Topless woman in park used as bait in police arrest

Discuss

67 Responses to “Topless woman in park used as bait in police arrest”

  1. KipEsquire says:

    There are at least some jurisdictions where “public indecency” is a strict liability crime (i.e., no culpable mental state required).

    Entrapment would not be available as an affirmative defense in such jurisdictions.

    Just saying…

  2. Ryan Waddell says:

    Wow, that’s awesome. It might not be entrapment (if she wasn’t a police officer) but she asked him to take his penis out (according to the summary) so, at the very least, she should be charged as an accessory.

  3. Mikey Likes BoingBoing says:

    Yes, this is entrapment, pure and simple, but this is Ohio, a fairly right wing state IIRC, so the only person caught in this sting who will get away with it will be a Jesusland politician (a la Vitter or Craig).

    That said, consider this: suppose some “normal guy” walks by the topless broad, is asked the same question, and is not only disgusted and says NO, but he then reports HER to the police.

    And then, after realizing she was planted there as a sting, the guy then… sues the city for sexually harassing him!!

    Before you laugh that idea off, I would urge that guy to play the religion card: “She harmed my Christian soul with her depraved nudity and perverted sexual come-on!”

    THAT would play like a violin to an Ohio jury, probably loaded with megachurch goers.

    CHA-CHING! The guy collects and the city pays for this stupid entrapment effort.

  4. mikelist says:

    well, thanks, skep for correcting me on my use of the word discussion. and yes it was a monologue, but once you realize that he showed his junk to a woman in plain view of uninterested passersby (whether they were actually there is irrelevant, try running a red light on a deserted street at 3 in the morning and try the “but nobody was around to be harmed” argument if you are ticketed)there is nothing more to discuss about this case wrt guilt or not. which was what i meant.

    ihbtx2

  5. Chickie Pants says:

    I have the same general problem with the whole “To Catch a Predator” show. Yes, I do believe we should be arresting pedophiles, but if you read some of those transcripts (the full ones online, not just the edited ones they show on tv) it seems a lot like these “girls” are doing their best to lure them into these conversations. More than half of all victims of sexual molestation are assaulted by members of their family or friends of the family – much like I’m sure the city’s money could be better spent catching actual, reported perverts rather than going out and “catching” them in these stings.

    Or maybe, and here’s an idea, we spend our time and money to catch real criminals like murderers, rapists and jaywalkers.

  6. Landowner says:

    If you whip your dick out in public places I have no sympathy for you. All men know that no-one wants to see their dick. Stop being naive.

  7. outlanderssc says:

    As it says in the article -

    “The sunbathing woman is not affiliated with the police department and she was not asked to take part in the sting operation, according to a spokesperson for the department.”

    So – it’s not entrapment, just surveillance.

    Of course, it’s not actually a sting operation, either. Just driving through a park looking for horny people.

  8. Anonymous says:

    According to the dates on the comments, this case is now over a year old, so I am wondering what happened on appeal.

    The lady clearly induced the man to commit a crime, and she was clearly sexually inducing him, [not the toplessness, her actions] of “playfully” putting her foot on his shoulder and LITERALLY Asking to see his penis.

    She was being very sexaul, and she clearly induced him.

    Either she’s an accessory or it’s entrapment.

  9. RugerRedhawk says:

    Sunbathing topless is equally anti-social in a family park like this. Sorry, but it is.

  10. semiotix says:

    This is indeed a troubling account, and one that casts serious doubt on the wisdom and legality of the CPD’s actions. If she was, indeed, not in any way knowingly acting on behalf of the police, it’s somewhat less disturbing–but we’re still left with what looks like an awfully wasteful use of police resources in a city that can barely keep order in the streets as it is. Columbus is at a tipping point where some intensive, community-based policing on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis could keep them away from a major meltdown, and these guys are staking out topless women.

    That said, it is also easily the most interesting thing to happen to Columbus in decades.

  11. IronWolve says:

    She was working with the police department, she was bait and asking a question on behalf of the police department, so they could make an arrest.

    Its entrapment, and if you guys dont hold the police accountable, thats what ruins this country. Of course the judge didnt want to tell the jury about entrapment, the jury would agree!

    I hope he wins on appeal, and sues the city for millions. The Police chief needs fired over this.

  12. js7a says:

    She wasn’t working for the police. The police were “conducting surveillance” for a while before the man arrived.

  13. UncommonSense says:

    @#65 Please read the article linked in #61…

    She was NOT paid by CPD and therefore he was NOT entrapped, by legal definition. The only basis I see for trotting out the term “entrapment” was the quote from his defense attorney – not exactly a neutral party. The article Boing Boing links to goes on to talk about so-called entrapment methods in NYC which are controversial, but they are not related to this case. How could she be charged with public indecency as you suggest? She did not expose her genitalia. Whether she induced him to commit a crime is another matter. I don’t know the statutes and I don’t know how police or prosecutors could have built a case anyway. There is no audio and presumably only Mr. Garrison’s word that she asked to see “it”, though I don’t doubt it from the context of the video. There just was no proof.

  14. Ceronomus says:

    “Conducting Surveillance”, is that what they call watching a topless woman with taxpayer dollars these days?

    Granted, the guy showed poor judgment. I mean, if she wants to see it so badly she could well be a hooker. Heck, did anyone check to see if she WAS a hooker? I mean, if she wasn’t a police plant she was MIGHTY frisky.

  15. jeffjonez says:

    So… the cops were “surveiling” a topless woman in the park, then this guy strolled up and blocked their view? Book ‘em!

  16. craig1st says:

    Hmmm, I wonder how we might incorporate this clever exemplar of modern police technique in our efforts to enforce aggregate equivalent lithium content regulations.

  17. xadrian says:

    @56 Which is why he was so eager to whip it out. She actually ASKED for it.

    I’m with Nicky K, I think there were a few private dicks interrupted by a public one. Otherwise this whole situation a) doesn’t make sense b) violates some kind of entrapment law.

  18. Blackbird says:

    The police were “conducting surveillance” for a while before the man arrived.

    I imagine the radio call went like this. “Uhh..we have a topless woman in the park.” “Roll the surveillance team.” “Which one?” “All of them…in fact, I’m going too”.

    Even if she wasn’t working for the police, SHE initiated it. SHE is to blame, maybe not in a legal sense, but morally at least. SHE must be held accountable for what she did. When you sue the city and the police for this, sue her too.

    I think there is good re-course for diminished mental capacity in this case. C’mon, if you see a topless woman, many men will become less ‘involved’ in the reality going on around him. Apparently this also includes surveillance teams, which, on the best days, are easy to spot.

    Strict liability is stupid to begin with. There’s many reasons why some people may do something. Put it this way, if my house were on fire, and I ran out naked, in that juristiction, I could be charged. A reasonable person would say It’s okay. Strict liability says I have to be charged.

  19. easyTree says:

    Warning, rambling post ahead =)

    If I’m in the park barefoot and someone with a foot fetish sees me, to them I’m engaging in a display of sexuality.

    At the same instant, someone who doesn’t _like_ feet simply sees someone who’s barefoot.

    Likewise, the foot fetishist may well simultaneously see me as both ‘simply barefoot’ and as ‘engaging in a display of sexuality’.

    Given that ‘we’ wish to prevent a display of sexuality, how do we do so without also preventing someone from going barefoot?

    Likewise, I may or may not be a foot fetishist (as it’s happens I’m not). The question arises, when I remove my shoes and socks, which is uppermost in my mind, that my foot is just a foot or that it is a body part associated with sexuality?

    In this context, the foot is a reasonable counterpart for the female breast, which also has both (and other) roles; just a body part, also a body part associated with sexuality.

    So, this is a poorly developed argument but I’m arguing that the sense in which the-law-discussed-by-this-article is seen to be morally defensible is perhaps that a woman may successfully argue that when removing her top that she is merely exposing a body part, not engaging in a display of sexuality.

    A man, by contrast, may apparently never successfully argue that when removing his shorts that he is merely exposing a body part, even when said body part is demonstrably behaving only as a body part, not as a sexual organ.

    Or perhaps that breasts are not primarily associated with sexuality, given their commonly-known function(s) during childbirth (and advertising) but a man may not make a similar claim.

    Of course, this can not be seen as a way to make a valid distinction since a breast’s role in childbirth is irrelevant in this situation; therefore it’s simply that breasts are body parts which women are free to expose to the sun (or other people) as they see fit, as indeed men are free to expose their torsos.

    I’m sure you would consider it unreasonable to label a women for the rest of her life as a sex offender for displaying her breasts. Why should it be any different for any other body part when the intention is to prevent displays of sexuality rather than display of body parts.

    At some point, these conflicts must be resolved logically, within the legal framework. By which, I mean that people should decide what it is they want to punish (let’s forgo consideration of any deep psychological issues they might have which would lead them to need this) and ensure that a law is drawn-up in such a way that it may lassoo only those breaking it.

    Of course this is a question of intent. As we can never have knowledge of intent ‘we’ are happy to sometimes punish those without ‘malicious’ intent, just so long as we also punish those with ‘malicious’ intent. Is this really defensible? Are we really smart enough to write our own laws? I submit that we are not.

  20. Antinous says:

    Dear heterosexuals,

    Welcome aboard. This happens to gay men constantly. It’s been happening for decades, maybe centuries. And now you too can become registered sex offenders and be inducted into the underclass for life, for doing something harmless and consensual.

  21. Pipenta says:

    In January yet.

  22. Bob says:

    I agree largely with Blackbird. If she was (contrary to the story) working with the police, then it was entrapment, plain and simple. If she wasn’t, then she should be charged as well, since she initiated the incident.

  23. bardfinn says:

    Rugerredhawk: … “Sunbathing topless is equally anti-social in a family park like this.” – Because the human body is anti-social? You may as well be saying “Sunbathing is equally anti-social in a family park like this.” or “I shall use my authority and funding as Attorney General of the US to promptly cover this classical nude of Lady Liberty.”

    Sunbathing topless isn’t anti-social – imposing Puritanical and Victorian views of women on a free people is anti-American. The only crime here is the government’s officials over-stepping their Constitutional authority and restraining the liberty of consenting adults – not to mention the chilling effects it will have on women who – LEGALLY – would consider sunbathing topless in that jurisdiction!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effects

  24. TheGreatNanners says:

    I hope he at least got a number.

  25. Piove says:

    @Bardfinn
    You beat me to it with your comment to Ruggerdhawk.
    Good thing too, ’cause you are way more eloquent than me.

  26. gretagretchen says:

    There’s something off about this entire story.

    She must have had really nice tits.

  27. johnfoster says:

    1) if it’s too good to be true…
    2) there’s one born every minute.
    3) don’t talk to naked chics.
    4) if you have a penis you’re automatically guilty.

  28. Hypertime McMultiverse says:

    “Show me your wang.”
    “Wait, what?”

    Why is everyone defending this dude? Whippin’ out your wiener in public is generally a no-no, publically topless broad or not. It was poor judgement on his part.

    For sympathetic cock-peddlers out there: The next time some half-naked chick in a park insists on seeing the goods, find a secluded place or bring her to a nearby motel. Problem solved.

  29. Dillenger69 says:

    so, boobs are OK … unless they are on TV in which case they cause irreparable harm and cost millions.
    Bush is OK if you pay to see it in a theater.
    But, penis is never OK under any circumstances?
    Talk about double standards!

  30. Rossifumi says:

    Wait if girls can show their hoo-haa’s we should be able to show our whats-its.

    This is not fair, a guy can’t even kick it to a horny girl at the park…

    “Puts foot on shoulder”….That’s ENTRAPMENT. Period.

  31. Halloween Jack says:

    #25 is right. And I don’t buy that she wasn’t working with the cops. She just happened to ask to see the guy’s unit, which is exactly what the cops were waiting for in order to make a bust? Mmm-hmm.

  32. dannysland says:

    Life imitates art:

    http://tinyurl.com/yr5ggh

  33. mikelist says:

    ladies and gentlemen, the real issue was him flashing his dick in a PUBLIC place, end of discussion. the smart thing on several levels would have been for him to offer to adjourn to a non-public location.

    how many guys can honestly say they wouldn’t have at least considered showing theirs, seeing as she was already showing hers (not quite applicable, female breasts are strong sexual display features, men have no such universally recognized secondary display features).

    still, there are limits, nobody who doesn’t want to see sex or obvious sexual overtures whether gay or straight in a public place, should have to. and that’s why he was wrong and will no doubt be found guilty. she may or may not have been allied with the cops, but it doesn’t matter.

  34. Cpt. Tim says:

    Chickie Pants, the difference between this and “to catch a predator. Is someone taking a consentual cock peek in a semi public area isn’t going to kill anyone as long as the people are being discrete about it. Is it the best thing in the world? No. But fetishes are fetishes.

    The people in to catch a predator are out to do something far more detestable. Now i don’t like the show itself because its more about satisfying peoples self righteous “gotcha” cravings than anything else. But i don’t have a problem with the programs that are featured. Having community members watching for predators in chat rooms is a good thing.

    but this is just ridiculous. The guy with the penis wasn’t dangerous. what was he going to do? Stab her with it?

  35. mokey says:

    Why would you say rotten things about Ohio?
    Arawak City
    (formerly Columbus, OH), is awesome. ComFest and the abundance of toplessness are just two of the wonderful things about it. Cops always ruin fun, though. Hate ‘em. A few years back, one of the undercovers that was assigned to watch the anarchists got busted for selling confiscated weapons and drugs.

    Anyway, total entrapment. Fuck clothes. More public nudity plz.

  36. Chrisos says:

    The way I see it:

    She should be prosecuted for being an accessory before the fact to a committed crime, she asked to see the offending (nay, world changingly offensive) member (that half the population own) after all.

    He should be (and was) prosecuted for being an idiot who got his penis out in a public place irrespective of inducements. Thus changing the world for the worse, never to be right again.

    The cops should be prosecuted for secretly video taping a naked woman, under peeping-tom laws. (Don’t give me some nonsense about it being publicly on view, taking it away on tape to a private place, must offend the MPAA as a missed opportunity for the artist to charge their royalties, or involve some sort of DMCA violation despite there being no circumvention technology involved. And we all know that the MPAA is the real power behind the throne of The United States of USA.)

    The lawyers, judge, any possible jury members, and court staff should be prosecuted for watching pornographic materials on the day of the trial.

    We all should be prosecuted for having access to pornographic materials on the Interwebnetpipeage, in magazine advertising, or on billboards for perfume and chocolate products.

    And now that we are all on the sex offenders list, at least three times, we should all be put in prison for life under the three strikes rules, which I’m sure are universal by now. No? Heck, lets save some money, there will be no one to run the prisons, we will all be inside them including the former staff, execution, yeah that’s right, capital punishment is the only way to go, last man standing hangs himself.

    Did I miss anyone?

    Right, I’m off to turn myself in, I just caught sight of my own winkie while I was having a wee-wee, I’ve probably broken several local laws.

    On a more serious note, he was naughty, and should have had his wrists slapped, she was naughty and should have had her wrists slapped, and the police are in morally dubious territory, if they are going to point video cameras at semi-nude women in the park in the hope of using their nudity and low moral turpitude as an inducement to capture men foolish enough to answer illegal requests.

  37. number14 says:

    either it’s entrapment or she’s an accessory, one or the other, though the latter doesn’t help the guy much. since apparently she wasn’t with the cops i don’t have any sympathy for the guy since what he did was illegal. we can argue about how much he should be punished, i’d agree he probably shouldn’t have to be a registered sex offender, but what he did was still illegal. it’s really no different than if someone passes me walking down the street and says they’ll sleep with me if i rob the old guy in front of us. it’s still my fault if i rob the old guy right?

    the only question in this case is if they knew she was asking men to expose themselves and sat there waiting for one to do it, which seems pretty likely. i’m not clear on the laws but if asking people to commit a crime is itself a crime then they’re ignoring a crime in order to catch a reaction to the crime which is also a crime, which might be illegal. I mean, I doubt they can watch someone key my car hoping to arrest me for punching the guy doing it. anyone know if this reasoning would hold up in court?

  38. Consumatopia says:

    Prosecuting the woman simply wouldn’t work–if it were illegal to do so, she would simply have denied soliciting the exposure, and we’d have no way of knowing whether she did or not. Prosecuting a woman for soliciting an indecent exposure when she claims she didn’t would be a nightmare–women would end up prosecuted for being the victims of sexual harassment. It might even increase sexual harassment–women would be afraid to report unsolicited exposures for fear that they’d be prosecuted.

    The “symmetric exposure” problem #35 talks about seems extremely acute, though. And, in contrast to #25, I fail to see anything comparable to it among gays. If it were somehow legal for half of gay people to expose themselves but not the other half, then I guess that would be the same situation.

  39. johnnyanywhere says:

    1) On a beach where it is somehow legal for a woman to be topless a man cannot take out his penis with no one in sight except the two of them when a topless gal asks him to! This is absolutely ridiculous.

    2) And yes: PIPENTA is right. Homosexuals are targeted and entrapped for being erotic in parks all the time. I don’t think any of us, homosexual or heterosexual, should be entrapped for anything. It is a WASTE of police resources when, for God’s sake, they could be fighting actual crime, and believe me, Columbus OH has enough of it in my experience.

    3) If it is a secluded area with no one around, what is the darn problem with being romantic or erotic?

    4) Why is a penis indecent exposure when breasts are not? How stupid is that!

    5) These attacks on sexuality defy reason. Clearly, the man wasn’t exposing himself to children or anyone who didn’t emphatically appear to want to see it.

  40. Brian Carnell says:

    “1) On a beach where it is somehow legal for a woman to be topless a man cannot take out his penis with no one in sight except the two of them when a topless gal asks him to! This is absolutely ridiculous.”

    The only thing ridiculous is this comment.

    Both the man and the woman in this case have the same legal rights. Both can, should they choose, go topless. Neither, however, my expose their genitals.

  41. number14 says:

    @39 i guess you’re right. come to think of it this is how they catch all big criminals, by ignoring the actions of the smaller criminals that work for them.

    anyway as to #40 question 4 apparently it wasn’t secluded because the cops were around. and my guess is showing the vagina is illegal, like the penis while showing the male chest is legal like the female chest. seems fair as can be.

    as for real police work, fighting crime isn’t always a question of manpower and i doubt they’d have prevented a single crime by walking around whereas by screwing this guy they’ll probably prevent people from trolling there in the future, which according to an earlier post is a problem in that park. so yes i think the guy should have been arrested and given a small fine or something. it’s not the fault of the police that the courts sentence him too harshly.

  42. WassabiCracka says:

    I love Ohio, but it’s done more to kill the 4th amendment (and 6th) than any other state in our country (Florida and Texas are catching up though). I think he should argue that if she knew or was complicit in any way with observation by the police it was entrapment (agency). A lot would depend on the way the laws are written as well (a peek at the sausage through the zipper versus dropping your full drawers down to the ankles – in a public place). I wonder what they do with all the OSU kids who get drunk expose themselves in downtown Columbus?

  43. Kyle Armbruster says:

    I walked out of my apartment the other day and saw a middle-aged man peeing in the gutter as he was out walking his dog. Full penis view.

    Men’s bathrooms are sometimes designed so that the door opens to the side of the urinals. You open the door, you see peeing penises, as does everyone outside as well.

    Kids change for PE classes in their classrooms (just the boys).

    Women clean men’s restrooms, while they are in use.

    And yet, somehow, all these visible penises have yet to have crumbled Japanese society.

  44. number14 says:

    @#12 entrapment is still available in strict liability cases: see United States v. Hedges or United States v. Thompson.

    still, for all you saying it would be entrapment if she worked for the police you’ll have to convince the court that a normally law-abiding person would have exposed themselves to the topless woman after she asked which I’m not convinced would work. and that he wasn’t sufficiently predisposed to the crime, which almost certainly wouldn’t work since he approached her.

  45. Gloria says:

    @Johnnyanywhere: You know what else is ridiculous? Comparing breasts to a penis. Men are shirtless in public all the time, and women should share the same privilege.

  46. WhiterWitch says:

    Th plc r ptrllng th prk, cmr n hnd, s thy’ll hv vdnc t s gnst th prvrtd mn wh lk t whp t thr dng-dngs n pblc? Hll, whr d snd th dghnts!

  47. Consumatopia says:

    Thinking about this some more: compare the description of what the woman did here with what Sen. Larry Craig did to incur his charges. She seemed to do more with her foot than he did with his.

  48. Skep says:

    #35 POSTED BY MIKELIST , JANUARY 2, 2008 3:01 PM
    ladies and gentlemen, the real issue was him flashing his dick in a PUBLIC place, end of discussion.

    Whenever someone declares “end of discussion” it wasn’t a discussion in the first place. A discussion is not the kind of thing where one person can unilaterally assert victory by saying “end of discussion.” That, Mikelist, is a monologue.

  49. ill lich says:

    Something about this sure seems fishy.

    Doesn’t it seem an unlikely coincidence that the police trained their cameras on a topless woman AND she just happened to ask a stranger to show his penis? She claims to not be affiliated with the police (a very convenient way for the police to avoid entrapment charges). She asked him to expose himself; clearly he was an idiot to do so, but isn’t she also a partner in the crime? In laws regarding prostitution (and I’m not trying to imply anything nor slander the woman here) both the prostitute and the “john” are in violation of the law. For the topless woman to ask him to expose himself it’s similar to the prostitute mentioning a price: a line has been crossed.

    And what is the definition of “public”? I have seen on many occasions desperate people pulling their cars over on the highway, and “exposing” their penises in order to urinate– if there is a reasonable belief that nobody will see the exposed penis, how is it public? In this case passersby (as far as I can tell) did not see the nasty dirty little penis– only the man attached to the penis, the woman who ASKED to see it, and the police who clearly HOPED to see an exposed penis. The only person harmed here is Mr. Garrison. The idea that he “could commit a larger crime” is a ridiculous justification. If he’s 42 years old and has no prior record of indecency or sex-related offenses then it’s wishful thinking on the part of the police to assume he “could commit a larger crime.”

    None of us is completely without sin, I’m sure there are a lot of us who, if we found a wallet full of money or a sexy lady being frisky in public, would do the “unlawful” thing on a whim. This man was fined $250. There are some places with “pooper scooper” laws where the fine is up to $500, and yet I’ll bet many of us have not cleaned up after our dogs on days when we were tired or ill or the weather was bad or it was in an area where nobody would notice, that doesn’t mean we are going to commit larger crimes.

    Police state here we come.

  50. deckard68 says:

    “The sunbathing woman is not affiliated with the police department and she was not asked to take part in the sting operation, according to a spokesperson for the department.”

    Perhaps the lie is in the way they phrased it. She may not have been asked by the police to take part — perhaps it was the other way around. She may have asked the police to help her catch people who bothered her, and they accepted her offer.

  51. mscir says:

    This woman is despicable, she asked him to do something that he did not do unprovoked, that she knew would get him into serious trouble. And on top of it all I’m sure she’s proud of herself. Typical hypocritical feminist *itch.

  52. UncommonSense says:

    I had to register and comment after seeing this… I remember reading this article in the Dispatch back in November. The incident occurred in May, but apparently wasn’t picked up until this went to court. He got a pretty good lawyer – Shamansky has represented OU football coach Frank Solich, Steelers’ WR Santonio Holmes, and former Buckeye Maurice Clarett, among others (apparently I have football on the brain – he usually represents area politicians on DUI charges, but he also defended the highway shooter a couple years back). Anyway, I just wanted to point out some info that was missing from this post. Here is the original write-up:

    http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/11/13/ROBIN13.ART_ART_11-13-07_B3_CE8F8JM.html?print=yes&sid=101

    Apparently she had been sunbathing for a few days at the front of the park and was getting a lot of attention from passing motorists on Greenlawn. The police asked her to move to the back of the park. She complied, but as another poster mentioned, Berliner is a huge sports complex, with access roads throughout. People were still driving by to ogle, including our hero. His attorney even alludes to this, saying “he sees her day after day”. Not surprising, since the CFD training facility is right across the street.

    Anyway, just wanted to give this background, as quite a few seem to be commenting about this as entrapment in which the woman was cooperating with police. Doesn’t even matter – she did nothing illegal (being topless not a crime in Columbus) and he did (exposing genitals in public is). CPD probably has better things to do, but sex at parks is a problem here and other places, and the article suggests they were there to prevent that and not for this woman in particular.

    As for the impression that Columbus is right-wing (#14), consider that we have one of the largest campuses in the country (tOSU), a large minority and gay/lesbian population, as well as a very low median age (32.4). We also stood in lines for hours to vote for Kerry in 2004. Please consider stopping in Columbus on one of your fly-overs, and check out German Village, the Brewery District, Victorian Village, Arena District or the Short North to see why Columbus is considered one of the best large cities to live, and a top arts destination.

    [climbs off soapbox]

    #60 – your comments were hilarious

  53. craig1st says:

    Yow, it’s a wonderful time now, where we equate robbing and beating with harmless exposure of the body parts. (vis, #38)

  54. Nicky_K says:

    Sounds like some dirty old policemen were interrupted while checking out some boobies, and didn’t like it. Shouldnt they have been chasing real crime?

  55. number14 says:

    @53 it’s called an analogy. the hope was that by using a case that is similar in all details except the degree of the crime it would show that the degree of punishment should be different than robbing or beating, but that it doesn’t absolve the man of all responsibility in either case. i think there’s enough moral outrage in these comments that you don’t need to manufacture any more. it’s not like i said it would be just like if i was hitler and someone told me to kill 6 million jews. it seemed to me that saying if someone tells me to jaywalk and i do it wouldn’t really get the point across.

    and now just to throw this out there: i’d rather be robbed for my wallet than have people constantly trying to have sex in the middle of the park next to my apartment. probably rather be punched too actually.

  56. dora8777 says:

    I know that the woman was not a police offical, she was someone they payed to do the dirty deed for them. HE WAS ENTRAPED and the CPD should stand to be held accountable. I feel if she did not work for them then why wasn’t she arrested and charged with the same crime as garrison was? I just hope that the court systems wake up and see that they were in the wrong with the guilty charge and that the cpd was in the wrong.

  57. mrfitz says:

    Not entrapment? Egads. If that’s not entrapment, I don’t know what is.

  58. jwb says:

    Incorrect summary. The woman is not a police officer, and she was in the park and topless of her own accord.

  59. punctiliouspig says:

    They never said she was a police officer..she was obviously working with them though or else he wouldn’t have been nabbed as soon as her complied to her request.

  60. punctiliouspig says:

    Also, this is a simple illustration of why so many people distrust the police.

  61. Dmitri says:

    And people wonder why the crime and incarceration rates in the USA are so high!

    Perhaps that would not be the case if police were catching real criminals, instead of tempting normal people into doing normal but “illegal in a different context” things. I am sure people of Columbus feel safer knowing that this firefighter will not be fighting any more fires.

  62. dculberson says:

    As a local, I know there’s a huge problem with trolling and public sex in that park. It’s a baseball park, with dozens of diamonds, and there are a lot of families and other members of the public around. But it’s a huge park, with lots of roads and parking areas so it’s easy for the trollers to find a “private” spot.

    I don’t know the particulars of this case enough to really comment, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the police did set the woman up to it. But I’m also not that horrified, as it is enforcement targeted at an existing problem. If that guy was in Berliner by himself, willing to whip out his penis, I’d lay a twenty on his having gone to that park with anonymous sex in mind.

    My hope is that this cuts down on the trolling at least a little. It’s pretty gross. (And rightfully illegal.) But it probably won’t help.

  63. jwb says:

    I don’t see that, Punctilious Pig. The police decided the topless woman was an attractive nuisance, but they could arrest her because going topless was legal. So instead they decided to arrest the men. Seems simple to me.

    Also, there’s an easy rule-of-thumb that will help you get through life: if you read it in Reason, or you hear it from a Libertarian, it’s probably exaggerated.

  64. Ceronomus says:

    Agreed. For this the police department is using funds that could be used to crack down on . Encouraging people to commit a misdemeanor so that you can bust them? Come on, what’s next? Littering stings?

  65. glugenwog says:

    “Excuse me, while I whip this out.”

    Sheriff Bart

  66. Daemon says:

    Sure sounds like entrapment to me. He only whipped it out when the bait (who was probably a wired officer) directly requested he do so.

    Seems sort of like having a narc go around recruiting people to sell drugs and then arresting them when they do so.

  67. mujadaddy says:

    I take back all the rotten things I’ve said about Ohio over the years.

    Free the Mammaries!

Leave a Reply