View Full Version : Topless Female Cop Lured Men in Police Sting


woody60707
Dec 28, 2007, 10:33 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

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

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

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

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

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

Law enforcement officials say that such sting operations are an extremely effective means of lowering crime rates and stopping the criminally minded before they commit worse offenses.

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

He approached her and they started talking and getting comfortable, the woman smiling and resting her foot on his shoulder at one point.
Eventually, she asked to see Garrison's penis; he unzipped his pants and complied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Garrison could not be reached for comment.

Shamansky plans to appeal the verdict on the grounds that the jury wasn't instructed on the definition of entrapment.
Other police departments across the country have dangled other temptations, from big-screen plasma TVs, Xbox 360 consoles and a shopping bag containing a cell phone and an iPod to catch people breaking the law.

In New York City, nearly 300 people, many of whom had no criminal record, have been snared this year through the NYPD's Operation Lucky Bag, in which undercover officers leave a wallet, iPod or cell phone in a subway station and wait to see who picks it up.
Although deputy police Commissioner Paul Browne says the program has helped cut subway grand larcenies by half, critics say that the police have gone too far.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The definition of entrapment is police activity that induces somebody to commit a crime that they otherwise wouldn't do," said Gabriel Chin, law professor at the University of Arizona. "It's not entrapment to give somebody an opportunity to commit a crime." Chin explains that entrapment involves an officer cajoling and persuading someone who's resistant to the idea of committing a crime. "Just preying on a predisposition is not necessarily entrapment."
But he said that Operation Lucky Bag seemed to cross a line, especially when compared to longstanding police operations involving officers posing as drunks to lure muggers to take their wallets or jewelry.

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

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

This is nuts:eek: This is a cop-created crime. This guy would of never done this if it wasn't for this topless cop sweet talking and getting touchy feely with this guy.

Cops have now suck as low as mass media by waving tits in your face to get you do things you normally wouldn't do.. sheesh!

skadistic
Dec 28, 2007, 10:37 PM
Thats pretty pathetic. Cops get away with more and more entrapment scemes all the time.

Tabasco Sauce
Dec 28, 2007, 10:40 PM
Jesus, don't cops have more important things to do besides talking guys to show their wangs?

Shadylookin
Dec 28, 2007, 10:43 PM
isn't this legally considered entrapment? I thought such police stings had to have the suspect initiate for instance you have to ask the police for marijuana in a drug bust.

Harbringer
Dec 28, 2007, 10:45 PM
So why inst the cop getting nailed for indecent exposure?

Nylan
Dec 28, 2007, 10:49 PM
Heck, I'd get caught in that subway scheme...I'd probably try to turn it in somewhere.

Oda Nobunaga
Dec 28, 2007, 10:50 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1
While topless sunbathing is legal in the city's parks, exposing more than that is against the law.

That would be why.

West 36
Dec 28, 2007, 10:55 PM
Hmmm... This article is useless without pics.
This whole case relies on how hot the cop was.

CivGeneral
Dec 28, 2007, 10:59 PM
Talk about a strange trap! :eek:

amadeus
Dec 28, 2007, 11:06 PM
"To serve and collect" :rolleyes:

JollyRoger
Dec 28, 2007, 11:08 PM
Clearing the park of pervs by putting a topless woman there. Well at least it would discourage the Larry Craig types from hanging around.

Godwynn
Dec 28, 2007, 11:24 PM
Hmmm... This article is useless without pics.
This whole case relies on how hot the cop was.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Quiet Sound
Dec 28, 2007, 11:31 PM
They have to keep the prisons full somehow. Can't very well lose our position as the incarceration capital of the world, it's about the only the field the US still holds the #1 position. ;)

CivGeneral
Dec 28, 2007, 11:34 PM
They have to keep the prisons full somehow. Can't very well lose our position as the incarceration capital of the world, it's about the only the field the US still holds the #1 position. ;)
Ya know, they need a quota to keep ;).

Alpine Trooper
Dec 28, 2007, 11:43 PM
Well if they were going to arrest me by then I'd piss on her face.

Trajan12
Dec 28, 2007, 11:47 PM
^And you'd get bumped up to assaulting a police officer. And even more public indecency.

Quiet Sound
Dec 28, 2007, 11:51 PM
Well if they were going to arrest me by then I'd piss on her face.

In some (many?) places public urination is considered a sex crime falling under "lewd and lascivious behavior" or something similar, meaning a lifetime registration on the "sex offender" list.

/edit

Of course, come to think of it, the original "public indecency" would probably have the same result.

Archbob
Dec 28, 2007, 11:55 PM
This is a clear case of entrapment.

CIVPhilzilla
Dec 28, 2007, 11:57 PM
That's plain and simple entrapment. Any half decent defense attorney would be able to get this case thrown out, and get a good civil suit in against the police department.

CivGeneral
Dec 28, 2007, 11:57 PM
Well if they were going to arrest me by then I'd <wizz> on her face.
So youre going to get more added to your list when you get busted?! :dubious:. Why noy go for Grand Theft Auto while youre at it! :crazyeye:

woody60707
Dec 29, 2007, 12:16 AM
That's plain and simple entrapment. Any half decent defense attorney would be able to get this case thrown out, and get a good civil suit in against the police department.

Yea, that would seem common sense like. To bad the courts still found him guilty. Let alone any chance of civil suit.

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.

There whole legal system seems messed up. You have cops doing these illegal stings, and the courts finding people guilty of a crime they would of never even thought about doing in the first place if the cops weren't using half naked woman to talk them in to it in the 1st place.

If a police sting isn't catching people who normally commit crime, then they aren't fighting crime, their making crime. This should be common sense.

Trajan12
Dec 29, 2007, 12:19 AM
...The Judge didn't throw this case out..why?

Lotus49
Dec 29, 2007, 12:26 AM
I've made it well known: I'm not going to sit here and say that I'll ever do anything to harm or obstruct a law enforcement officer in his/her duties, but I might say that if... IF I'm ever in the situation to potentially assist one - I probably won't.

2-way street. They've earned no favors from me. Most of them only become cops in the first place so they can screw with peoples' lives.

BEHIND_THE_MASK
Dec 29, 2007, 12:36 AM
In Soviet Russia, cops kill you...

In America, they only
Language - warned.

Fifty
Dec 29, 2007, 12:36 AM
We need to form a countersting. OT's sexiest mormon (sry Eran) and Columbus resident must seduce these women without breaking any laws, then dump' em like they've never been dumped before! GO GET 'EM DOWNTOWN!

Lotus49
Dec 29, 2007, 12:47 AM
In Soviet Russia, cops kill you...

In America, they only

Yeah, and really -long term- there is only one solution; don't live in either place.

So, if anyone feels like listing countries that are not blanketed by a fascist, Gestapo-like police force... feel free to do so, so I can contemplate my retirement location(s).

Surely there's got to be at least one or two good places out there, where the cops are not sadistic. I've heard English cops are pretty good. What about France?

George2816
Dec 29, 2007, 01:07 AM
Yeah, and really -long term- there is only one solution; don't live in either place.

So, if anyone feels like listing countries that are not blanketed by a fascist, Gestapo-like police force... feel free to do so, so I can contemplate my retirement location(s).

Surely there's got to be at least one or two good places out there, where the cops are not sadistic. I've heard English cops are pretty good. What about France? Sure because american is safer then everywhere else!

Communisto
Dec 29, 2007, 01:18 AM
This is nuts


yuk yuk yuk yuk

FriendlyFire
Dec 29, 2007, 02:12 AM
The only thing the police did wrong was instead of using topless women they should have used unaged boys ... in washington ..... congress !!!! :D

Godwynn
Dec 29, 2007, 02:40 AM
The only thing the police did wrong was instead of using topless women they should have used unaged boys ... in washington ..... congress !!!! :D

Give them a blackberry for IM'ing maf54.

QuoVadisNation
Dec 29, 2007, 02:48 AM
Unless all the people who was arrested had a prior history to indecent exposure and therefore a 'likelihood' of commiting it, this is a pretty good example of illegal entrapment. Also, don't the police have better things to do than use their one single female token cop as a form of sex bait?

LightFang
Dec 29, 2007, 03:38 AM
So isn't this entrapment? =P Thread was over a long time ago.

EdwardTking
Dec 29, 2007, 04:50 AM
If a police car flashes its lights at me, I stop as I am legally obliged to.

If a police officer stops me and asks me to show identity, and I have such,
I do so.

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


So Mr Garrison merely complied with the police officer's instruction.

The concept that a person should be charged for obeying a police
officer is absurd and will inevitably result in some form of blow-back.

He should have her and the police department charged for an illegal search.

Volum
Dec 29, 2007, 05:52 AM
Is this seriously legal? Come on!

[Awfully bad joke]Obviously Mr. Garrison used to be a man, but then took a sex change and became a lesbian, thats why he was so interested in the women[/awfully bad joke]

Mise
Dec 29, 2007, 06:27 AM
Man how low can they sink?? I mean, this is just corruption, surely. The sort of thing that happens in Soviet Russia indeed...

Jawz II
Dec 29, 2007, 07:00 AM
This reminds me, once I saw a HBO documentary about hookers (what else?) and they were saying, since them and their johns had taken to touching each others genitalia (way beyond flashing then) to prove to one another that neither of them are undercover cops (they did this while negotiating a price, and before the act itself), the undercover cops had started doing the same.

Awesome, huh?
Undercover female cop grabbing mens junk so they would be sure she wasn't a cop so she could bust them. :D

Something very wrong and very hilarious about that scenario.

kuukkeli
Dec 29, 2007, 07:49 AM
I hope some screenwriter for countless US police series sees this and the story finally gets the visual treatment it deserves on TV.

silver 2039
Dec 29, 2007, 07:53 AM
This is such totally entrapment. The cop induced the person to commit the crime whereas otherwise he wouldn't have.

scherbchen
Dec 29, 2007, 07:56 AM
That is wrong on so many levels...

bhsup
Dec 29, 2007, 08:18 AM
Btw, everybody who thinks this guy is innocent due to entrapment (and I do as well, btw) should be fervent Randy Weaver supporters.

sourboy
Dec 29, 2007, 09:53 AM
This makes me sick. I hate cops more and more, always abusing their position.

Ansar
Dec 29, 2007, 10:48 AM
I would have told the woman if she wanted to take it to another place (a private one, of course) since I'm shy (especially with something like showing my privates).

Though that really sucks - what a [female dog]. :thumbsdown:

contre
Dec 29, 2007, 11:42 AM
Man, I should have frequented parks more in Columbus.

Hehehe
Dec 29, 2007, 11:58 AM
Well here it is illegal for the police to do something like that (so no topless female officers for us...)

JollyRoger
Dec 29, 2007, 12:23 PM
Did they arrest the female cop for soliciting an illegal act?

Abaddon
Dec 29, 2007, 12:26 PM
If there was a topless babe asking me to get my wang out...

You could lock up 95% of the male population with this trick!

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 12:31 PM
Heck, I'd get caught in that subway scheme...I'd probably try to turn it in somewhere.

"To serve and collect" :rolleyes:

I agree, this is disgusting. And as for the subway or department store schemes from the NYPD, it is legal to hold onto whatever is found for a period of time before turning it in somewhere. People were caught walking by any police officer when it is theorhetically possible that they were to turn over the material at the local precinct house.

I think crimes would be lower if they didn't try to create it in the first place. So much effort must be wasted by these petty schemes for small-time crimes. While that is a quality-of-life issue and enforcement has turned New York City around, there's a difference between cracking down on subway crime and leaving a purse on a seat just waiting for anyone to touch it.

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 12:37 PM
The big qualifier here, though, is that it seems that this topless woman was not a cop, but that there were plain-clothes cops hiding in the bushes watching her and anyone that approached. It's a much harder case to make if they were just watching this go down, however sleazy, and the man exposed himself without the help of an officer.

But if the woman was a cop, clear entrapment, IMO.

EdwardTking
Dec 29, 2007, 12:41 PM
The big qualifier here, though, is that it seems that this topless woman was not a cop, but that there were plain-clothes cops hiding in the bushes watching her and anyone that approached. It's a much harder case to make if they were just watching this go down, however sleazy, and the man exposed himself without the help of an officer.

But if the woman was a cop, clear entrapment, IMO.

Well if she was not a cop, then the police force were pimping.

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 12:42 PM
Well if she was not a cop, then the police force were pimping.

If they told her to do it. I'll have to reread the article.

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 12:54 PM
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."


There is nothing here that suggests the police signed this woman up to pose topless in the park all day and wait for someone to come by with his zipper down. Thus, I'll have to conclude that this particular case is valid, even if it's intensely sleazy for plain-clothes to find someone taking advantage of the ability to sunbathe topless and wait around for someone to unzip himself to her, especially by request of this topless sunbather.

Since I read more about the NYPD programs, I would conclude that those were cases of entrapment, especially since they didn't provide the persons adequate time to exercise their duties to turn in the goods, proscribed by law.

JollyRoger
Dec 29, 2007, 01:00 PM
There is nothing here that suggests the police signed this woman up to pose topless in the park all day and wait for someone to come by with his zipper down. Thus, I'll have to conclude that this particular case is valid, even if it's intensely sleazy for plain-clothes to find someone taking advantage of the ability to sunbathe topless and wait around for someone to unzip himself to her, especially by request of this topless sunbather.
The article seems unclear on the woman's relationship with the police. If she was a cop or purposely serving as bait, it was entrapment. If she was just some random woman not working on behalf of the cops, she should have been arrested for soliciting a lewd act and the guy wasn't entrapped.

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 01:03 PM
The article seems unclear on the woman's relationship with the police. If she was a cop or purposely serving as bait, it was entrapment. If she was just some random woman not working on behalf of the cops, she should have been arrested for soliciting a lewd act and the guy wasn't entrapped.

There is no mention of her being arrested for soliciting, so it does make me wonder. However, with what we've got so far, I can't clearly say it's entrapment.

Just weird cops spying on women waiting for a guy to show her how much he approves.

woody60707
Dec 29, 2007, 01:06 PM
The big qualifier here, though, is that it seems that this topless woman was not a cop...

Cop or no cop, she was employed by law enforcement in some fashion for this sting. Explain to me how this is a "big qualifier"? You think entrapment is ok if law enforcement hires "other" people in a police sting to entrap people?

All this tell me is that the cops knew full well that this was entrapment and illegal. So they "employed" someone else to do it. This makes there actions worses. They knew what they were doing was wrong, and did it anyways.

Angst
Dec 29, 2007, 01:07 PM
that is, imho, completely insane. Why do you Americans sometimes have to have such a stupid state system, law system etc?

Recently I heard of an underage girl that was arrested posting pics of herself over the internet. WHY!??!?!?

Sorry for eventual trolling.

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 01:16 PM
Cop or no cop, she was employed by law enforcement in some fashion for this sting. Explain to me how this is a "big qualifier"? You think entrapment is ok if law enforcement hires "other" people in a police sting to entrap people?

All this tell me is that the cops knew full well that this was entrapment and illegal. So they "employed" someone else to do it. This makes there actions worses. They knew what they were doing was wrong, and did it anyways.

Putting quotes around "employed" doesn't make it any more true. If she was not hired by the cops to pose topless in the park, then it's no different than a cop keeping an eye on someone that "looks like trouble" and waiting around to see if some law is indeed broken. A complete waste of police resources, in this case, but unless she was actually hired by the cops to wait out there topless, then it is quite the "big qualifier."

EdwardTking
Dec 29, 2007, 01:20 PM
Either she knew there were police observing and/or videoing her topless,
in which case her suggestion was entrapment OR she did not know in which
case the police were covertly peeping/videoing her and violating her privacy.

Public decency laws exist to prevent giving offense to people.

And my question is precisely who was the victim here?

Obviously not the topless woman lady as she invited the man to join
her in nudity and surely not a well armed police surveillance team.

JollyRoger
Dec 29, 2007, 01:24 PM
Either she knew there were police observing and/or videoing her topless,
in which case her suggestion was entrapment OR she did not know in which
case the police were covertly peeping/videoing her and violating her privacy.
No privacy rights in a public park.
Pubic decency laws exist to prevent giving offense to people.

And my question is precisely who was the victim here?

Obviously not the topless woman lady as she invited the man to join
her in nudity and surely not a well armed police surveillance team.
The victim would be the public in general who don't want to see a guy exposing himself when they go to a park. You can cross over to criminal culpability before having an impact on a victim.

woody60707
Dec 29, 2007, 01:30 PM
Putting quotes around "employed" doesn't make it any more true. If she was not hired by the cops to pose topless in the park, then it's no different than a cop keeping an eye on someone that "looks like trouble" and waiting around to see if some law is indeed broken. A complete waste of police resources, in this case, but unless she was actually hired by the cops to wait out there topless, then it is quite the "big qualifier."

What makes you think she wasn't helping in the sting? Cop or no Cop, she aiding law enforcement in this sting. She was there day after day (In the middle of December too?) with the cops watching her.

The cops didn't charge her, but the charged the male. That seems to make it pretty clear she was working with them.

Who would want a topless girl in a park asking random men to show her his penis. You think the cops would put a stop to that 1st. huh, unless the girl was already working with the cops.

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 01:36 PM
What makes you think she wasn't helping in the sting? Cop or no Cop, she aiding law enforcement in this sting. She was there day after day (In the middle of December too?) with the cops watching her.

The cops didn't charge her, but the charged the male. That seems to make it pretty clear she was working with them.

Who would want a topless girl in a park asking random men to show her his penis. You think the cops would put a stop to that 1st. huh, unless the girl was already working with the cops.

Random?

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."

And police not (yet) charging her with solicitation does not necessarily mean she was a police agent.

I've made it clear. If she was sent there by the police for such purposes, then it's entrapment. Otherwise, it's a legit charge on this man, even though this is a horrible use of police time, IMO.

Nylan
Dec 29, 2007, 02:23 PM
I'll have to agree with that blasted Yank on this one. ;)

silver 2039
Dec 29, 2007, 02:35 PM
The US is hopelessly sexually repressed....

Communisto
Dec 29, 2007, 02:36 PM
The US is hopelessly sexually repressed....

The exact opposite could be argued just as effectively.

Angst
Dec 29, 2007, 02:39 PM
You're kidding. :rolleyes:

The homeland of porn doesn't allow naked boobies on the street? Yeehaw, way to make sense.

The Yankee
Dec 29, 2007, 02:42 PM
You're kidding. :rolleyes:

The homeland of porn doesn't allow naked boobies on the street? Yeehaw, way to make sense.

In that place, those naked boobies were allowed. The seal of approval from the man, however, was not.

Angst
Dec 29, 2007, 03:05 PM
Hmm

Still not removing this smiley:rolleyes:

WillJ
Dec 29, 2007, 03:49 PM
Isn't this QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT?

EdwardTking
Dec 29, 2007, 04:32 PM
JollyRoger

I am not going to waste my unpaid time arguing with an american lawyer about the laws in an american State, and I shall take your word for it.

But viewed overall it is absurd. A responsible police force would merely have stopped the man, taken id. and had a colleague check for criminal record, outstanding warrants etc; before likely cautioning him and the woman too.

JollyRoger
Dec 29, 2007, 04:37 PM
But viewed overall it is absurd. A responsible police force would merely have stopped the man, taken id. and had a colleague check for criminal record, outstanding warrants etc; before likely cautioning him and the woman too.
What if he had a criminal record, but had already served his time? Should he have been arrested, or just given a warning?

EdwardTking
Dec 29, 2007, 04:52 PM
What if he had a criminal record, but had already served his time? Should he have been arrested, or just given a warning?

I am not sure that should make much difference unless he had been released early on parole or subject to licence. That might depend upon the nature of the criminal record and whether there were complaints of sexual offences in the park. More importantly would be whether he had previously been warned for broadly similar activity and not charged. If so, charging would be most appropriate.

Elrohir
Dec 29, 2007, 08:18 PM
I read that article last night. That all sounds like entrapment to me. Except for telling people wanted by the police that they've won a TV or xbox to get them to come in so they can arrest them. That's fine - they're being tricked, but not into committing a crime.

They have to keep the prisons full somehow. Can't very well lose our position as the incarceration capital of the world, it's about the only the field the US still holds the #1 position. ;)
Except for economic size, military power, y'know - tiny things like that. :p

Dawgphood001
Dec 29, 2007, 08:40 PM
The exact opposite could be argued just as effectively.

The fact that sexual attitudes in this country are so diametrically opposed is one reason we're so crazy.

On the one hand, people aren't supposed to get it on until they're married, but on the other hand we have the most sexually saturated media in the world.:crazyeye:

Quiet Sound
Dec 29, 2007, 10:11 PM
Articles on this story clarifying this woman's involvement seem in short supply.

Except for economic size, military power, y'know - tiny things like that. :p

Given the choice I'd take #1 in quality of life, education, medicine, longevity, freedom of the press, low crime rates, etc. vs. having the #1 military and yet still somehow being threatened by the likes of Iraq. ;)

Leonel
Dec 29, 2007, 10:26 PM
The US is hopelessly sexually repressed....

Yeah well when I can masturbate publicly outside a primary school anywhere else in the world, give me a call.

carmen510
Dec 30, 2007, 10:23 AM
Most crap I've ever heard. I'm pretty sure that the undercover cops just did it to look at the woman. ;)