NationStates Jolt Archive

obin 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.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

And?

And?

Those damn women getting our menfolk in trouble with their nakedness.

this thread doesn't live up to it's promises. :(

And?

Women have the power to control anything and everything with a simple move of their shirt.

that some Bait they used

And?

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.

:(

It would be interesting to know what they were talking about. Since I doubt she would ask out of the blue to see his penis.

when she asked him to expose himself in public, he really should have said no. (supposing that is really what happened)

*watches Video*

ok, what woman sunbathes in the shade of a tree?

and damnit... they needed a Telephoto lens on that camera! :(

And?
Why do actual police work when you can borderline entrap people and say you are fighting crime.

when she asked him to expose himself in public, he really should have said no. (supposing that is really what happened)

he should, but on the other hand they lured him to do it. Is he really a danger to the public? I mean, there's a lot a topless woman can get a man to do. And are there really no better things for law enforcers to do than placing a naked woman in a park and watch her until she can convince a guy to show her his penis. (it must have been a weird conversation though)

Those damn women getting our menfolk in trouble with their nakedness.

Women have the power to control anything and everything with a simple move of their shirt.

Those damned guys: blaming women because they're thinking with the little head instead of the big one, and not saying no when they know it's a damned fool idea. Seriously, it's like kindergarten never lets out: She MADE ME do it.

My original comment though was because there's nothing but cut and paste to the OP, and s/he hasn't added anything of his or her own yet.

Lemme get this straight:

A topless (I'm presuming agreeably topless) woman legally sunbathing in a park asks -- ASKS -- a guy if she can see his penis, and he shows it to her. He doesn't jump up and down, waving it about or displaying it in such as way as to violate anyone's sensibilities (which I must also assume, though nothing in the story cites anyone else as having seen said penis). The police are filming the whole scene...and the GUY is the pervert?

*head falls into open palm in quiet disgust*

Nobody was robbed, raped or shot during this whole operation, then?

And are there really no better things for law enforcers to do than placing a naked woman in a park and watch her until she can convince a guy to show her his penis. (it must have been a weird conversation though)

better for who...

The Public? yeah

The Officer who is monitoring the camera pointed at the topless woman, watching her for hours... as she lays on the grass... as the sunlight carresses her... sorry, what was the question again?

Those damned guys: blaming women because they're thinking with the little head instead of the big one, and not saying no when they know it's a damned fool idea. Seriously, it's like kindergarten never lets out: She MADE ME do it.

I should probably point out at this point that I'm not a guy, if that helps with your interpretation of my post any.

Those damned guys: blaming women because they're thinking with the little head instead of the big one, and not saying no when they know it's a damned fool idea. Seriously, it's like kindergarten never lets out: She MADE ME do it.

... never watched "Married: With Children" haven't you? :D

Peg: When men are aroused, all the blood is focused on one part of the body. now the brain wants this blood back, so it will agree to anything to get this blood back...

Why do actual police work when you can borderline entrap people and say you are fighting crime.
Best thing is, those officers get paid with tax money for their "How To Seduce Citizens To Perform Lewd Acts In The Open While Secretly Taping Them"-scheme. Was the topless woman also a police officer?

... never watched "Married: With Children" haven't you? :D

Peg: When men are aroused, all the blood is focused on one part of the body. now the brain wants this blood back, so it will agree to anything to get this blood back...

I have. It's just I generally am surprised, since I expect more intelligence from men than Al Bundy.

You all know Buck's the most intelligent character on the show, I hope? Man, what a dog.

he should, but on the other hand they lured him to do it. Is he really a danger to the public? I mean, there's a lot a topless woman can get a man to do. And are there really no better things for law enforcers to do than placing a naked woman in a park and watch her until she can convince a guy to show her his penis. (it must have been a weird conversation though)

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. The combination of playing on base urges with the toplessness plus what must have been titillating talk is too much for some guys to rationally deal with. That doesn't change the fact that this is dipping into some shady territory for law enforcement. A bait car, for example, isn't entrapment because a reasonable person doesn't steal a car. I don't know how close bare breasts and persuasive talk are to entrapment, but it's a shit-ton closer than a bait car or even online "To Catch a Predator" stuff.

NEO-ART, I SUMMON THEEEEEEEEEE! Provide us your legal wisdom!

Those damned guys: blaming women because they're thinking with the little head instead of the big one, and not saying no when they know it's a damned fool idea. Seriously, it's like kindergarten never lets out: She MADE ME do it.

Agreed. Even though I do agree, though, it still smacks me as borderline entrapment at worst and a slight waste of police resources as best.

Seems quite blatantly to be entrapment.

Obviously women should be required to go out in public veiled from head to toe, since the mere sight of our flesh can make men's brains fuzz out and force them to perform criminal actions.

Give me a break.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the accused probably knew that whipping his penis out in public was against the law. He's not a pubescent kid with hormones urging him into doing things he shouldn't, and probably has had all sorts of classes in proper behaviour (seeing as he's a firefighter).

If he just really, really liked her, maybe he should have asked her back to his place, hmm?

better for who...

The Public? yeah

The Officer who is monitoring the camera pointed at the topless woman, watching her for hours... as she lays on the grass... as the sunlight carresses her... sorry, what was the question again?

... never watched "Married: With Children" haven't you? :D

Peg: When men are aroused, all the blood is focused on one part of the body. now the brain wants this blood back, so it will agree to anything to get this blood back...

lolz...

JuNii FTW

I have. It's just I generally am surprised, since I expect more intelligence from men than Al Bundy.

You all know Buck's the most intelligent character on the show, I hope? Man, what a dog.

Buck is a Briard, too! A dark tawny cousin to my own adorable black puppy!

[/puppy threadjack]

Those damn women getting our menfolk in trouble with their nakedness.

I should probably point out at this point that I'm not a guy, if that helps with your interpretation of my post any.

No, given what you typed, I should think my interpretation is spot on.

I have. It's just I generally am surprised, since I expect more intelligence from men than Al Bundy.


:rolleyes: you should have known better.

Seems quite blatantly to be entrapment.

Meh...it's right on the knife edge of it, but I'm not sure it's full-on entrapment. If I understand the concept correctly (and that's even money), entrapment is when you make breaking the law so easy that anyone, no matter how reasonable, can do it. Stings/undercovers are supposed to catch people whose direct intent is to break the law, not average law-abiding citizens. Someone help me out here, please.

Agreed. Even though I do agree, though, it still smacks me as borderline entrapment at worst and a slight waste of police resources as best.

Oh, I never said I thought it was fair. And the recent NYC operation "Lucky Package" is even scummier. I'm just amused by all the "It's not his fault he can't help it, it's a naked woman!" excuses.

By that logic, there should be an extremely high incidence of rape on nude beaches, right? Because men just can't control themselves around soft, rounded womenflesh.

Meh...it's right on the knife edge of it, but I'm not sure it's full-on entrapment. If I understand the concept correctly (and that's even money), entrapment is when you make breaking the law so easy that anyone, no matter how reasonable, can do it. Stings/undercovers are supposed to catch people whose direct intent is to break the law, not average law-abiding citizens. Someone help me out here, please.

IT'S A TARP!

She asked to see his penis first,... I wonder if this defense argument will hold?

Why do actual police work when you can borderline entrap people and say you are fighting crime.I'm wondering whether he would have exposed himself if he'd never met the woman. The benefit for society that operation achieved seems highly dubious to me.

Meh...it's right on the knife edge of it, but I'm not sure it's full-on entrapment. If I understand the concept correctly (and that's even money), entrapment is when you make breaking the law so easy that anyone, no matter how reasonable, can do it. Stings/undercovers are supposed to catch people whose direct intent is to break the law, not average law-abiding citizens. Someone help me out here, please.

If a correctly recall a debate with Neeska if the coerce you to do it then it is entrapment, for example if they catch you for buying drugs you need to ask them, they can say I have _______, but they can't push it on you, hold on I'll google the definition for us.

Here: ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Meh...it's right on the knife edge of it, but I'm not sure it's full-on entrapment. If I understand the concept correctly (and that's even money), entrapment is when you make breaking the law so easy that anyone, no matter how reasonable, can do it. Stings/undercovers are supposed to catch people whose direct intent is to break the law, not average law-abiding citizens. Someone help me out here, please.

my understanding of it also. except it's not those whose direct intent is to break the law but whose inclination is to break the law.

She could've asked repeatedly to see his penis, with him being reluctant at first then showing her after multiple request, that is still not entrapment.

i read through the link and im confused.

was the topless woman a police officer or under police control?

if she is a police officer AND she suggested that he pull his penis out, it seems to be to be a good case for entrapment.

if she is NOT police or if she did not suggest that he pull it out, he deserves his conviction.

obin 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.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

So? He was stupid. He should have, when she asked to see his penis, suggested going somewhere more private

Meh...it's right on the knife edge of it, but I'm not sure it's full-on entrapment. If I understand the concept correctly (and that's even money), entrapment is when you make breaking the law so easy that anyone, no matter how reasonable, can do it. Stings/undercovers are supposed to catch people whose direct intent is to break the law, not average law-abiding citizens. Someone help me out here, please.

I always went by the rough definition of 'inducing a person to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit' or basically "you can't create a crime that wouldn't otherwise have been commited". I can't see how he went to the park with the intention of getting his dick out and I can't see how the circumstances of his getting his dick out were anything other than exceptional and designed to get his dick out.

Here: ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

it's misleading... needs the full article.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

so if she just asked to see his penis, then no it's not entrapment. however if the conversation showed that she talked him into showing Mr. Happy to her...

Oh, I never said I thought it was fair. And the recent NYC operation "Lucky Package" is even scummier. I'm just amused by all the "It's not his fault he can't help it, it's a naked woman!" excuses.

By that logic, there should be an extremely high incidence of rape on nude beaches, right? Because men just can't control themselves around soft, rounded womenflesh.

I agree again. Using naked women as a excuse makes people no better than those Arabs who stone women for exposing an ankle while boarding a bus or something.

I'm wondering whether he would have exposed himself if he'd never met the woman. The benefit for society that operation achieved seems highly dubious to me.

Absolutely agreed on both points.

by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park.

OMG! Sexists!

Let's just say that they succeeded in luring perverts,... but what about the "average joe who sees this as the one time in his miserable existence that he couldn't believe his damn luck is finally changing" that's also got snared?

Ah, women. They control 50% of the money and 100% of the P***y. Life is so unfair.

Obviously women should be required to go out in public veiled from head to toe, since the mere sight of our flesh can make men's brains fuzz out and force them to perform criminal actions.

Um I really think you're missing the point which is more or less that this guy was entrapped.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the accused probably knew that whipping his penis out in public was against the law.

...and?

There are lots of crimes one might be aware of being crimes, yet which one might be unjustly trapped into doing through active incouragement.

it's misleading... needs the full article.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.

so if she just asked to see his penis, then no it's not entrapment. however if the conversation showed that she talked him into showing Mr. Happy to her...

Excellent post.

My worry stems from the nature of the conversation. Who decides what kind of talk is persuasion and what kind is mere suggestion...especially on something as admittedly subjective as sexual matters? I'd need to read a transcript of what the topless decoy said.

The firefighter may not have had the intention to whip out his love carrot when he came to the park, but that doesn't mean he's not someone who'd whip it out at the slightest suggestion. If that's the case, then he is a perv and needs to be dealt with. However, if the decoy wheedled the guy, it gets far more cloudy.

OMG! Sexists!

Let's just say that they succeeded in luring perverts,... but what about the "average joe who sees this as the one time in his miserable existence that he couldn't believe his damn luck is finally changing" that's also got snared?

"My luck is finally changing"? Really? That's your defense for whipping out your genitals in public? Sorry, that argument not only fails to hold water, it adds water to the equation. Your changing luck should have nothing to do with breaking the law. Ask the nice topless woman back to your flat so you can show her the whole bundle crime-free.

Okay, so, the state has a sound argument...

So, would that make the firefighter be branded as a sex offender,... or just a misdemeanor slap on the wrists?

Ah, women. They control 50% of the money and 100% of the P***y. Life is so unfair.

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains. How silly.
Man, that sounds horrid out of context, doesn't it? :p

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents. [/B]


I think it could be satisfactorally argued in a court that it was entrapment

1. She asked him to show her his penis, probably not his idea.
2. Depends on the nature of the conversation, which obviously, I don't know. Whether or not she was insistant would be the determining factor.
3. I don't think he was walking down the steet going "lets just show penis today".

Anyway, thats my understanding of the law, either way I don't really think showing your penis is that big of a crime. But the point I was making is that it is not misleading without the rest, just less informative as what I posted said he must be persuaded by the law to commit a crime for it to be entrappment. Not misleading.

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains. How silly.

lol
not all of us, I for one would have had the sense to not 'whip it out'

Ah, women. They control 50% of the money and 100% of the P***y. Life is so unfair.

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains. How silly.

lol
not all of us, I for one would have had the sense to not 'whip it out'

My comment sounds just horrid out of context, Dyakovo -- and yes, I know it's not all of you -- refer to my earlier post where I stated I expect more of men than to be a caricature of Al Bundy. ;)

While that's true, my brain and penises are not controlled by anyone at all. They are really more like awesome forces of nature. Not to be trifled with!

You could call whipping it out force majeure then?

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains.

While that's true, my brain and penises are not controlled by anyone at all. They are really more like awesome forces of nature. Not to be trifled with!

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

You don't know that. The guy could have been thinking about pulling out his penis the moment he saw the legally sunbathing decoy.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

Unless you've seen a transcript or heard audio of the conversation, you don't know anything about what was said, and as such you can't make the case for persuasion.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

Just like the first paragraph -- you don't know that.

In order for entrapment to happen, the guy had to have been walking through the park, perhaps on his way somewhere else, when the topless woman calls him over and just flat out demands he show her his penis. The indications from what little we know from the report is that he walked up to her and that a conversation started that somehow drifted into sexual territory. Even THAT is speculation, given that there are as yet no recoeds of the conversation.

It's shady, but it's not entrapment. Not from what little evidence there is to see.

While that's true, my brain and penises are not controlled by anyone at all. They are really more like awesome forces of nature. Not to be trifled with!

Of course they are, dear.

Man, that sounds horrid out of context, doesn't it? :p

And thus it must be sigged! :D

My comment sounds just horrid out of context, Dyakovo -- and yes, I know it's not all of you -- refer to my earlier post where I stated I expect more of men than to be a caricature of Al Bundy. ;)

I know, I was taking your comments in context, it's just that a lot of the people arguing in defense of this moron don't seem to see the flaw in their argument.

My comment sounds just horrid out of context, Dyakovo -- and yes, I know it's not all of you -- refer to my earlier post where I stated I expect more of men than to be a caricature of Al Bundy. ;)

What`s wrong with Al Bundy? Four touchdowns in a single game for Polk High. Founder of NO MA`AM (National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood) and creator of 'The Church of the Brown Bottle'. If I were a religious man, I`d worship Al like a GOD.

My comment was intended as humor, Sarcastic Humor. Not to be defended or defiled and leave Al Bundy out of this.

I know, I was taking your comments in context, it's just that a lot of the people arguing in defense of this moron don't seem to see the flaw in their argument.

The promise of free secks does that,... clouding thoughts and judgment, then again,... this is why we can't have nice things.

I think it could be satisfactorally argued in a court that it was entrapment

1. She asked him to show her his penis, probably not his idea.
2. Depends on the nature of the conversation, which obviously, I don't know. Whether or not she was insistant would be the determining factor.
3. I don't think he was walking down the steet going "lets just show penis today".

Anyway, thats my understanding of the law, either way I don't really think showing your penis is that big of a crime. But the point I was making is that it is not misleading without the rest, just less informative as what I posted said he must be persuaded by the law to commit a crime for it to be entrappment. Not misleading.

i agree. im not saying that its a slam dunk for entrapment but if the article is true, she was enticing him. there is a very big difference between sitting down to talk to a sun bathing woman and whipping it out and sitting down with a seemingly nasty girl who flirts you up and suggests that you whip it out so you do.

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains.


So sigged.:)

I think it could be satisfactorally argued in a court that it was entrapment could be.. but his attorney failed.

1. She asked him to show her his penis, probably not his idea. and it can be argued that he could've said 'no'.
2. Depends on the nature of the conversation, which obviously, I don't know. Whether or not she was insistant would be the determining factor. agreed. it all depends on the conversation.
3. I don't think he was walking down the steet going "lets just show penis today". maybe not, but he did whip it out at the first opportunity (in this case, request).

Anyway, thats my understanding of the law, either way I don't really think showing your penis is that big of a crime. But the point I was making is that it is not misleading without the rest, just less informative as what I posted said he must be persuaded by the law to commit a crime for it to be entrappment. Not misleading.
however you do have those "condidtions". presenting the opportunity for the law breaking is not entrapment. now if she pressed the issue by saying... "aww comon... show me yours and i'll take off my shorts" or something to that effect then it could fall under entrapment since she is activly pursuading him to show him his.

You don't know that. The guy could have been thinking about pulling out his penis the moment he saw the legally sunbathing decoy.



Unless you've seen a transcript or heard audio of the conversation, you don't know anything about what was said, and as such you can't make the case for persuasion.



Just like the first paragraph -- you don't know that. err... no those are the conditions of which a sting operation IS ENTRAPMENT. and what you quoted is straight from the site Unlucky_and_unbiddable linked to that explains entrapment. so you're mistaken if you think I AM arguing that it IS entrapment.

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains. How silly.
Man, that sounds horrid out of context, doesn't it? :p

we can't control our Penises...

If we could then ED wouldn't exist and Viagra not needed.

we wouldn't have those 'embarassing buldges' at inappropriate times.

and we would definately not leave a woman 'unsatisfied.'

and you can bet there would be some excercise machine to help build up THAT muscle. :p

What`s wrong with Al Bundy? Four touchdowns in a single game for Polk High. Founder of NO MA`AM (National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood) and creator of 'The Church of the Brown Bottle'. If I were a religious man, I`d worship Al like a GOD.

My comment was intended as humor, Sarcastic Humor. Not to be defended or defiled and leave Al Bundy out of this.

Aside from the fact that he's shat upon by the entire universe? Nothing at all.

and it can be argued that he could've said 'no'.


That's pretty much true of any case of entrapment shirley?

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains. How silly.
Man, that sounds horrid out of context, doesn't it? :p

You are now my favorite mod. :D

You are now my favorite mod. :DThe Cult of Tactical Grace will have a harsh word with you :mad:

That's pretty much true of any case of entrapment shirley?

it's entrapment if the officer argues, pursades or convinces the person to break the law.

so in this case it would be entrapment if the conversation was...
Undercover Officer: "I really like you... can you show me your penis?"
Victim: "nah, don't think so."
UO: "aww, comon, I'll take off my shorts if you do."
V: errr... no but if you want, we can meet later at a bar and see where things go from there.
UO: "but I'm in the mood now... I know... how about you show it to me now then we can go into the bushes and I'll give you a Blow Job."
V: "I dunno..."
UO: "better make up your mind quickly... before someone comes by..."
V: "ok..."

this would be entrapment because she's actively pursuading him to expose himself in voilation of the law, even to the point of promising favors in breaking said law.

just asking him (as the officer and the victim said she did) is not entrapment.

Women have the power to control anything and everything with a simple move of their shirt.

or their thighs.

it's entrapment if the officer argues, pursades or convinces the person to break the law.

so in this case it would be entrapment if the conversation was...
Undercover Officer: "I really like you... can you show me your penis?"
Victim: "nah, don't think so."
UO: "aww, comon, I'll take off my shorts if you do."
V: errr... no but if you want, we can meet later at a bar and see where things go from there.
UO: "but I'm in the mood now... I know... how about you show it to me now then we can go into the bushes and I'll give you a Blow Job."
V: "I dunno..."
UO: "better make up your mind quickly... before someone comes by..."
V: "ok..."

this would be entrapment because she's actively pursuading him to expose himself in voilation of the law, even to the point of promising favors in breaking said law.

just asking him (as the officer and the victim said she did) is not entrapment.

The officer or someone working with the police. So if the cops told her to sit there topless and get guys to get their cocks out, then it would still be entrapment. But if she was just there for the fun of it then it wouldn't be, I don't think.

The officer or someone working with the police. So if the cops told her to sit there topless and get guys to get their cocks out, then it would still be entrapment. But if she was just there for the fun of it then it wouldn't be, I don't think.

by this reasoning, sting operations where officers posing as drug buyers/sellers or even as prostitutes are all guilty of entrapment.

The Cult of Tactical Grace will have a harsh word with you :mad:

Any cult worried about tactics can go to hell. I demand strategy!

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. The combination of playing on base urges with the toplessness plus what must have been titillating talk is too much for some guys to rationally deal with. That doesn't change the fact that this is dipping into some shady territory for law enforcement. A bait car, for example, isn't entrapment because a reasonable person doesn't steal a car. I don't know how close bare breasts and persuasive talk are to entrapment, but it's a shit-ton closer than a bait car or even online "To Catch a Predator" stuff.

NEO-ART, I SUMMON THEEEEEEEEEE! Provide us your legal wisdom!

Wow, that's the second time I've been called out by name...

Alright, entrapment. This is a tricky area, because most people only know the subject from TV, and TV, like for most legal topics, does a poor job of portraying it properly.

Entrapment, generally, is when the police (or agents of) coerce, force, threaten, trick, or otherwise manipulate someone into breaking the law. Now, what exactly is manipulation is, of course, subject to much debate.

For it to be entrapment, the defendant has to demonstrate that while he broke the law, it was not something he would have otherwise done but for the manipulation of the police. Despite popular perception, an officer posing as a drug dealer and going "hey, want some drugs?" or a prostitute and going "hey, want some sex?" is not entrapment. You can't argue that you would not have otherwise done it because, well, you bought the drugs. You paid for sex.

Mere solicitation is not entrapment. Mere offering of the opportunity to break the law is not entrapment. The question is whether the police did something that coerced, manipulated or tricked the man into exposing himself when he would not have otherwise done it. Whether the police did something in creating the opportunity to break the law so that a reasonable, law abiding person could not be expected to resist. So, the question is, is it unreasonable to expect an otherwise law abiding man to resist the suggestions of a friendly, topless woman?

Is this real coercion and manipulation? Sneaky and underhanded and praying on base instincts yes, but do we really want to go down the line of argument that a man is incapable of controlling himself, and he was manipulated, because a half naked woman was nice to him? That he, an otherwise innocent, law abiding man, was coerced and manipulated into breaking the law by the sight of bare breasts?

I don't think that cuts it. I don't think you can argue that this fellow could not be expected to resist the urge to pull out his penis in public because a half naked girl asked him to do so.

And?

:( I didn't think it would..

[snipped] I thought so.

BTW... Did you see the video attached to the article? that woman was really animated in her conversation. :p

I thought so.

BTW... Did you see the video attached to the article? that woman was really animated in her conversation. :pYeah, there doesn't seem to be much point in debating whether the guy was doing wrong or not. Whether setting up a topless undercover cop and a crew to film things for the purpose of catching people exposing themselves on the other hand...

Such a waste of time. Public indecency is definitely not worth that kind of effort on behalf of law enforcement.

I thought so.

BTW... Did you see the video attached to the article? that woman was really animated in her conversation. :p

Yeah I saw it, I just...I still don't think it's enough. I don't think "I couldn't help it, a hot topless girl was flirting with me" is enough. Maybe if there was more, maybe hinted at sexual favors or pursuing a relationship, maybe if she offered something other than her flirtatious personality and a view of her chest, that might cut it...but..I dunno, I don't think that just because a hot naked girl flirts with you it somehow removes your ability to think like a rational human being, nor should we give serious consideration to the argument that it does

Yeah I saw it, I just...I still don't think it's enough. I don't think "I couldn't help it, a hot topless girl was flirting with me" is enough. Maybe if there was more, maybe hinted at sexual favors or pursuing a relationship, maybe if she offered something other than her flirtatious personality and a view of her chest, that might cut it...but..I dunno, I don't think that just because a hot naked girl flirts with you it somehow removes your ability to think like a rational human being, nor should we give serious consideration to the argument that it does

oh, I'm not saying it was entrapment. just saying that its understandable that rational thought is rather difficult when in that situation. :D

I'd call that entrapment. Especially if he did no more than expose himself (didn't for example, masturbate).

Yeah, there doesn't seem to be much point in debating whether the guy was doing wrong or not. Whether setting up a topless undercover cop and a crew to film things for the purpose of catching people exposing themselves on the other hand...

Such a waste of time. Public indecency is definitely not worth that kind of effort on behalf of law enforcement.

for me, it was a waste of time because the image was very grainy... no zoom, no focus... no details, can't see anything except fuzzy, grainy images...

what a waste of good footage... :(

by this reasoning, sting operations where officers posing as drug buyers/sellers or even as prostitutes are all guilty of entrapment.

No, because of...

The officer or someone working with the police. So if the cops told her to sit there topless and get guys to get their cocks out, then it would still be entrapment. But if she was just there for the fun of it then it wouldn't be, I don't think.

...this ("get" guys, i.e. persuade/cajole/bargain, etc.) ...and...

Wow, that's the second time I've been called out by name...

Alright, entrapment. This is a tricky area, because most people only know the subject from TV, and TV, like for most legal topics, does a poor job of portraying it properly.

Entrapment, generally, is when the police (or agents of) coerce, force, threaten, trick, or otherwise manipulate someone into breaking the law. Now, what exactly is manipulation is, of course, subject to much debate.

For it to be entrapment, the defendant has to demonstrate that while he broke the law, it was not something he would have otherwise done but for the manipulation of the police. Despite popular perception, an officer posing as a drug dealer and going "hey, want some drugs?" or a prostitute and going "hey, want some sex?" is not entrapment. You can't argue that you would not have otherwise done it because, well, you bought the drugs. You paid for sex.

Mere solicitation is not entrapment. Mere offering of the opportunity to break the law is not entrapment. The question is whether the police did something that coerced, manipulated or tricked the man into exposing himself when he would not have otherwise done it. Whether the police did something in creating the opportunity to break the law so that a reasonable, law abiding person could not be expected to resist. So, the question is, is it unreasonable to expect an otherwise law abiding man to resist the suggestions of a friendly, topless woman?

Is this real coercion and manipulation? Sneaky and underhanded and praying on base instincts yes, but do we really want to go down the line of argument that a man is incapable of controlling himself, and he was manipulated, because a half naked woman was nice to him? That he, an otherwise innocent, law abiding man, was coerced and manipulated into breaking the law by the sight of bare breasts?

I don't think that cuts it. I don't think you can argue that this fellow could not be expected to resist the urge to pull out his penis in public because a half naked girl asked him to do so.

...this.

Neo Art, you are my hero.

I think any conviction or ruling on entrapment hinges on the audio from that conversation. It's telling that we can't hear it or find a transcript...though perhaps not, given that it would be evidence in the case.

Wow, that's the second time I've been called out by name...

Alright, entrapment. This is a tricky area, because most people only know the subject from TV, and TV, like for most legal topics, does a poor job of portraying it properly.

Entrapment, generally, is when the police (or agents of) coerce, force, threaten, trick, or otherwise manipulate someone into breaking the law. Now, what exactly is manipulation is, of course, subject to much debate.

For it to be entrapment, the defendant has to demonstrate that while he broke the law, it was not something he would have otherwise done but for the manipulation of the police. Despite popular perception, an officer posing as a drug dealer and going "hey, want some drugs?" or a prostitute and going "hey, want some sex?" is not entrapment. You can't argue that you would not have otherwise done it because, well, you bought the drugs. You paid for sex.

Mere solicitation is not entrapment. Mere offering of the opportunity to break the law is not entrapment. The question is whether the police did something that coerced, manipulated or tricked the man into exposing himself when he would not have otherwise done it. Whether the police did something in creating the opportunity to break the law so that a reasonable, law abiding person could not be expected to resist. So, the question is, is it unreasonable to expect an otherwise law abiding man to resist the suggestions of a friendly, topless woman?

Is this real coercion and manipulation? Sneaky and underhanded and praying on base instincts yes, but do we really want to go down the line of argument that a man is incapable of controlling himself, and he was manipulated, because a half naked woman was nice to him? That he, an otherwise innocent, law abiding man, was coerced and manipulated into breaking the law by the sight of bare breasts?

I don't think that cuts it. I don't think you can argue that this fellow could not be expected to resist the urge to pull out his penis in public because a half naked girl asked him to do so.

Thank you for clearing that up.

No, because of...



...this ("get" guys, i.e. persuade/cajole/bargain, etc.) ...and...

read that quote again.
The officer or someone working with the police. So if the cops told her to sit there topless and get guys to get their cocks out, then it would still be entrapment. But if she was just there for the fun of it then it wouldn't be, I don't think.

this implies that her sitting there and asking "show me your Penis" is entrapment.
she wasn't there for the fun of it, she was there to temp people in exposing themselves.

just like an undercover prostitutes are there to "get" solicitors to buy sex from them...
Just like an undercover drug dealers are there to "get" the buyers to make a buy from them...

the fine line is the how they "get" their targets to break the law.

read that quote again.


this implies that her sitting there and asking "show me your Penis" is entrapment.
she wasn't there for the fun of it, she was there to temp people in exposing themselves.

just like an undercover prostitutes are there to "get" solicitors to buy sex from them...
Just like an undercover drug dealers are there to "get" the buyers to make a buy from them...

the fine line is the how they "get" their targets to break the law.

That's the problem -- how far can the police go with "getting" someone to do something? An undercover agnt posing as a prostitute cannot mention dollar amounts or anything like that, but she can act like she's selling it until the john mentions money. If the topless OP sting chick promised something in exchange for the fireman brandishing his hose, then she was entrapping the fireman. If all she said was "whip it out, big boy", she's not.

We might both be saying the same thing in different ways....

That's the problem -- how far can the police go with "getting" someone to do something? An undercover agnt posing as a prostitute cannot mention dollar amounts or anything like that, but she can act like she's selling it until the john mentions money.

Wait, what? No, that's...not quite right. There's nothing at all stopping a cop posing as a prostitute from approaching someone and going "want to fuck? 50 bucks." In fact, I would imagine that most sting operations are VERY explicit and VERY clear that they are offering sex for money, to avoid any "oh, I didn't really think she was a prostitute" defenses. No, there's absolutly nothing prohibiting them from actually directly and explicitly mentioning a price.

Where there is a prohibition is HOW MUCH they offer. Like, for example, ia beautiful, mind blowingly stunning woman approaches you one night, and you hit it off amazingly, fantastic chemistry. Then she tells you "I will have mind blowing sex with you all night for 25 cents" and you accept, is it illegal? Yeah, technically, it is, you entered into an agreement exchanging sex for money. But you'd have a great argument for entrapment.

Not because she offered sex for money, and provided a price, that's fine, that's perfectly fine. It's because the price she gave you was so low and made it so tempting that there's a strong argument that a normal law abiding person might not be able to resist. After all, paying a woman 25 cents for sex is illegal, but is it so low a price that it was designed specifically to entrap otherwise law abiding people?

That's the point of entrapment. You can make an offer. You can make an explicit, direct offer. You can flat out say I will have sex with you for 50 bucks. That's fine. What you can't do is make the offer so tempting an otherwise law abiding person would do it.

Like, for example "hey man, I just stole the 3000 dollar plasma screen HDTV, you want it? 50 bucks." Now...we're getting into entrapment land. Because, not because there was a specific offer for a specific price, but because the offer was SO tempting that even a normal, law abiding person could be "entraped" into taking the offer


If the topless OP sting chick promised something in exchange for the fireman brandishing his hose, then she was entrapping the fireman. If all she said was "whip it out, big boy", she's not.

Again, as above, it's not a question of that she offered, it's a matter of what she offered

Like, for example "hey man, I just stole the 3000 dollar plasma screen HDTV, you want it? 50 bucks." Now...we're getting into entrapment land. Because, not because there was a specific offer for a specific price, but because the offer was SO tempting that even a normal, law abiding person could be "entraped" into taking the offer

Legal principles aside, I would hope that a reasonable, law-abiding person would recognize that possessing stolen property would be a generally bad idea.

by this reasoning, sting operations where officers posing as drug buyers/sellers or even as prostitutes are all guilty of entrapment.
So cops posing as dealers walk around going "hey, you want some coke?" to anyone who will listen and arresting them when they say "sure" because that's what this is equivalent to.
Having a topless women in a park sitting around seducing any men who approach her is bullshit and should not be condoned "police work."

Legal principles aside, I would hope that a reasonable, law-abiding person would recognize that possessing stolen property would be a generally bad idea.

of course, but then again, the whole point of the entrapment doctrine is the recognition that we are, after all, only human

So cops posing as dealers walk around going "hey, you want some coke?" to anyone who will listen

Yes, yes they do. Cops will very often go to an area that has a high drug traffic rate and will offer drugs to whomever they think will buy.

Happens all the time

So cops posing as dealers walk around going "hey, you want some coke?" to anyone who will listen and arresting them when they say "sure" because that's what this is equivalent to.
Having a topless women in a park sitting around seducing any men who approach her is bullshit and should not be condoned "police work."

actually... yes. I used to think that it was entrapment, but legally, no it's not.

And the defense will have to prove the "seduction" part. is being topless and amiable to conversation in and of itself seduction in a city that allows topless sunbathing?

of course, but then again, the whole point of the entrapment doctrine is the recognition that we are, after all, only human

Hm. Isn't the whole point of having a legal system the recognition of our human failings and the need for social order?

I was under the impression that the point of the entrapment doctrine was to prevent certain abuses by law enforcement officials, but maybe that's because I just haven't read up on its history.

read that quote again.


this implies that her sitting there and asking "show me your Penis" is entrapment.
My point was that she didn't have to be a police officer for it to be entrapment. I figured we had already had that whole 'you have to be coerced/whatever into it' bit covered.

I think the entrapment doctrine must be a bit different in the US...but I'm not entirely sure. In Canada there are really two kinds of entrapment. 'Random virtue testing' where cops offer people the opportunity to commit a crime, when those people (or they place they are in) are in no way suspected of being involved with the criminal activity being investigated. That's like cops going into a neighbourhood where prostitution is basically unheard of, and approaching people that are in no way suspected of accessing prostitutes...and offering them sex for money. The idea is, you shouldn't just be wandering around 'testing' the average citizen to see if they will resist temptation. And even in the scenario described...it's quite likely the cops would get away with it.

The other kind of entrapment has to involve inducement to commit a crime. Not just the opportunity, but actually encouraging someone to break the law. It is very narrowly applied. The courts look to see whether the average person would have been induced, the kind of activity involved, (more likely to be induced to buy possibly stolen books, for example, than a car), the attempts made by police etc. Some cases of entrapment have involved actual threats by police officers 'get me some product or my boss won't be happy' etc.

Sounds pretty similar to what Neo Art was discussing actually, but it seems to me it's a much less successful way to get a judicial stay of proceedings here than it is in the US(it's not a defence).

Hm. Isn't the whole point of having a legal system the recognition of our human failings and the need for social order?

I was under the impression that the point of the entrapment doctrine was to prevent certain abuses by law enforcement officials, but maybe that's because I just haven't read up on its history.

Well yes, but that's rather the point. Yes, people should obey the law and follow the rules, and we need law to keep social order.

On the other hand however, people are still fallable, they are still succeptable to temptation and coercion. The entrapment doctrine exists to ensure that the police actually get people predisposed to committing crimes, and not those they manage to convince/trick/manipulate and/or coerce by playing on their basic human weaknesses and get them to commit crimes by "making you an offer you can't refuse"

What I want to know is why the woman's allowed to sit around in public with her boobs hanging out, while the man has to keep his best friend hidden away like it's some sort of mutant.

And the defense will have to prove the "seduction" part. is being topless and amiable to conversation in and of itself seduction in a city that allows topless sunbathing?
No, but non-standard touching is.

Did these people have any intention of walking up to women in the park and exposing themselves? Even to topless women? No? Then they are inducing criminal activity in people who had no intention of committing a crime.

What I want to know is why the woman's allowed to sit around in public with her boobs hanging out, while the man has to keep his best friend hidden away like it's some sort of mutant.

They cannot show reproductive organs, so both males and females can be topless but neither can show dick/vulva.

I think he can fight it, he was solicited by the officer to show her his penis, thats entrapment.

I think he can fight it, he was solicited by the officer to show her his penis, thats entrapment.

I suggest you read the last...7 pages or so. I mean seriously, what do you people think undercover cops actually DO? Hang around on street corners and walk into random peoples houses and hope someone offers to sell them drugs?

I think he can fight it, he was solicited by the officer to show her his penis, thats entrapment.

Might want to keep reading to understand what entrapment is.

Sheesh people.

"I know a legal term! I am going to apply it, because clearly, once I know a legal term I am imbued with the understanding necessary to use it!"

It isn't fair. The male body has a penis and a brain and only enough blood to run one at a time. :( If that.

"I know a legal term! I am going to apply it, because clearly, once I know a legal term I am imbued with the understanding necessary to use it!"

this is clearly an example of habeus corpus abuse of res ipsa loquitor and I move for an immediate writ of mens rea!

this is clearly an example of habeus corpus abuse of res ipsa loquitor and I move for an immediate writ of mens rea!

:confused: we need a wtf smilie....

:confused: we need a wtf smilie....

That is what is known as, in legal terms, as "complete and total fucking gibberish"

this is clearly an example of habeus corpus abuse of res ipsa loquitor and I move for an immediate writ of mens rea!

Hot tea. In nose. Your fault.

Hot tea. In nose. Your fault.

I have tea too, what type is yours?:)

and the thread becomes spamified.:)

What I want to know is why the woman's allowed to sit around in public with her boobs hanging out, while the man has to keep his best friend hidden away like it's some sort of mutant.

Because he could walk around with his top off, if he was so inclined.

Hot tea. In nose. Your fault.

Sue him. *nods*

Laywer Battle Round 1


FIGHT!

Mint, mixed with mucous.

Ewww, mint tea? Ucky. I reccomend pure mucous and skipping the mint. *nods*

I have tea too, what type is yours?:)

Mint, mixed with mucous.

Well yes, but that's rather the point. Yes, people should obey the law and follow the rules, and we need law to keep social order.

On the other hand however, people are still fallable, they are still succeptable to temptation and coercion. The entrapment doctrine exists to ensure that the police actually get people predisposed to committing crimes, and not those they manage to convince/trick/manipulate and/or coerce by playing on their basic human weaknesses and get them to commit crimes by "making you an offer you can't refuse"

Sounds like we're pretty much agreed then.

this is clearly an example of habeus corpus abuse of res ipsa loquitor and I move for an immediate writ of mens rea!

I would nominate you for a "most pretentious use of Latin" award to honor your fine satirical post, but I think the self-styled Roman People deserve it more.

No, given what you typed, I should think my interpretation is spot on.

Well, my response to anything you've typed depends on the meaning of what you typed. I can't be bothered with guessing games so if you could let me know what interpretation you took of my post that would help.

this is clearly an example of habeus corpus abuse of res ipsa loquitor and I move for an immediate writ of mens rea!

Pardon me, but your Latin is showing.

Besides, as written, that was just gibberish. You haven't brought anyone into court to see whether or not they are detained unlawfully, it certainly doesn't speak for itself and show to any thinking person that an injury occurred that could not have happened except through negligence of another, and a writ of mens rea? would that require someone to have criminal intent? "Oh here, Bill, it's you this time."

Well, my response to anything you've typed depends on the meaning of what you typed. I can't be bothered with guessing games so if you could let me know what interpretation you took of my post that would help.

Sorry, if you can't be arsed to read or remember your own post, I'm certainly not going to do it for you. You've only made three in this thread, after all.

Why the hell doesn't this happen when I'm actually at OSU?

I don't know anything about entrapment, but that's a ridiculous law... people should be entitled to show their penises to whomever they want. Certainly if it's invited.

I don't know anything about entrapment, but that's a ridiculous law... people should be entitled to show their penises to whomever they want. Certainly if it's invited.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

...

...

...

I wanted to say something, but it got jumbled in the process.

Why the hell doesn't this happen when I'm actually at OSU?

Maybe you have a black hole of a personality? :p

obin 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.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

Entrapment. End of story.

I support the reform of "indency" laws not to include plain ol' nakedness. That's fine, as far as I'm concerned. As long as you're not actually humping in full view of the public, (unless that's what this particular public is into :p) I'm cool with it.:D

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

You're right. Children who show their penises should be locked up. Todays naked toddler is tomorrows pervert. Get 'em while they're young and you won't have to worry about them when they're bigger.

You're right. Children who show their penises should be locked up. Todays naked toddler is tomorrows pervert. Get 'em while they're young and you won't have to worry about them when they're bigger.

Second.

Entrapment. End of story.

Read the thread. End of story.

You're right. Children who show their penises should be locked up. Todays naked toddler is tomorrows pervert. Get 'em while they're young and you won't have to worry about them when they're bigger.

How about adult males showing their penises to children? (which is more than possible when you whip it out in a public park). Are they tomorrow's pervert, or today's?

Read the thread. End of story.

I read the story, I still say it's entrapment, or close enough for it to count. Because it is so borderline, it is impossible to say one way or other without seeing what she is doing/saying on the video tape. But from what little was reported, it sounds like she was using some not-so-innocent touching that can easily be construed as provocative.

How about adult males showing their penises to children? (which is more than possible when you whip it out in a public park). Are they tomorrow's pervert, or today's?
And the sarcasm is lost.

I read the story, I still say it's entrapment, or close enough for it to count. Because it is so borderline, it is impossible to say one way or other without seeing what she is doing/saying on the video tape. But from what little was reported, it sounds like she was using some not-so-innocent touching that can easily be construed as provocative.


And the sarcasm is lost.

How ironic, given that my typing THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! was sarcastic in the first place.

How ironic, given that my typing THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! was sarcastic in the first place.
Not quite irony. That was obviously ironic, but your follow up to a joke reply was unnecessarily serious.

Not quite irony. That was obviously ironic, but your follow up to a joke reply was unnecessarily serious.

Oh, a joke reply to a joke reply? Funny, it looked like Domici was taking it seriously. I didn't know you spoke for them.

Missed the explanation by Neo what is and isn't entrapment didn't you?

It doesn't matter. They've watched Law and Order, they know everything.

Entrapment. End of story.

Missed the explanation by Neo what is and isn't entrapment didn't you?

Missed the explanation by Neo what is and isn't entrapment didn't you?

Did anyone but me read the article?
It is very borderline entrapment and what is shown/heard on the video could easily push it over with a good lawyer.

Did anyone but me read the article?

We all read it. Have you bothered to read what was posted after it?

It is very borderline entrapment

Do you know what we call someone who raises a defense of "borderline" entrapment?

Guilty.

There's no "almost entrapment" in law. It either is, or it is not. If it is not, it doesn't matter how close it came, it's still not.

and what is shown/heard on the video could easily push it over with a good lawyer.

And your legal background that allows you to reach this conclusion on what constitutes entrapment, and what she could have said that would make it entrapment is...what, exactly?

It doesn't matter. They've watched Law and Order, they know everything.

I move for an immediate Writ of Mandingo!

Do you know what we call someone who raises a defense of "borderline" entrapment?

Guilty.

There's no "almost entrapment" in law. It either is, or it is not. If it is not, it doesn't matter how close it came, it's still not.

TPH is not saying the guy should raise a legal defense based on "borderline entrapment." He is saying the case can be argued to be entrapment or not.

And your legal background that allows you to reach this conclusion on what constitutes entrapment, and what she could have said that would make it entrapment is...what, exactly?

Legal background? Sorry, this is NSG. None of us, even if every last one of us were lawyers, have a relevant opinion on this case. Including yours, unless you happen to be the dude's lawyer.

Legal background?

My legal background is irrelevant as I have read the same information on entrapment as anyone here and I have read the article presented here, so unless Neo Art has some unique information about this specific incident that he would like to share with the rest of the class, he can take his elitist attitude and blow it out his ass.

TPH is not saying the guy should raise a legal defense based on "borderline entrapment." He is saying the case can be argued to be entrapment or not.

And I disagree, and I have yet to see any compelling reason why this should be treated as entrapment, and he has consistantly failed to offer one.

Legal background? Sorry, this is NSG. None of us, even if every last one of us were lawyers, have a relevant opinion on this case. Including yours, unless you happen to be the dude's lawyer.

There's a difference between "relevant" opinion and "educated" opinion. Is my opinion relevant? No, of course not, I'm not involved. Mine is, however, an educated opinion, which, I fear, is more than I can say for TPH. He is arguing that it is, or could be, entrapment. Entrapment is a legal term, it has a legal definition. Using legal terms properly, understanding what they mean, understanding how to apply them in the proper context requires some degree of legal knowledge.

So if he is going to claim to know what constitutes entrapment, as a legal construct, I think it's quite relevant to question him on the background of his legal knowledge and education.

And I disagree,

That's nice, but your disagreement really doesn't constitute the Final Word On The Matter Case Closed Everyone Must Shut Up Now that you and others seem to think it does. ;)

There's a difference between "relevant" opinion and "educated" opinion. Is my opinion relevant? No, of course not, I'm not involved. Mine is, however, an educated opinion, which, I fear, is more than I can say for TPH.

Oh, well I suppose you can pat yourself on the back for superiority. Do you want a cookie too?

My legal background is irrelevant as I have read the same information on entrapment as anyone here

So, lemme get this straight. You think reading an article on wikipedia constitutes a legal education?

I move for an immediate Writ of Mandingo!

I cite Heckler v. Street corner your honor and move for remand. Yay I are lawyer.

IT'S A TARP!

She asked to see his penis first,... I wonder if this defense argument will hold?

Is this what you meant to say?

http://photo.gangus.com/d/26788-2/ackbar.jpg




:D

That's nice, but your disagreement really doesn't constitute the Final Word On The Matter Case Closed Everyone Must Shut Up Now that you and others seem to think it does. ;)

Of course it doesn't. You can hold any damned fool opinion you want to. You can truly believe that the world is flat, dragons are real, I'm a giant squirrel and the sun is a small ball of fire held in the sky by faeries. You can hold those opinions that you would absolutly and totally believe to be true

And you'd be wrong. And nothing about cloaking it under the protection that it's your opinion will make it right. You are free to have any silly opinion you wish, and I can't stop you. However, the mere fact that it's your opinion doesn't make it true, or right, or less silly, or make you any less the fool for believing it.

You are free to have whatever wrong opinion you wish to have, but merely because it's your opinion doesn't somehow make it a valid one.

Oh, well I suppose you can pat yourself on the back for superiority. Do you want a cookie too?

You really shouldn't feed him. All those sugary and fatty foods go straight to his already overinflated ego.

I'm a giant squirrel

I Knew it!!

Of course it doesn't. You can hold any damned fool opinion you want to. You can truly believe that the world is flat, dragons are real, I'm a giant squirrel and the sun is a small ball of fire held in the sky by faeries. You can hold those opinions that you would absolutly and totally believe to be true

And you'd be wrong.

Of course, because now disagreeing with you is as moronic as believing in dragons. Neo has spoken, it must be true!

And nothing about cloaking it under the protection that it's your opinion will make it right. You are free to have any silly opinion you wish, and I can't stop you. However, the mere fact that it's your opinion doesn't make it true, or right, or less silly, or make you any less the fool for believing it.

I "cloaked" nothing. In fact, what I was saying is that YOUR opinion, however "educated" it is, is just your opinion. And no matter how much you seem to enjoy whipping out your "I'm edjamacated" penis, self-congratulatory nonsense doesn't make your opinion true, or right, or less silly, or make you any less the fool for believing it.

You are free to have whatever wrong opinion you wish to have, but merely because it's your opinion doesn't somehow make it a valid one.

Also, for a guy who claims some sort of legal education, you're awful quick to spit out fallacious arguments. I.E, I'm right cuz I'm educated. You're wrong because you're not. (Ad hominem.) Now this strawman. What it shows me is that education alone means nothing.

Of course, because now disagreeing with you is as moronic as believing in dragons. Neo has spoken, it must be true!

On this particular matter? Pretty much, yeah.



I "cloaked" nothing. In fact, what I was saying is that YOUR opinion, however "educated" it is, is just your opinion.

Opinion, backed up by fact, experience, and, as you said, education. Three things TPH and others lack.


Also, for a guy who claims some sort of legal education, you're awful quick to spit out fallacious arguments. I.E, I'm right cuz I'm educated.

No, for a guy who has a legal education, I spent about three PAGES explaining, in detail, why I was right. I was able to craft those explanations, provide those details, make those discussions BECAUSE I am educated.

Huge difference actually. There is a world of difference between "here is why I am right, in detail, I know this because I am educated" and "I'm right because I am educated"

I have gone on, for multiple paragraphs in this thread, exactly what entrapment is, what it constitutes, what it requires, and why, exactly, this isn't it.

And nobody, NOBODY, least of all you or TPH has offered one shred of proof, one cite, one fact, one case, one statute, on little piece of anything to prove a single thing I said in error.

All I have gotten is "nuh uh, you're wrong, because...I said so!" Not one single person, has managed to refute a thing I said. They can't, simply, because I'm right. If you think I'm wrong, please, show me where in the argument I'm incorrect, point out the flaw in my analysis, go ahead and prove me wrong.

I have laid out my argument across multiple posts, repeated it numerous times. I have nothing really further to say on the subject, I have already defined the term, applied it, and found its use lacking in this case. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. Merely spouting off "nuh uh" without even the slightest proof, fact, or citation to back it up is foolish. I ask for his legal education because if he's so willing to say I'm wrong, without any citation fact or proof then I hope, hope, for the sake of basic human decency and intellect that he has some glimmer of internal knowledge somewhere. I don't care if you're educated. I don't care if you have a JD. But if you're going to say my analysis, argument, and explanations are wrong, without showing in any way why it's wrong, then I'd hope you'd at least have some internal knowledge to back up your assertions.

Otherwise you're just some damned fool.

All I have gotten is "nuh uh, you're wrong, because...I said so!"

Strawman! Ha, now I'm a lawyer and know cool fallacies. Ad verbatum while I'm at it (does this one exist? Because it just came to the top of my head of cool things to say).

Click Stand;13331139']Strawman! Ha, now I'm a lawyer and know cool fallacies. Ad verbatum while I'm at it (does this one exist? Because it just came to the top of my head of cool things to say).

"ad verbatim" does exist as a legal phrase. It means "to the word", usually used in reference to transcripts taken "ad verbatim", meaning they are an exact, to the word, transcript of the procedings, or case citations taken to the word of the case being cited.

What I don't get is: Why are women allowed to tan their unmentionables, but men are not?

What I don't get is: Why are women allowed to tan their unmentionables, but men are not?

because, as mentioned in this thread a few times before, breasts are not genitalia, and women can go topless just as men can, but, like men, can not go bottomless

What I don't get is: Why are women allowed to tan their unmentionables, but men are not?

Tits are unmentionables now?

tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, tits, ha I've mentioned them

What I don't get is: Why are women allowed to tan their unmentionables, but men are not?
Because this is Victorian era England. Forever. :rolleyes:

Oi!

I turn in a bloody wallet which is four pounds and this is the thanks that those blokes will give me.

I think not.

I will use my well defined samuri skills to defend my rights to property and sue the fluff hats for entrapment.

Oi!

I turn in a bloody wallet which is four pounds and this is the thanks that those blokes will give me.

I think not.

I will use my well defined samuri skills to defend my rights to property and sue the fluff hats for entrapment.

:confused:

It doesn't matter. They've watched Law and Order, they know everything. hey! I watch CSI! :p

Did anyone but me read the article?
It is very borderline entrapment and what is shown/heard on the video could easily push it over with a good lawyer.
yep... especially this part...

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.

so the 'entrapment' argument didn't sway a jury of his peers.

On this particular matter? Pretty much, yeah.

You only prove my point.

Opinion, backed up by fact, experience, and, as you said, education. Three things TPH and others lack.

Did you think repeating ad homs somehow made them less easy to spot or perhaps more valid? Yes yes, now TPH (and "the others") are all uneducated and inexperienced.

And nobody, NOBODY, least of all you or TPH has offered one shred of proof, one cite, one fact, one case, one statute, on little piece of anything to prove a single thing I said in error.

My argument consists of tearing into your ridiculous method of debating. You may have offered pages of explanation, but you shit all over any value that might have when you resort to stupid fallacies and egotistical masturbation. It's disgusting and indecent.

All I have gotten is "nuh uh, you're wrong, because...I said so!" Not one single person, has managed to refute a thing I said. They can't, simply, because I'm right.

I am God. No one has refuted this yet, therefore they cannot do it, because I am, in fact, God.

I ask for his legal education because if he's so willing to say I'm wrong, without any citation fact or proof then I hope, hope, for the sake of basic human decency and intellect that he has some glimmer of internal knowledge somewhere.

More ad homs; thanks for proving me correct again.


Otherwise you're just some damned fool.

Yes yes. Inexperienced, uneducated, and a damned fool. Of course, dearie.

GT, it's no one's fault that you can't trump Neo Art's legal argument. You can't just waltz in and say 'nu-uh! I think the law is THIS' and expect applause, when you don't have the background to make that assertion.

Yeah, he's an egotistical bastard. But feel free to actually PROVE him wrong, instead of using those ad hominems you're accusing him of spouting. The argument is a legal one. You don't get to somehow trump that with 'well my opinion is just as valid as yours so neener neener neener!'

so the 'entrapment' argument didn't sway a jury of his peers.
I'm sure they are well versed in what entrapment entails :rolleyes:
Here is what the jury heard: "Blah blah blah penis out in park blah blah"
That's it.
And arn't judges supposed to judge entrapment?

I'm sure they are well versed in what entrapment entails :rolleyes:
Here is what the jury heard: "Blah blah blah penis out in park blah blah"
That's it.
And arn't judges supposed to judge entrapment?
if that's what you would hear... ;)

if both lawyers are worth their fees, they would both make sure to define 'Entrapment' to the jury. especially if one is aruging that the officers did entrap the defendant... the other would definantely make sure the jury knows the details of what entails entrapment.

so the 'entrapment' argument didn't sway a jury of his peers.

Fair enough. Maybe his lawyer should have used the "LOL I R LAWYER" argument.

Fair enough. Maybe his lawyer should have used the "LOL I R LAWYER" argument.

And then the other one could go 'your honour! He's being a big poopyhead to me!'. :P

What I don't get is: Why are women allowed to tan their unmentionables, but men are not?

Men can go barechested and show their nipples.
Women can go barechested and show their nipples.

Men cannot appear in public showing their genitals (except under certain circumstances).
Women cannot appear in public showing their genitals(except under certain circumstances).

What precisely makes the female nipple 'unmentionable', while the male one can be paraded down the street and no one cares?


And arn't judges supposed to judge entrapment?

Hmm, I guess since he lost this point in his case, it was judged not to be entrapment.

What precisely makes the female nipple 'unmentionable', while the male one can be paraded down the street and no one cares?

Yeah, especially since some men are packing a D cup.

if that's what you would hear... ;)

if both lawyers are worth their fees, they would both make sure to define 'Entrapment' to the jury. especially if one is aruging that the officers did entrap the defendant... the other would definantely make sure the jury knows the details of what entails entrapment.
And then went on about "blah blah blah penis in park blah blah children blah-" "guilty!"

Fair enough. Maybe his lawyer should have used the "LOL I R LAWYER" argument.
The Neo Art Defense? Similar to the Chewbacca defense, but not as popular.

Yeah, especially since some men are packing a D cup.

Only the sexy ones.

Men can go barechested and show their nipples.
Women can go barechested and show their nipples.

Men cannot appear in public showing their genitals (except under certain circumstances).
Women cannot appear in public showing their genitals(except under certain circumstances).

What precisely makes the female nipple 'unmentionable', while the male one can be paraded down the street and no one cares?Not everywhere :D

obin 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.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

Modern legallity is like raving insane lunatic...amusing but dangerous.

What I want to know is why the woman's allowed to sit around in public with her boobs hanging out, while the man has to keep his best friend hidden away like it's some sort of mutant.

You make an excellent point. But it is different to walk around naked than to pull-out slick Willie and draw attention to it individually.

What you can't do is make the offer so tempting an otherwise law abiding person would do it.

Like, for example "hey man, I just stole the 3000 dollar plasma screen HDTV, you want it? 50 bucks." Now...we're getting into entrapment land. Because, not because there was a specific offer for a specific price, but because the offer was SO tempting that even a normal, law abiding person could be "entraped" into taking the offer




Again, as above, it's not a question of that she offered, it's a matter of what she offered

I am inclined to believe that a person who was not planning to expose himself in the park (an otherwise law-abiding citizen) would be willing to expose himself if asked to by a topless woman. This does not therefore seem to be preventing crime (if not for this topless woman, the man would likely not have exposed himself) but creating crime to prosecute. If there were a topless sunbather who wasn't working for the police asking men to expose themselves, the police would be within their rights to watch and see if anyone took her up on it, because, well those who do are committing a crime. But the police here seem to be causing the crime they are arresting him for. It is different than offering to sell sex or drugs, as only those who were otherwise planning to buy drugs would buy drugs from this anonymous dealer.

Wait? Topless sunbathing is legal in C-bus city parks? How the hell haven't I seen this?

Not everywhere :D

I would think that would be "certain circumstances" as in, "in a place where it is legal to let it swing in the breeze".

I would think that would be "certain circumstances" as in, "in a place where it is legal to let it swing in the breeze".Depends on where you're from. I'd say that "certain circumstances" would refer to countries where public nudity is illegal. :p

But I am detracting from the point you made, which I otherwise fully agree with.

Depends on where you're from. I'd say that "certain circumstances" would refer to countries where public nudity is illegal. :p

But I am detracting from the point you made, which I otherwise fully agree with.

;) Somehow I am thinking that even in a country where public nudity is legal there would be exceptions -- like you couldn't decide one day to teach your kindergarten class in the nude. ;)

;) Somehow I am thinking that even in a country where public nudity is legal there would be exceptions -- like you couldn't decide one day to teach your kindergarten class in the nude. ;)Indeed, but I don't think there's any place in the US where you can actually appear nude in public. My understanding is that its only legal on private property.

Indeed, but I don't think there's any place in the US where you can actually appear nude in public. My understanding is that its only legal on private property.

http://www.nac.oshkosh.net/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/body_state_laws_frames.html


Actually, it varies from state to state. A judge recently ruled that a municipal law against nudity in Daytona Beach, Florida was unconstitutional and had it thrown out.

And this proves yet again what I'm talking about. To be brief, you're both wrong.


And arn't judges supposed to judge entrapment?

1) entrapment is a defense. It is a statement that while the defendant has committed an illegal act, it is not his fault due to the fact he was entrapped. Entrapment thus, like all defenses, is a matter for the jury, not the judge. It is the job of the jury (unless it's a bench trial, which it is not) to decide guilt. Ergo it is the job of the jury to determine whether or not the defendant met his burden of proving his defense.

And yes, before anyone spouts off about the burden being on the state, this is true, it is the burden on the state to prove he did it. An entrapment defense admits that he did it, and as such, is an affirmative defense. When an affirmative defense is raised, it is on the defendant to prove that he is entitled to this defense, as to raise an affirmative defense requires an admission that he did, in fact, commit the crime, but is not at fault for certain reasons, and it is his job to prove those reasons valid. It is the job of the jury, not the judge, to determine if the defense adequatly proved his defense.

if both lawyers are worth their fees, they would both make sure to define 'Entrapment' to the jury. especially if one is aruging that the officers did entrap the defendant... the other would definantely make sure the jury knows the details of what entails entrapment.

2) No, any lawyer who doesn't want to be a lawyer anymore would define "entrapment" for the jury, because that's a damn quick way to get disbarred. It is not the job of the lawyer to define, for the jury, what the law is. That's the job of the judge, in a thing called jury instruction. The lawyer submits his proposed jury instruction, what he thinks the jury should hear, to the judge, and the judge decides what to actually tell the jury. The lawyer is not, under any circumstances, to try to define the law in that manner.

To make it simple, the judge tells the jury what the law is. The lawyers present their version of the facts. The jury, then taking the definition of the law from the judge, and the presentation of facts from the lawyers, decides whether the facts are proven to match the law.

It is the job of the lawyers to argue that the facts don't match the law. It is NOT, under any circumstances, the job of the lawyer to tell the jury what the law is. That's what the judge is for.

See, law ain't as intuitive as you might think it is.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

They are...or about making children that is.

They are...or about making children that is.

Jeesh, SL! What has happened to you? Did you not used to be a pseudo-fascist with no sense of humor?

Women have the power to control anything and everything with a simple move of their shirt.
Someones taking off their shirt?! Where?!

Wait, what? No, that's...not quite right. There's nothing at all stopping a cop posing as a prostitute from approaching someone and going "want to fuck? 50 bucks." In fact, I would imagine that most sting operations are VERY explicit and VERY clear that they are offering sex for money, to avoid any "oh, I didn't really think she was a prostitute" defenses. No, there's absolutly nothing prohibiting them from actually directly and explicitly mentioning a price.

Where there is a prohibition is HOW MUCH they offer. Like, for example, ia beautiful, mind blowingly stunning woman approaches you one night, and you hit it off amazingly, fantastic chemistry. Then she tells you "I will have mind blowing sex with you all night for 25 cents" and you accept, is it illegal? Yeah, technically, it is, you entered into an agreement exchanging sex for money. But you'd have a great argument for entrapment.

Not because she offered sex for money, and provided a price, that's fine, that's perfectly fine. It's because the price she gave you was so low and made it so tempting that there's a strong argument that a normal law abiding person might not be able to resist. After all, paying a woman 25 cents for sex is illegal, but is it so low a price that it was designed specifically to entrap otherwise law abiding people?

That's the point of entrapment. You can make an offer. You can make an explicit, direct offer. You can flat out say I will have sex with you for 50 bucks. That's fine. What you can't do is make the offer so tempting an otherwise law abiding person would do it.

Like, for example "hey man, I just stole the 3000 dollar plasma screen HDTV, you want it? 50 bucks." Now...we're getting into entrapment land. Because, not because there was a specific offer for a specific price, but because the offer was SO tempting that even a normal, law abiding person could be "entrapped" into taking the offer.

It's not a question of that she offered, it's a matter of what she offered

Thank you for clearing that up...for almost everyone. Thank you as well for reminding the forum that fact > opinion.

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I don't get that argument in terms of indecent exposure. Children come from genitals, right? I mean in a general sense. So exposing oneself to children can be thought of in terms of showing them their ancestral homes -- their history. It might not be that child's gamete factory, but, much like you can get a sense of nostalgia from houses resembling your own from childhood, it is still an example of one.

And that was a damned long walk for not enough humor. I apologize.

You only prove my point.



Did you think repeating ad homs somehow made them less easy to spot or perhaps more valid? Yes yes, now TPH (and "the others") are all uneducated and inexperienced.



My argument consists of tearing into your ridiculous method of debating. You may have offered pages of explanation, but you shit all over any value that might have when you resort to stupid fallacies and egotistical masturbation. It's disgusting and indecent.



I am God. No one has refuted this yet, therefore they cannot do it, because I am, in fact, God.



More ad homs; thanks for proving me correct again.



Yes yes. Inexperienced, uneducated, and a damned fool. Of course, dearie.

GT, Neo is citing actual legal practice as a lawyer. Facts. Shit that actually happens in a courtroom. He's not claiming to be God, he's claiming to be right, and nobody's shown otherwise.

You're citing endless TV-show-based opinions. You're claiming that those opinions outweigh the actual definition of a law and the practice of trying a case like this one. You lose. Please move on, you're embarrassing yourself.

Someones taking off their shirt?! Where?!

Behind you (waits while Greston swivels to see his topless mother behind him, and the Oedipal shock produces an ear-shredding shriek and a faint-motivated *flump*).

Thank you for clearing that up...for almost everyone. Thank you as well for reminding the forum that fact > opinion.

And everyone just assumes he is right on his opinion of whether this is entrapment. I wouldn't consider people that just happen to be walking along in the park to be intent on breaking the law. You go sit down next to a topless women "sun-bathing" in the shade and she starts flirting with you and touching you in seductive ways and eventually asks you to take your penis out in the park. After all the lead up and non-verbal convincing, even a law abiding citizen has an 80+% chance of doing it. There is no money involved in this case and repeatedly bringing up how entrapment applies with money is irrelevant.

They are trying to catch people who are masturbating or having sex in the park by putting an enticingly dressed woman in the park and having her flirt with and seductively touch people that stop to talk to her, for several minutes, and then ask them to expose their genitals. This strikes no one else as equivalent to trying to get people to buy stolen merchandise for absurdly low amounts, or being nabbed for soliciting prostitution because she said she'd do it for a penny (anything above free is prostitution).

The cops are not going to catch people in the park having sex (of which two people are required for and thus a little hard to entice) or people masturbating in the park (as they are likely not interacting with any one at the time), they are just catching people who stop to talk to a half-naked woman doing very suspicious things to get people to expose themselves.


How to catch people having sex/masturbating in a park - set up a motion activated camera in secluded areas. Oh look, I did their job for them without having to entrap law-abiding citizens going for a stroll in the park.

And everyone just assumes he is right on his opinion of whether this is entrapment. I wouldn't consider people that just happen to be walking along in the park to be intent on breaking the law. You go sit down next to a topless women "sun-bathing" in the shade and she starts flirting with you and touching you in seductive ways and eventually asks you to take your penis out in the park. After all the lead up and non-verbal convincing, even a law abiding citizen has an 80+% chance of doing it. There is no money involved in this case and repeatedly bringing up how entrapment applies with money is irrelevant.

Bullshit. Eight out of ten average people know not to do that stuff in public. The two who don't or who do know but are too stupid to abide by the law need a lesson.

What non-verbal convincing can you see in that unfocused video that the rest of us cannot? In the absence of something like the plant fondling the guy, it is not entrapment. Neo's words aren't opinion in this matter because he's got legal precedent and the actual legal process and his experience with it backing him up. I'm going to believe him before I believe you on matters of law. Sorry.

Anyone who doesn't know that having sex or exposing yourself in a public place is aganst the law probably shoudn't be outside to begin with, and if you do know, you should be arrested/fined.

They are trying to catch people who are masturbating or having sex in the park by putting an enticingly dressed woman in the park and having her flirt with and seductively touch people that stop to talk to her, for several minutes, and then ask them to expose their genitals. This strikes no one else as equivalent to trying to get people to buy stolen merchandise for absurdly low amounts, or being nabbed for soliciting prostitution because she said she'd do it for a penny (anything above free is prostitution).

No it doesn't. It's legal to snbathe topless. It's legal to have a conversation. It's even legal to ask someone to show you their junk. The reasonable person looks at where he is and says something like "not here".

Again, you don't know how she was touching the marks. That isn't in the story, and if the jury said no and the judge, who's job it is to give the jury the letter of the law in order for them to do their job, agreed -- then it wasn't entrapment.

The cops are not going to catch people in the park having sex (of which two people are required for and thus a little hard to entice) or people masturbating in the park (as they are likely not interacting with any one at the time), they are just catching people who stop to talk to a half-naked woman doing very suspicious things to get people to expose themselves.

They're going to catch people who are predisposed to exposing themselves in public or worse. Reasonable, law-abiding don't expose their genitals in a park, no matter how someone asks or how the asker is dressed.

How to catch people having sex/masturbating in a park - set up a motion activated camera in secluded areas. Oh look, I did their job for them without having to entrap law-abiding citizens going for a stroll in the park.

And the camera acts on predisposition how? The police positively identify the guy how? No camera yet made can read an ID through a wallet. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. It isn't personal and it's not a character flaw, but in the absence of clearer video or other evidence, it is not entrapment.

What amuses me most is that some on this forum seem so damned desperate to get laid that they think it's totally acceptable and understandable to lose all self control in the presence of a cute, bare chested woman who flirts with them and touches their leg when, in fact, rational adults are perfectly capable of keeping their fucking pants on and recognizing that just because the hot girl asks you nicely to do something and pats your thigh, doesn't mean you have to do it.

What non-verbal convincing can you see in that unfocused video that the rest of us cannot?
It is what you choose to not see and analyze.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_abc_pervert_sting_edit_071227_ms.jpg
She is not touching him with her hands, not even in a playful manner, she is only touching him with her bare feet. It is a non-verbal signal. Read more, kthxbai.

Neo's words aren't opinion in this matter because he's got legal precedent and the actual legal process and his experience with it backing him up. I'm going to believe him before I believe you on matters of law. Sorry.
The facts are that his opinion of whether this is entrapment or not is his opinion, not fact by the virtue of him saying it. And unless he can produce something other than all the money related definitions of entrapment, I will dismiss all his "precedent." PS: precedent requires citing actual decisions.

Anyone who doesn't know that having sex or exposing yourself in a public place is aganst the law probably shoudn't be outside to begin with, and if you do know, you should be arrested/fined.
That's why it took her several minutes of goading him into it verbally and physically.


No it doesn't. It's legal to snbathe topless.
Irrelevant. It is being used as part of the bait to make people think it would be ok to expose themselves, even on a subconscious level.

Again, you don't know how she was touching the marks. That isn't in the story, and if the jury said no and the judge, who's job it is to give the jury the letter of the law in order for them to do their job, agreed -- then it wasn't entrapment.
Like all the rest of us "uninformed" sub-Neo Art being, juries are not lawyers and likely have no competent understanding of the law, thus they are ruling based on their biases. ie "blah blah blah penis in park blah blah blah children-" "guilty!'


They're going to catch people who are predisposed to exposing themselves in public or worse.
I say we test this theory by putting a fully clothed women in the park, sit her on a bench, tell her not to touch people, and ask some one to expose themselves. See how many people do.

No camera yet made can read an ID through a wallet. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here.
I rather be "wrong" than support the inducing of illegal activities by the police so they can arrest people and make it look like they are having an effect on completely unrelated crimes.

Entrapment.

Entrapment.

or, you know, not.

2) No, any lawyer who doesn't want to be a lawyer anymore would define "entrapment" for the jury, because that's a damn quick way to get disbarred. It is not the job of the lawyer to define, for the jury, what the law is. That's the job of the judge, in a thing called jury instruction. The lawyer submits his proposed jury instruction, what he thinks the jury should hear, to the judge, and the judge decides what to actually tell the jury. The lawyer is not, under any circumstances, to try to define the law in that manner. so they don't explain, at least in part, what entrapment requires? or, in the case of the Defense, why they are claiming entrapment?

To make it simple, the judge tells the jury what the law is. The lawyers present their version of the facts. The jury, then taking the definition of the law from the judge, and the presentation of facts from the lawyers, decides whether the facts are proven to match the law.so it's the judge then that would explain what entrapment is to the jury? even better.

What amuses me most is that some on this forum seem so damned desperate to get laid that they think it's totally acceptable and understandable to lose all self control in the presence of a cute, bare chested woman who flirts with them and touches their leg when, in fact, rational adults are perfectly capable of keeping their fucking pants on and recognizing that just because the hot girl asks you nicely to do something and pats your thigh, doesn't mean you have to do it.

:eek: We don't!?!

:eek: We don't!?!

Well....

Ah, men. Apparently they control 0% of their penises and brains. How silly.
Man, that sounds horrid out of context, doesn't it? :p

Just because some one offers to sell you stolen goods really cheap doesn't mean you have to buy them. Just because a women offers to prostitute herself to you for a penny doesn't mean you have to accept. Just because a police officer badgers you for an hour to buy some drugs from him right after you walked out of rehab for drug addiction doesn't mean you have to do it. There is an entrapment defense for a reason and Neo Art is being an ass about it because people arn't taking his word as gospel and are presenting an actual counter argument.

Just because some one offers to sell you stolen goods really cheap doesn't mean you have to buy them. Just because a women offers to prostitute herself to you for a penny doesn't mean you have to accept. Just because a police officer badgers you for an hour to buy some drugs from him right after you walked out of rehab for drug addiction doesn't mean you have to do it. There is an entrapment defense for a reason and Neo Art is being an ass about it because people arn't taking his word as gospel and are presenting an actual counter argument.

You just think he is biased because you are pantless. :p

But seriously, you should curtail your anger. We are merely debating here.

"Agreed: Cugel should not make signals and greet his friends at the urinal. Master Chernitz might be more generous in his assumptions. I sgguest that Master Chernitz retract the term 'moral leper' and Cugel his 'tree weasel', and there let the matter rest"

Neo Art IS an ass, and will readily admit it. He just happens to be a well-informed one.

Neo Art IS an ass, and will readily admit it. He just happens to be a well-informed one.

My Hero. :cool:

I'm surprised few seem to think this is entrapment. Here is why, it is my understanding that entrapment occurs if an unusual situation occurs of the type we do not expect law abiding citizens to have to deal with properly, if it is created by the police (a 1 cent hooker or a stolen ten dollar xbox). Now should a reasonable law abiding citizen be able to resist a bare chested woman? yes. Is it still reasonable to suggest that a person should be able to control themselves in such a situation if being seduced? I should think so. However if the man was actually asked to whip it out right there, then no. I don't know how often people are normally seduced by bare chested women and asked to whip it out, but I'd say approximately never. Of course alot depends on what was actually said, but it just seems like a completely artificial situation that would never occur normally, for example despite it being legal for women to go around bare chested in NY state I've never seen one half nude woman in public, in all my life.

This is stupid. You guys actually pay police officers and naked women to lure people into doing stupid yet harmless, and then spend MORE tax dollars on prosecuting them?

The only thing that comes to mind is: WTF MATE? :confused:

Mayhaps it might be a better usage of resources to, you know, stop violent criminals from doing harm to the ordinary citizen, instead of making men show their penis and then go "OMG you perv! In prison with ya!".

Because, you know, a man showing his penis to someone who asked to see it is hardly a bigger danger to society than those violent street gang members, or those mafiosi, or those... you get my drift.

I think the real problem here is the law that you cannot show your genitals in public.


If they were going for perverts who masturbate in the park, why don't they go after the ones who do it without being asked rather than coaxing people to do it with with flirtatious, half naked women, and who are NOT masturbating in the park?

The dude who showed his junk in public looked pretty isolated from anyone else and so it doesn't look like anyone besides the lady requesting a view was in danger of seeing it. So what's the problem here?

This is stupid. You guys actually pay police officers and naked women to lure people into doing stupid yet harmless, and then spend MORE tax dollars on prosecuting them?

The only thing that comes to mind is: WTF MATE? :confused:

Mayhaps it might be a better usage of resources to, you know, stop violent criminals from doing harm to the ordinary citizen, instead of making men show their penis and then go "OMG you perv! In prison with ya!".

Because, you know, a man showing his penis to someone who asked to see it is hardly a bigger danger to society than those violent street gang members, or those mafiosi, or those... you get my drift.

Truely sir you do not understand how idiotic us Americans must be. We have it in our minds that nudity is a no-no, but violence is ok even for a two year old.

I am confused. Who exactly was harmed here? Unless the guy was hung like a stallion, causing the woman to resent her husband, this seems like a harmless case.

Does this fall under the realm of "protecting" the public, or "serving" the public?

What a joke!

You know, as I flew home from NY to Boston, a thought occured to me. I had thought I explained entrapment pretty well, that someone is "entrapped" if the police put him in a situation that no reasonable person can be expected to withstand. That the police place him in a situation that he, as an otherwise law abiding person, would feel compelled to violate the law. If this is the situation, that the police placed him in a situation no reasonable person could be expected ot refuse, then he is entrapped.

I had presumed that this situation would be so obviously NOT entrapment that the only way people could possibly think it was, is that they simply didn't understand what entrapment meant. That they just, for some reason, did not understand that entrapment required the police to place this man in a situation where the temptation to violate the law was such that no reasonable person could withstand it.

I had presumed that people just didn't understand this. I see now, I was wrong. The erronious presumption that people were making is not that they misunderstood entrapment, but they so erroniously thought it was valid here.

Those who believe this man was entrapped, and understand the definition of entrapment, believe that this man was put in a situation where the temptation was so great that he could not be expected to withstand it. To believe that this man was entrapped is to believe that a man, who sees a bare chested woman, who smiles sweetly, talks nicely, and pats his leg with her foot, is so compelling, creates so strong an urge, that no man can be expected to resist this. That a simple flirtatious smile, some suggestive touching and a sight of boobs creates in men an irresistable impulse to do whatever she wants of you. They believe this, because, perhaps for them it is true, and totally fail to recognize that normal, reasonable people don't behave this way. That normal, reasonable people, are capable of keeping it in their pants when a hot flirtatious woman asks them to pull out their genitals in public.

And for those who truly believe this, I have nothing but pity. I am, however, mildly insulted that they would impugne the character of all men by their belief that we are all equally incapable of behaving like civilized, rational people.

*snip*

But but...saying that men can control their impulses is like saying the bitch wasn't asking for it!

I think the whole shebang would be moot if it were legal to take out your junk.

Girl wanted to see his dong. He obliged her. He was under a tree, and if someone else saw it, then they're Peeping Toms who WANTED to see it.

I think the whole shebang would be moot if it were legal to take out your junk.
Well obviously. Why would the police care if you did something legal?

Girl wanted to see his dong. He obliged her. He was under a tree, and if someone else saw it, then they're Peeping Toms who WANTED to see it.

Under a tree is still in a public place.

Under a tree is still in a public place.
Again, doesn't that strike you as odd how "DEAR LORD IT'S A PENIS! WE MUST IMPRISON THIS EVIL MAN AT ONCE!" is the reaction people have?

I mean, sexual violence and unwanted sexual harassment are serious problems to be taken seriously, but this isn't.

Come on, I don't know what manner of prudery you americans have, but here in this part of Canada, if we caught people naked and frolicking in a park reasonably away from view from everyone else but the two consenting adults involved, we'd just slap their wrist and tell them to go get a room or something.

Not... try to guilt trip them to hell and picture them as some sort of dangerous sexual predators who are likely to rape innocent little girls in pink skirts and with ribbons in their hair, when all they were doing was getting a bit too friendly with someone who was clearly okay about being a bit too friendly.

I mean, was what the man did inappropriate? Certainly. Illegal? Maybe in the letter of the law, yes. But in the spirit? Not so sure about that. And certainly not worthy of criminal prosecution.

In other words, I shall sum it up with this simple inequation:

Penis =/= Murder

In other words, I shall sum it up with this simple inequation:

Penis =/= Murder

Indeed. And if the punishment for showing your penis was the same as the punishment for murder you'd have a point. However since the punishment for murder is life in prison, and this man's punishment was a $250 fine, I'm unsure what your point is.

You know, as I flew home from NY to Boston, a thought occured to me. I had thought I explained entrapment pretty well, that someone is "entrapped" if the police put him in a situation that no reasonable person can be expected to withstand.

"I'll have sex with you for twenty-five cents" is supposed to be a "situation that no reasonable person can be expected to withstand"?

Lemme get this straight:

A topless (I'm presuming agreeably topless) woman legally sunbathing in a park asks -- ASKS -- a guy if she can see his penis, and he shows it to her. He doesn't jump up and down, waving it about or displaying it in such as way as to violate anyone's sensibilities (which I must also assume, though nothing in the story cites anyone else as having seen said penis). The police are filming the whole scene...and the GUY is the pervert?US police making US proud. :gundge:

morons.

I mean, was what the man did inappropriate? Certainly.

Um... not really?

So he showed someone (who asked!) his penis. In public. So what?

He shouldn't have been fined a cent.

I'm surprised few seem to think this is entrapment.I dont care if its entrapment or not... (it probably is)
Those morons (police dept) are wasting the public money.

If it was my town I would be asking for the Police chief resignation.. immediatamente.

And?

Well, for one thing if she was working WITH the police it's entrapment.

But.. but.. if we don't arrest those people who can be seduced into exposing themselves in public, how are we going to be tough on perverts?! And how are we going to arrest those people if we can't convince them to do it? Obviously the best way to catch perverts masturbating in the park is to convince anyone walking around to expose themselves so they can be arrested.

You know what would happen if a half-naked woman walked around the park normally and started putting her feet on people in a sensual manner? Sexual harassment charges.

Oh, I never said I thought it was fair. And the recent NYC operation "Lucky Package" is even scummier. I'm just amused by all the "It's not his fault he can't help it, it's a naked woman!" excuses.

By that logic, there should be an extremely high incidence of rape on nude beaches, right? Because men just can't control themselves around soft, rounded womenflesh.

Hardly similar. She ASKED him to show it to her. Hell, looking at it from another angle he was being polite and complying with the ladies request . . .

You know what would happen if a half-naked woman walked around the park normally and started putting her feet on people? Sexual harassment charges.didnt you get the memo?

if you are the police you can commit sexual crimes :D

So he showed someone (who asked!) his penis. In public. So what?

Well, it being a crime, to start...

"I'll have sex with you for twenty-five cents" is supposed to be a "situation that no reasonable person can be expected to withstand"?

I suggest you read the entirety of the post you are refering to, and not simply selectively take out pieces

To sum-it-up: The offender does not seem all-that-bad a guy. Weak-willed perhaps but then, so is Bill Clinton and he ran the nation.

I can see why nudity should be legal, but individually popping out your penis in public is a little different. However, the man was far from other people and obviously figured no-one else could see.

I do not see entrapment. The cops were doing their job. It is a lame law, but it is still their job. I will not blame Germany's soldiers for WWII. So, if you have any complaints, I suggest you direct them against the silliness of the law rather than against the police involved. All-in-all, it is not even worth that. A fine. So what? Seatbelt laws are dumb too.

To sum-it-up: The offender does not seem all-that-bad a guy.

Well, the one question I have is...what kind of asshole walks up to a topless woman sunbathing whom he doesn't know and starts talking?

Neo Art, is that definition universal, or might it vary from state to state?

I ask because it was once explained to me, by someone knowledgeable, that entrapment is when the cops intice someone into behavior that they wouldn't otherwise have engaged in. For example, putting a decoy on the street to get guys who are soliciting prostitutes isn't entrapment because they were already looking to break the law, wheras if the decoy actively went up and hung the proverbial carrot in front of an ordinary passerby, that would be entrapment.


(This was in MD)

Well, the one question I have is...what kind of asshole walks up to a topless woman sunbathing whom he doesn't know and starts talking?

A Clinton-like character, except unintelligent. Unknowingly rude in my opinion but not evil.

Neo Art, is that definition universal, or might it vary from state to state?

I ask because it was once explained to me, by someone knowledgeable, that entrapment is when the cops intice someone into behavior that they wouldn't otherwise have engaged in. For example, putting a decoy on the street to get guys who are soliciting prostitutes isn't entrapment because they were already looking to break the law, wheras if the decoy actively went up and hung the proverbial carrot in front of an ordinary passerby, that would be entrapment.


(This was in MD)

That's not exactly true, we had a discussion on this some time agon, and I looked up a case that was basically a cop wandering through the mall offering to sell drugs to people, then arresting those who accepted. The defendants argued that it was entrapment for the reasons you mentioned, that they were innocently in the mall, just walking around, until the cop put the idea to buy drugs into their heads.

They lost.

Edit: This is not the case I'm talking about, but the quote shall do:

Merely offering an opportunity to commit the offense is insufficient to satisfy the inducement element.

United States v. Christopher, 488 F.2d 849, 850-51 (9th Cir. 1973).

Again, doesn't that strike you as odd how "DEAR LORD IT'S A PENIS! WE MUST IMPRISON THIS EVIL MAN AT ONCE!" is the reaction people have?
Nobody is having that reaction. The reactions seems to vary between 'ZOMG entrapment' and 'Yeah, not entrapment at all'.

I mean, sexual violence and unwanted sexual harassment are serious problems to be taken seriously, but this isn't.
No, it isn't.

Come on, I don't know what manner of prudery you americans have
Ahem. I'm Irish.
, but here in this part of Canada, if we caught people naked and frolicking in a park reasonably away from view from everyone else but the two consenting adults involved, we'd just slap their wrist and tell them to go get a room or something.
Would you do this as part of a police operation to stop people from masturbating in the park?

Not... try to guilt trip them to hell and picture them as some sort of dangerous sexual predators who are likely to rape innocent little girls in pink skirts and with ribbons in their hair, when all they were doing was getting a bit too friendly with someone who was clearly okay about being a bit too friendly.
Good thing nobody is doing that.

I mean, was what the man did inappropriate? Certainly. Illegal? Maybe in the letter of the law, yes. But in the spirit? Not so sure about that. And certainly not worthy of criminal prosecution.
You're familiar with the letter of the law? Please, educate the rest of us and post the text of the law he broke.

In other words, I shall sum it up with this simple inequation:

Penis =/= Murder

Tautologies = Tautologies.

Indeed. And if the punishment for showing your penis was the same as the punishment for murder you'd have a point. However since the punishment for murder is life in prison, and this man's punishment was a $250 fine, I'm unsure what your point is.

My point is that spending huge amounts of tax dollars to pay several police officers, buy and install video surveillance equipment in that park, and pay an actress/bait only to catch men in potentially embarrassing but overall harmless situations is... stupid.

I mean, those officers ought to be running after thieves, murderers, and real sexual aggressors. Not trying to raise public funds by setting up traps to fine men a little too stupid or horny to remember not to show their naughty bits in public, even if they're supposedly away from anyone's view.

I guess my point is that I find it uselessly prude. A waste of law enforcement efforts.

That's not exactly true, we had a discussion on this some time agon, and I looked up a case that was basically a cop wandering through the mall offering to sell drugs to people, then arresting those who accepted. The defendants argued that it was entrapment for the reasons you mentioned, that they were innocently in the mall, just walking around, until the cop put the idea to buy drugs into their heads.

They lost.

Is that defined at the state level?

Is that defined at the state level?

actually, I'll do ya one better:

The Government contends as an alternative basis for affirming the judgment below that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support an instruction on the defense of entrapment. Of course evidence that government agents merely afforded an opportunity or facilities for the commission of the crime would be insufficient to warrant such an instruction.

Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 64 (U.S. 1988), which, if you're not familiar with the citation format, is a US Supreme Court case.

My point is that spending huge amounts of tax dollars to pay several police officers, buy and install video surveillance equipment in that park, and pay an actress/bait only to catch men in potentially embarrassing but overall harmless situations is... stupid.
Is that what the police were doing there? Or, as is claimed in the article(IMS), were they trying to catch people who were using the park for public masturbation?

I mean, those officers ought to be running after thieves, murderers, and real sexual aggressors.
The law is the law. It's not for the police to pick and choose which laws they enforce. It is their duty to enforce them all.
Not trying to raise public funds by setting up traps to fine men a little too stupid or horny to remember not to show their naughty bits in public, even if they're supposedly away from anyone's view.
And your evidence that they were trying to do that? Do you have any?

I guess my point is that I find it uselessly prude. A waste of law enforcement efforts.

It's one thing to disagree with the law, it's another to imagine some conspiracy of the police to catch people in a harmless act in order to raise money or enforce morality.

actually, I'll do ya one better:



Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 64 (U.S. 1988), which, if you're not familiar with the citation format, is a US Supreme Court case.

wow...

Well, it being a crime, to start...

So is speeding, jaywalking, and the like... which certainly are not (always) inappropriate.

I suggest you read the entirety of the post you are refering to

I did. Forgive me for abbreviating. I guess I assumed that the person being "beautiful, mind blowingly stunning" wasn't really a factor--I mean, should it be?--and whatever "fantastic chemistry" there was really doesn't make a difference (especially since it may have similarly been present in the case at hand.)

Does any of that make it a "situation that no reasonable person can be expected to withstand"? Not really. Sexual desire doesn't make people incapable of self-control, as you've so eloquently expressed.

Pointing a gun at someone and telling them to commit a crime? Yeah, that would qualify. Pressuring a recovering drug addict to take drugs? Yeah, that would probably qualify too. But not any offer of sex for money, however low the price... at least not as you've portrayed the standard.

Now, if you want to go into the territory of what is and is not "ordinary" (as you half-do in your other post), you might have a better case... in ordinary circumstances attractive women do not offer sex for twenty-five cents, and thus a person who ordinarily would obey the law against prostitution might violate it in that instance. But that's a rather different standard from a "situation that no reasonable person can be expected to withstand."

Read the thread. End of story.

What, I can't disagree with Neo just because he's the lawyer? I still think it's pretty clear cut.

Well, the one question I have is...what kind of asshole walks up to a topless woman sunbathing whom he doesn't know and starts talking?

same type of person who would strike up a consersation with a stranger at a bar, talk to someone at a grocery store, or on a beach...

a friendly person looking for some consenting companionship.

On this particular matter? Pretty much, yeah.


SO are you saying that no other lawyer on the planet could have a different opinion on this than you without being incompetent?

What, I can't disagree with Neo just because he's the lawyer? I still think it's pretty clear cut.

You are free to disagree if you wish, however, most people, when they have a disagreement, at least put forth osme effort to explain the source of their disagreement, and not go "nuh uh!"

Is that what the police were doing there? Or, as is claimed in the article(IMS), were they trying to catch people who were using the park for public masturbation?


And you need to set up a bait who will ask men to denude themselves in order to do that?

Color me crazy, but I don't think someone flashing his goods in a secluded place away from sight at the behest of a woman who flirts with him is quite the same thing as whipping it out, stroking it to erection, and outright masturbating in front of people who would rather not see it.

Perverts who masturbate in public usually do so without being asked to.


The law is the law. It's not for the police to pick and choose which laws they enforce. It is their duty to enforce them all.

And a stupid law is a stupid law. Every cop that's out there enforcing a stupid retarded law is a cop that isn't enforcing one of the actually useful laws that ensures that we're not murdered with a screwdriver for our paycheck.


And your evidence that they were trying to do that? Do you have any?

It's one thing to disagree with the law, it's another to imagine some conspiracy of the police to catch people in a harmless act in order to raise money or enforce morality.


Can you see any other point in this? I'm all ears about it. Personally, I can only see this as useless prudery or stupid plain fund-raising, like some of the retarded parking offenses that aren't detrimental to traffic fluidity. If you can convince me there's a good, valid reason to do this, I'll gladly take that back. I just can't see it. At best it's just plain incompetence in trying to catch those who masturbate in public by means that will no doubt yield poor results, and might very well put in needless trouble men who were a little too stupid or horny to use the bigger of their two heads.

Well, the one question I have is...what kind of person walks up to a topless woman sunbathing whom he doesn't know and starts talking?
I edited-out the word asshole from your post.heterosexual healthy men with normal levels of testosterone and potency. For example boys or old men do not have the required potency/testosterone levels.. I guess.

and -i bet- some lesbians would too.

You are free to disagree if you wish, however, most people, when they have a disagreement, at least put forth osme effort to explain the source of their disagreement, and not go "nuh uh!"

The source of my disagreement is largely in weather or not a reasonable person would have done so. Were I single and I thought that I were in a position where no one but her would have seen I may have done the same. I also fail to see any real difference between "Hey want to buy this object you know is illegal (i.e. hot) for a really low price" and "Hey do you want to buy this illegal mind altering substance". After all you claim the former is entrapment and the later not.

heterosexual healthy men with normal levels of testosterone and potency. For example boys or old men do not have the required potency/testosterone levels.. I guess.

and -i bet- some lesbians would too.


BTW I edited the word asshole from your post.
Or better yet, anyone. Is it wrong to walk up to and talk to strangers in the park regardless of their state of dress, or undress in this case? Does doing so raise some sort of question about the person? Why? Why don't we just pave over parks and stay inside the rest of our lives so we never meet strangers.

Maybe Neo Art is expressing his opinion that it is improper to go topless in public.

And you need to set up a bait who will ask men to denude themselves in order to do that?

Color me crazy, but I don't think someone flashing his goods in a secluded place away from sight at the behest of a woman who flirts with him is quite the same thing as whipping it out, stroking it to erection, and outright masturbating in front of people who would rather not see it.

Perverts who masturbate in public usually do so without being asked to.
And isn't asking them too better than sitting around and waiting for them to? Faster, thus cheaper, thus less police resources used.


And a stupid law is a stupid law. Every cop that's out there enforcing a stupid retarded law is a cop that isn't enforcing one of the actually useful laws that ensures that we're not murdered with a screwdriver for our paycheck.
Because cops can only enforce one law at a time. Traffic cops have to travel in packs so they can investigate the full spectrum of traffic violations. Homicide detectives will just walk by if they see someone being mugged.

And again, it isn't for the police to decide what laws should and shouldn't be enforced. If a law is on the books, it should be enforced by the police. That's what the police are for.



Can you see any other point in this?
To catch criminals, perhaps?
I'm all ears about it. Personally, I can only see this as useless prudery or stupid plain fund-raising, like some of the retarded parking offenses that aren't detrimental to traffic fluidity.
Perhaps that's all you want to see. You object to the law, and you thus object to the police enforcing it, and thus look for malicious reasons why they might be enforcing it.
If you can convince me there's a good, valid reason to do this, I'll gladly take that back.
How's that 'To catch criminals' bit strike you?
I just can't see it. At best it's just plain incompetence in trying to catch those who masturbate in public by means that will no doubt yield poor results,
Any better ideas?
and might very well put in needless trouble men who were a little too stupid or horny to use the bigger of their two heads.
I don't believe stupidity or arousal are legal defences one can employ.
heterosexual men with normal levels of testosterone and potency. For example boys or old men do not have the required potency/testosterone levels.. I guess.

Makes one wonder why there wasn't alread y a crownd gathered around this woman.

And isn't asking them too better than sitting around and waiting for them to? Faster, thus cheaper, thus less police resources used.
Oh really? So the fireman, doctor, ex-cop, and government officials who were taking a stroll through the park were in the park to expose themselves to women and masturbate in public? Quite a dubious claim. Would these people have done anything illegal in the park, besides littering, without the provocation by a half-naked woman being used as bait? No.

Yes, it is legal for women to be topless in public, too bad breasts are still considered sexual objects in America and that fact was being abused for the purposes of inducing law breaking in law-abiding citizens.

It was impossible for this sting to catch men having sex in the park without having their bait break the law. And considering the masturbaters wouldn't actually approach the woman unless they were flashers, there was no way this sting would catch them. So who was this sting aimed at catching?

And isn't asking them too better than sitting around and waiting for them to? Faster, thus cheaper, thus less police resources used.

No, because you're not necessarily catching those you wanted to catch to begin with. You might very well be catching people who have nothing to do with your public masturbation problem. And putting them in a lot of problems, on top of a very embarrassing situation to explain.

If you have problems with people masturbating, chances are it's one, or maybe a handful of people. And chances are that they're doing so semi-regularly. And if they're doing it in public, then you have witnesses. All you have to do is gather the needed info, work up a description or robo-portrait or two, and send one officer over to make rounds subtly looking out for that (or those) particular person(s). That way you catch only those who actually cause a problem, instead of baiting ordinary people into doing something out of the ordinary.

As for the rest of your post, you seem under the impression that I'm saying the police officer's behavior isn't legal or something. I'm not. I'm saying it's stupid. As we all know, stupidity and the law do not always differentiate much from each other. Sometimes it does, but in this case, it does not.

So yeah, sure, it's legal. It doesn't make it any less stupid or useless. And if there was a person with half a brain at the helm of that police station, they'd just allocate their resources differently and tackle some real problems instead of wasting this time on this. But that's a problem for the people of that place to get solved, according to however the hell police chiefs are chosen over there.

For your information, I find it equally stupid to have good looking female officers patrolling the streets, trying to get prostitute clients arrested. Baiting people, no matter that it is entrapment or not, is something I find retarded.

Oh really? So the fireman, doctor, ex-cop, and government officials who were taking a stroll through the park were in the park to expose themselves to women and masturbate in public?
They did expose themselves, however. Their jobs are irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether the woman presented the possibility to break the law, or coerced/etc them into breaking them law.
Quite a dubious claim. Would these people have done anything illegal in the park, besides littering, without the provocation by a half-naked woman being used as bait? No.
How can you possibly know what they would have done?

Yes, it is legal for women to be topless in public, too bad breasts are still considered sexual objects in America and that fact was being abused for the purposes of inducing law breaking in law-abiding citizens.
Can you demonstrate that she did induce them into doing so? Because the fireman certainly couldn't demonstrate it to a judge, so I don't see what hope you have.

It was impossible for this sting to catch men having sex in the park without having their bait break the law.
The woman broke the law? Or do you mean the men who approached her? Because you can't possibly be suggesting that it is impossible for a competent adult male to refuse a topless woman when she asks him to get his dick out.
And considering the masturbaters wouldn't actually approach the woman unless they were flashers,
Why not?
there was no way this sting would catch them. So who was this sting aimed at catching?

People who expose themselves in public, I assume.

How can you possibly know what they would have done?How can you?

Can you demonstrate that she did induce them into doing so? Because the fireman certainly couldn't demonstrate it to a judge, so I don't see what hope you have.
He didn't demonstrate it to a jury - a bunch of people who heard "blah blah blah penis blah park blah blah children."


The woman broke the law? Or do you mean the men who approached her? Because you can't possibly be suggesting that it is impossible for a competent adult male to refuse a topless woman when she asks him to get his dick out.
I would reply to this but you obviously didn't read what I said, not at all.

Why not?
I'm pretty sure this sting proves why not.


People who expose themselves in public, I assume.
Which is a different set of people than the intended purpose of people who masturbate or have sex in the park.

What, I can't disagree with Neo just because he's the lawyer? I still think it's pretty clear cut.

I disagree with people just because they are lawyers and frequently at that.

It might be an instinct.

Well, for one thing if she was working WITH the police it's entrapment.

Go read the rest of the thread, why don't you?

Go read the rest of the thread, why don't you?

Yeah, sure, it's not entrapment.

It doesn't make it any less stupid or useless IMO, though.

What, I can't disagree with Neo just because he's the lawyer? I still think it's pretty clear cut.

Read the caselaw, then.

And the moral of the story is:

Don't break the law.

Yeah, sure, it's not entrapment.

It doesn't make it any less stupid or useless IMO, though.

Now THAT I agree with.

No, because you're not necessarily catching those you wanted to catch to begin with. You might very well be catching people who have nothing to do with your public masturbation problem. And putting them in a lot of problems, on top of a very embarrassing situation to explain.
They won't be 'caught' unless they break the law, will they? Seems they've set themselves up for the problems, and put themselves in the embarrassing situation.

If you have problems with people masturbating, chances are
What the chances are does't really matter, since neither of us know how much of a problem it was. You seem to be assuming that it was a small problem, but the police took the chance to screw over innocent people and make money, or be incompetent, whereas I'm assuming that it was enough of a problem to warrant a sting operation.

As for the rest of your post, you seem under the impression that I'm saying the police officer's behavior isn't legal or something. I'm not. I'm saying it's stupid. As we all know, stupidity and the law do not always differentiate much from each other. Sometimes it does, but in this case, it does not.
So the law is stupid. Should the police have behaved differently because of this?

So yeah, sure, it's legal. It doesn't make it any less stupid or useless. And if there was a person with half a brain at the helm of that police station, they'd just allocate their resources differently and tackle some real problems instead of wasting this time on this. But that's a problem for the people of that place to get solved, according to however the hell police chiefs are chosen over there.
Changing the laws isn't a matter for the police. Is this a waste of police resources? I don't know nearly enough about the situation to say. How many people did they arrest? How many were convected? How much time and money did it cost to do so?

For your information, I find it equally stupid to have good looking female officers patrolling the streets, trying to get prostitute clients arrested. Baiting people, no matter that it is entrapment or not, is something I find retarded.
What's retarded about it?

And the moral of the story is:

Don't break the law.

In Soviet America, the law breaks you!

In Soviet America, the law breaks you!

Aye, you break the law and the law wins anyway.

And the moral of the story is:
the US law is retarded.
or the Cops are retarded



something is wrong here, its either the system or the people using the system.
something is wrong and it need to be fixed.

So the law is stupid. Should the police have behaved differently because of this?

Yes, because they are human beings gifted with a brain, and possibly even critical thinking skills.

You really should go read Kohlberg's work on morals and ethics sometime. The law isn't and shouldn't be the absolute guide of everything in the universe. A good law has to be obeyed and withheld because it is good and benefits or protects everyone in a fair manner. A bad or stupid law has to be ignored and/or changed because simply being the law does not make the be-all end-all in matters of what we do.

Police officers with those brains and critical thinking skills of which I spoke ought to spend their time on meaningful operations to serve and protect the ordinary citizen. Not mindlessly and stupidly obeying the letter of retarded laws. This holds not just for the present case, but also for all instances in which this might be relevant.

A wise police chief/captain will use his brains in order to achieve maximum efficiency in doing his duty to protect the citizens. And that goes through good prioritization, and good usage of the limited resources he has to contend with.


What's retarded about it?
Spending time trying to bait people into doing something illegal yet harmless in nature is retarded, no matter what activity we're talking about.

either:
the Cops are retarded
or
the US law is retarded


something is wrong here, its either the system or the people using the system.
something is wrong and it has to change.

Or:
The law states that something is illegal and breaking it would be grounds for an arrest.


I smell evil afoot.
With a dash of conspiracy theory.

The law states that something is illegal and breaking it would be grounds for an arrest.OP: This is the police operation: A police woman show her tits in a park, rubs a man with her foot and ask him to show his wii, If the Law says that is a proper police operation, a proper way to expend my taxes, then The Law is retarded.

what part dont you understand?

I smell evil afoot.
With a dash of conspiracy theory.whatever you are smelling.. its coming from around your computer room..

Well, the one question I have is...what kind of asshole walks up to a topless woman sunbathing whom he doesn't know and starts talking?

How does the fact that she's topless make him any more of an asshole than a man who aproaches any other woman and starts talking to her?

if the laws calls for the following police operation:A police woman show her tits in a park, rubs a man with her foot and ask him to show his wii.. then The Law is retarded.

what part dont you understand?

I don't think the 'law' calls for any sort of operations. Unless by 'law' you are thinking the faceless sheriff riding into the sunset...or some other cliche 'Law' figure.

The part I don't understand is why not being allowed to whip out one's so-called 'wii' in a public park is a bad thing.