM   #8 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
I can't wait until we have the technology to read people's thoughts. That way, we can arrest them even before they do anything....
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 02:59 PM   #9 (permalink)
Confused Adult
 
Shauk's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA
i'd be a lifer if you could read my thoughts.
Shauk is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 03:01 PM   #10 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shauk
i'd be a lifer if you could read my thoughts.
We all would. That's the point, Shauk.

...

This is sexist. Why didn't the police use a cock-dangling man to lure women?!

(burns his underwear)

SEXISTS!
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 03:19 PM   #11 (permalink)
Custom User Title
 
Craven Morehead's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by World's King
I'm gonna walk around with my cock hangin' out all day in protest...
OK, now l have to explain why l just laughed out loud.

Craven Morehead is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 03:25 PM   #12 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Hell, this pearl of an article should have been entitled:

"NEWSFLASH: MEN ATTRACTED TO BARE BREASTS."
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 03:44 PM   #13 (permalink)
Tilted
 
IdolGirl's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
that was bullshit...the guy did nothing wrong.
IdolGirl is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 04:01 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
At what point do these things essentially become entrapment?


Bingo, entrapment. FREE THE MAN WHO FREED HIS JUNK!
I pointed this entrapment crap to the forum a year ago when it concerned cops selling drugs and guns to entrap people, why did everyone side with the police back then?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 04:04 PM   #15 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
... because now they've gone too far. Boobs are involved.

...

Ownership of illegal drugs or guns is a crime by itself.

Staring at a topless woman and exposing your wang on request isn't (in some cases, I'd imagine).

Public indecency doesn't include bare breasts at a public park?

...

Oh, I should read the article again.
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."
Plan9 is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 04:12 PM   #16 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I pointed this entrapment crap to the forum a year ago when it concerned cops selling drugs and guns to entrap people, why did everyone side with the police back then?
In your case someone was intending to buy illegal firearms. This guy clearly didn't intended to flash his junk. If you can't see the difference, you need to go on vacation to get some perspective.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 04:38 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
In your case someone was intending to buy illegal firearms. This guy clearly didn't intended to flash his junk. If you can't see the difference, you need to go on vacation to get some perspective.
didn't intend to flash? will, he had to unzip his pants, unless they came undone all by itself.
There is NO difference in a police operative enticing an individual to break a public indecency law and a police operative enticing an individual to buy drugs or a gun. It is entrapment and illegal to do all 3 things. If YOU can't see the difference, you have NO perspective. This is simply YOU wanting to see some laws enforced and not others because of your preferences instead of disallowing the government to create criminals by entrapping them.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 04:41 PM   #18 (permalink)
Crazy
 
casual user's Avatar
 
Location: everywhere and nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
I can't wait until we have the technology to read people's thoughts. That way, we can arrest them even before they do anything....
isn't this the premise for a bad tom cruise movie?
casual user is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 04:43 PM   #19 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
didn't intend to flash? will, he had to unzip his pants, unless they came undone all by itself.
There is NO difference in a police operative enticing an individual to break a public indecency law and a police operative enticing an individual to buy drugs or a gun. It is entrapment and illegal to do all 3 things. If YOU can't see the difference, you have NO perspective. This is simply YOU wanting to see some laws enforced and not others because of your preferences instead of disallowing the government to create criminals by entrapping them.
Your case: Some looking to purchase illegal weapons found a source... but it was police.
This case: Some guy walking in the park, who clearly had no other intention of unzipping his pants, was lured into doing so by an already half naked woman.

Again, seriously, take a vacation. Australia is beautiful right now. I've got friends you can stay with in Melbourne.

Quote:
Originally Posted by casual user
isn't this the premise for a bad tom cruise movie?
It wasn't that bad...

Last edited by Willravel; 12-29-2007 at 04:43 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 05:05 PM   #20 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
If he had refused to show his wang, would he be guilty of failure to comply with a peace officer's orders?
MSD is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 05:09 PM   #21 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
If he had refused to show his wang, would he be guilty of failure to comply with a peace officer's orders?
Excellent point.

Neeways, this ISN'T a gun thread. There's no excuse for threadjacking.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 05:12 PM   #22 (permalink)
I Confess a Shiver
 
Plan9's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Neeways, this ISN'T a gun thread. There's no excuse for threadjacking.
He did offer her his Cock Model 17 with 6" barrel and dual drum magazines.

...

Was the chick showing her butterhogs a cop? Wow, imagine THAT interview.

I gotta know: At the trial... were her breasts Exhibit A, B, C or DD?
__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Last edited by Plan9; 12-29-2007 at 05:15 PM..
Plan9 is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 08:04 PM   #23 (permalink)
I read your emails.
 
canuckguy's Avatar
 
Location: earth
okay something is missing here. did the cops not know this was entrapment? not sure about the law for that state but sounds like it too me.

just seems odd to me like how could they be that dumb on such a large scale. i could see a spurr of the moment type thing, but to do this planned out is just stupid. makes you think about all the other stuff they do.....

whoever organized this "sting" should be fired for not knowing basic law.
canuckguy is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 08:35 PM   #24 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckguy
okay something is missing here. did the cops not know this was entrapment? not sure about the law for that state but sounds like it too me.

just seems odd to me like how could they be that dumb on such a large scale. i could see a spurr of the moment type thing, but to do this planned out is just stupid. makes you think about all the other stuff they do.....

whoever organized this "sting" should be fired for not knowing basic law.
flstf is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 09:04 PM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
They go too far when they start using boobs as weapons against us. lol

But seriously- this is stupid, and entrapment. He didn't go to the park to pull out his cock, a topless woman enticed him. That's entrapment by every definition.
analog is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 09:07 PM   #26 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: San Francisco
legally speaking will is correct. the definition of entrapment hinges on intent. if someone has the initial intent to perform an illegal act and law enforcement simply enables it, it's not entrapment. on the other hand law enforcement enticing someone to perform an illegal act, which seems pretty obvious in this case, is entrapment. the difference:
case A walking up to LEO in park asking for guns/drugs/want to see my penis get arrested, not entrapment
case B LEO initially asking you if you want guns/drugs/show your penis and you agree, entrapment

dateline fits into case A, they dont go around the internet posing as a 13 year old kid who wants to have sex with someone, they just pose as a 13 year old kid and random guys try to entice them into sex/send them porn etc.

now the question of whether these type of stings are justified, legal or not, is another matter. generally I don't think so, because the government takes away far more of my freedom in the course of trying to prevent criminal harm than the harm criminals will ever do to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by canuckguy
okay something is missing here. did the cops not know this was entrapment? not sure about the law for that state but sounds like it too me.

just seems odd to me like how could they be that dumb on such a large scale. i could see a spurr of the moment type thing, but to do this planned out is just stupid. makes you think about all the other stuff they do.....

whoever organized this "sting" should be fired for not knowing basic law.
it seems odd that law enforcement can be dumb on a large scale? the only human institution that is generally dumber, and on a larger scale than law enforcement is law making
__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by n0nsensical; 12-29-2007 at 09:11 PM..
n0nsensical is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 10:00 PM   #27 (permalink)
don't ignore this-->
 
bermuDa's Avatar
 
Location: CA
I like the idea of "to catch a predator," because it targets people that are actively looking to commit a crime, the same as any drug sting where they arrest a dealer and take over his operation so they can snag the junkies coming to buy drugs (regardless of my opinion of the war on drugs, I find this hilarious)

What happened here was a guy was minding his own business walking through the park, met a topless (!) woman that convinced him to show her his wang (hey, she was already showing off her chest), then he gets arrested for it? This guy got sandbagged, how is that not entrapment?
__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.
bermuDa is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 10:45 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Your case: Some looking to purchase illegal weapons found a source... but it was police.
This case: Some guy walking in the park, who clearly had no other intention of unzipping his pants, was lured into doing so by an already half naked woman.

Again, seriously, take a vacation. Australia is beautiful right now. I've got friends you can stay with in Melbourne.


It wasn't that bad...
will, wtfu. you know what i'm talking about. your ignorant avoidance is ridiculous. The operative standing on the street corner asking if someone wants to buy a joint. The street walker (operative) looking for a john. The 'arms dealer' finding a buyer. This is all entrapment. You know this. To ignore the obvious in order to have plausible denial is something i'm really tired of seeing in you, who is supposedly intelligent.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 10:50 PM   #29 (permalink)
Tilted
 
IdolGirl's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
I think this is pretty much like picking up a policeman posing as a hooker...even then, the 'john' has to verbalize that he wants money for sex. The 'hooker-cop' can't say "Hey, wanna blow job for 20 bucks?" That, in my understanding, makes it entrapment.

So, in this case, if the guy had whipped it out, without the girl asking him to, that would be one thing...but much like the hooker-cop making the offer, when the topless girl asked to see the guy's johnson, that is the deal breaker.

As for the police believing they were in the right when arresting the man in the park...the only thing I can figure is that if the guy knew, or should have known, that showing his weenie in public, even upon request, was illegal, he should have said (when she asked to see it...) "I'd love to babe, but let's not do it in the public park."

I still think that there are things going on that deserve the police department's attention much more so than a guy showing his wanker to a full grown woman that asked to see it.
IdolGirl is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 10:57 PM   #30 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Dksuddeth, if I may humbly offer some friendly advice, try not to let your avid interests cloud your judgment and you'll be just fine. I mean once you stop threadjacking and making personal attacks against members like myself, I think you'll be a lot happier not only on TFP but in general. I have my interests too, but when they start making one aggressive towards people that mean one no disrespect or harm then they should be managed.

Take, for example, calling someone ignorant despite the fact that they're not. This personal attack (a breach of TFP rules) not only doesn't help the discussion but it communicates the fact that you're at your computer fuming at someone you're probably never going to meet about something that they other guy really doesn't care about. Does that strike you as constructive? I could very easily bark back insults, but why would one want to behave in such a way?

Speaking to your response to the thread, entrapment does legally include intent, just as DC confirmed. You'd do well to read his informative posts as it addresses your concerns completely and correctly.

Last edited by Willravel; 12-29-2007 at 11:12 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 11:13 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Hey, I forgive you. We all get a little worked up from time to time, myself included.
what the fuck ever dude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
If I may humbly offer some friendly advice, try not to let your avid interests cloud your judgment and you'll be just fine. I mean once you stop threadjacking and making personal attacks against members like myself, I think you'll be a lot happier not only on TFP but in general. I have my interests too, but when they start making one aggressive towards people that mean one no disrespect or harm then they should be managed.
Don't offer squat. your sarcastic crap is nothing more than to cover up the fact that you were caught dead wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Take, for example, calling someone ignorant despite the fact that they're not. This personal attack (a breach of TFP rules) not only doesn't help the discussion but it communicates the fact that you're at your computer fuming at someone you're probably never going to meet about something that they other guy really doesn't care about. Does that strike you as constructive? I could very easily bark back insults, but why would one want to behave in such a way?
I didn't call you ignorant....this time. I said you were guilty of ignorant avoidance. two entirely separate things. I'm not surprised that you would try to turn this around because you knew you were ignorantly avoiding the acknowledgement of me being right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Speaking to your response to the thread, entrapment does legally include intent, just as DC confirmed. You'd do well to read his informative posts as it addresses your concerns completely and correctly.
I did, in fact, mine and DC's posts are pretty much dead on. what you seem to be unable to bring yourself to accept is that I was right, even though it was about drugs or guns, and you don't like that. I forgive you.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 11:20 PM   #32 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Enough. DK, you're paranoia is disruptive and you don't follow the rules of TFP. I'm not responding to you anymore, and you've lost my sympathy (which was sincere, not sarcastic). I hope you'll change, but if you don't I hope you leave.

Edit: I wish to clarify a few points before hopefully putting this threadjack to rest. When I said "I hope you leave" above, I was referencing the request to take a break from gun threads that I've mentioned in the past. I was not saying that I hope DK leaves TFP.

Also, in an edited post above I wrote something somewhat disrespectful by turning dk's own words against him in an attempt to try and make clear to him how he was coming off. It read as the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
will,... i'm ... ignorant. You ... is ... intelligent.
Hey, I forgive you. We all get a little worked up from time to time, myself included.
Upon rereading my post I decided that was too confrontational and I suppose a bit immature. I apologize for that.

Last edited by Willravel; 12-29-2007 at 11:43 PM..
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 11:47 PM   #33 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
willravel and dksuddeth sitting in a tree, k i s s i n g .....

Funny thing is I most likely wouldn't be whipping it out for some chick I never met coming on to me in a public park half naked like she was.

Thats not 'normal' behavior and non normal behavior is how nature says 'don't touch'.

It looks like the purpose of the sting was to catch guys jerking off in the park, and I'm fine with that, you should be able to sunbath in the park without some pervert wanking it in the bushes. She never should have come on to the guy though, thats where I'd call the entrapment.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 12-29-2007, 11:57 PM   #34 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
willravel and dksuddeth sitting in a tree, k i s s i n g .....

You're just jealous because you don't get to me like he does anymore. Maybe you shouldn't have said anything about being atheist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
She never should have come on to the guy though, thats where I'd call the entrapment.
This is exactly what I was thinking. Had she not come on to him, there's no evidence that he would have taken his junk out. It's not like he advertised it or it was his idea.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:00 AM   #35 (permalink)
don't ignore this-->
 
bermuDa's Avatar
 
Location: CA
Cool your jets, gentlemen. Let's stick to the topic at hand
__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.
bermuDa is offline  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:06 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
last time. I wasn't referring to guns. I was referring to law enforcement having the power to offer, for sale, items that are illegalized for manufacturing, possession, and usage for the common everyday citizen. law enforcement is allowed to use this 'power' to offer for sale to 'us' and turn us in to criminals. Is that not entrapment? Is that not what happened to this guy in the park?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 12-30-2007, 12:14 AM   #37 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
last time. I wasn't referring to guns. I was referring to law enforcement having the power to offer, for sale, items that are illegalized for manufacturing, possession, and usage for the common everyday citizen. law enforcement is allowed to use this 'power' to offer for sale to 'us' and turn us in to criminals. Is that not entrapment? Is that not what happened to this guy in the park?
I'll elaborate on what I said before to make my thoughts more clear:
Let us say that an undercover officer is selling guns out of the back of a car. Someone stops by and purchases a gun. Let's look at this person because, as DC and I said (and you may agree), intent of the entrapped goes toward entrapment. Who purchases a gun from the trunk of a car? I can't speak for anyone else, but if I was in the market for a gun, I'd probably go to a gun store, wait for the background check, and purchase the gun legally.

Someone who doesn't walk away from what is essentially, "Would you like an illegal gun?" is obviously on the market for a gun and is willing to do it illegally. That's the intent.

The firefighter in the park? His only intent is any man's intent: hot topless woman is flirting with you, try to nail her! Had she not been there in this obviously impossible situation, there's no evidence to suggest that he would expose himself to anyone (in public). It was her idea for him to whip out his dong. When he walked up to her, it wasn't his intent to whip out his dong in public, presumably. The intent with this guy? He wanted to fuck her, obviously. His intent approaching the situation wasn't public nudity.

I hope that's more clear.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-30-2007, 01:42 AM   #38 (permalink)
Lennonite Priest
 
pan6467's Avatar
 
Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA
Wow.....

Not to ruin the DK/Will lovefest but I feel an urge to comment on the OP.

IMHO the case will be overturned for entrapment, however, since he is a fireman for the city (and one of the most conservative cities at that), I see him losing his job and being labelled a pervert and forced to move because of all this.

I'm really surprised that the police went to all this trouble for just a misdemeanor, Hell, just arrest him for gross sexual misconduct, threaten to make him a registered sex offender, then drop it down to public indecency if he has the money to fight it. That way until you get busted for entrapment, you get to bust a lot of poor folk who have to pay fines and become registered sex offenders and you know where they are for the next 10 years, they can't leave the city so you know you will get their tax money, and anytime they break a law..... you make more money on their ass because you say the broke parole/probation and you can fine them into bankruptcy.

Yessirreebobby you found a way to make the city thousands and keep the poor folk under thumb.
__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"
pan6467 is offline  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:22 AM   #39 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
It looks like the purpose of the sting was to catch guys jerking off in the park, and I'm fine with that, you should be able to sunbath in the park without some pervert wanking it in the bushes. She never should have come on to the guy though, thats where I'd call the entrapment.
I suspect the police were not having much luck catching penis exposers with their topless decoy and decided she had to become more flirtatious to the point of requesting them to show it.
flstf is offline  
Old 12-30-2007, 07:29 AM   #40 (permalink)
A Storm Is Coming
 
thingstodo's Avatar
 
Location: The Great White North
Good lord - what a waste of money for the police department and the courts. Isn't there enough going on to chase after besides something like this? And that poor guy should have had a better lawyer. I can't imagine not doing the same thing he did!
__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.
thingstodo is offline  
 

Tags
wrong

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:36 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360