Politics-Entrapment or no?

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:59 pm

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

Yes, the guy probably shouldn't have done what he did, but we as men, we all know how our IQs drop substantially when we see boobies. The whole situation was out of line, but the guy was hardly criminally minded.

Also, shouldn't laws and law enforcement be there to keep honest people honest, rather than the other way around?

Finally, aren't there crack dealers and gang bangers in Columbus? Aren't they a bit more important than some dude, who upon the REQUEST of an attractive TOPLESS woman gave her a peek of his naughty bits?

Mojo · Post by **Mojo** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:08 pm

Entrapment, pure and simple. The woman is half naked and makes physical contact for God's sake. Crime in that city must be practically nonexistent as their police department obviously has waaaaay too much time on their hands.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:42 pm

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

Had she not asked, no entrapment in my mind. DAs where I've worked have been very clear about "planting the seed" for the crime constitutes entrapment. If as the story alludes, she was acting as an agent for the police and must conduct herself accordingly.

See OI, I don't always take the side of the police!

cutter · Post by **cutter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:48 pm

From what I understand, entrapment can only exist when the person in question has no history of the act in question.

cutter · Post by **cutter** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:50 pm

After a closer reading of the article, what a bunch of lunatic cops!

That is rediculous! How dare they!

deerwhacker444 · Post by **deerwhacker444** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:51 pm

All I know is I'm going to have to start visiting some Ohio public parks, they're much "livelier" than the ones here in Oklahoma.....

Post by **Ysabel Kid** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:54 pm

I aam usually not a big fan of the "entrapment" defense. Saw it used too often when my father was in the FBI. They ran sting operations in and around Chicago during the late 70's setting up fencing operations. They'd run them for 9 months or so, filming everyone who came in, then let the local LEO's make the busts. These were great little operations - netting over 300 felony arrests and several million dollars in stolen merchandise. Then the ACLU started complaining that this was entrapment, and these honest, law-abiding citizens would not have committed the crimes had not the FBI enticed them with a fencing place. BS!

This, however, is entrapment. Even if the law allows topless sunbathing but does not allow the exposure of a man or women's lower private parts, she asked to see it. That being said, the guy is an idiot, and it not without quilt. You find a woman that wants to see your privates, you take her someplace private! He broke the law exposing himself.

Think of it this way. Is it okay to loot when everyone around you is doing so? In a time of emergency, to feed your family, yes. To take TV's and other electronics - never. Did the store entrap people by being undefended during a state of emergency? No. Did this guy break the law by exposing himself, even if she helped him along the way? Yes.

brucew44guns · Post by **brucew44guns** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:01 pm

All I know is, I'm sure glad it's not me explaining to my bride how I was hopelessly entrapped, had to obey her command, had no choice in this. I can't help but feel a little sorry for the guy though, bet he's in deep poop at home.

Post by **Hobie** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:20 pm

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

Had she not asked, no entrapment in my mind. DAs where I've worked have been very clear about "planting the seed" for the crime constitutes entrapment. If as the story alludes, she was acting as an agent for the police and must conduct herself accordingly.

See OI, I don't always take the side of the police!

Aren't you SUPPOSED to do as the police ask? In any case it is better than some Sipowicz lookalike asking for the same thing...

horsesoldier03 · Post by **horsesoldier03** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:42 pm

Yes I think it was entrapment, however, YES he is Guilty! Kind of krewl when the authorities use your human instincts against you to coax you to do something you wouldnt normally do! Thats almost as bad as someone giving you an 1895 winchester and a case of ammo and telling you dont shoot it.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:50 pm

Whats he guilty of? Besides stupidity.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:06 pm

Griff wrote:...See OI, I don't always take the side of the police!

Only enough to keep your log-book clear of tickets...

Andrew · Post by **Andrew** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:09 pm

First of all, letting women have a "girls night out" at the park and not expecting anything to come of it is completely assinine(sp).

Second, letting "mini-me" out for a stroll is pretty stupid too.

I don't know if it qualifies as "entrapment" or not, but it just sounds dumb no matter which way you look at it( for both sides).

Personally, I would have just taken a picture: Lasts longer, and it's not against the law.

Old Ironsights · Post by **Old Ironsights** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:09 pm

Hobie wrote:...In any case it is better than some Sipowicz lookalike asking for the same thing...

Hobie, A fine new years present you give me... I don't have enough booze laying around here to get that image out of my head...

How am I supposed to sleep now?

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 9:34 pm

What a tease! I must be pretty "criminally minded". I'm single now and If a beautiful woman with no shirt on were to ask me to take my clothes off and run around town square, I may just do it!

And, if a bunch of guys jumped me, I would kick their butts claiming "I was here first!"

By the way, is it legal in Ohio for women to sunbathe topless? If not, that's pure inarguable entrapment.

Also, what decent heterosexual cop would do that to a guy? Unless of course, Ohio cops are gay.

Humbly,
bogie

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:35 pm

The test for entrapment is, in whose mind did the crime originate? It is not entrapment to give a criminal an opportunity to commit a crime, but it is entrapment if the crime would not have been committed but for the police activity in planting the idea.

The whole things is very subjective and that is job of a jury to sort it all all.

In the instance at hand, is may or may not be entrapment. I am guessing not.

It is a common practice for undercover cop chicks to ask a fellow if he wants to have sex for money as part of a prostitution sting and that has been ruled not to be entrapment.

It is not entrapment to ask a fellow if he would like to commit a crime and he says yes. It is not a defense to say...Well she asked me to do it!

I wonder what Senator Craig would say about all of this..

jbm1968 · Post by **jbm1968** » Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:48 pm

Entrapment!

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:26 am

The operating premise of modern police work is to create crime where it doesn't exist. Gotta keep those numbers up.

It's always easier to trick some simple minded dope into doing something stupid or to catch him not paying attention than to catch a child molester or a shoplifter.

The only difference between these cops and any sub-par con-artist is the badge.

:Spit:

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:31 am

What a crock! Lets see, she's an adult...he's an adult...she is showing off her girls knowing that a male will get a natural erec, Oops I mean reaction, and it is his fault and he is the pervert!!!??? This country is way to hung up on what is and is not moral.

And this is entrapment, pure and simple. Someone tell me how any sane, responsible law enforcement officer can pursue stuff like this. The WWII war crimes trials said that if the law is wrong and you uphold that law, you are just as guilty as the perp.

Hobie....you are guilty of spoiling my tranquility with the thought of Sipowicz

stretch · Post by **stretch** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:08 am

Unfotunately these idiots have guns and badges and the
weight of the establishment behind them. They gotta make
those arrests "to keep the children safe", and to keep the
whole law enforcement and judicial juggernaut rolling.

Our society is totally screwed up in some ways. You can watch
"COPS" and see instant replays of some poor turd splattering
himself against a bridge abutment or a bus over and over again.
That's "wholesome entertainment ". But let some good-lookin' people
sunbathe in the altogether (as is NORMAL in many countries),
and by God - the very fabric of society is being rent asunder!
America has some SERIOUS issues about what consititutes
crime.......

Comal Forge · Post by **Comal Forge** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:34 am

From a legal perspective, I think the success of the DA's case shows that entrapment did not occur because the defendant should have deferred and shown his manhood behind closed doors. The logical conclusion behind this chain of events after exposing himself would be a sex act of some sort, which I think would be much harder to defend in court, whether she asked or not. A person is always expected to obey the law, even if persuaded or coerced by someone else - e.g., if a beautiful, naked woman promises you a piece of heaven for killing someone, is that a defense in court?

I will freely admit that the police should be spending their time elsewhere as this type of behavior just doesn't mean much in the vast scheme of things. In addition, our entire society is perverted on the matter of sex - this man was convicted for exposing himself but Jamie Lynn Spears is 16 and got knocked up by an 18 yr old guy. However, it is already a media circus and I'm sure Stud-Boy will dodge any statutory rape charges in the future because his girlfriend has a famous sister. That is where the real injustice lies - that fame and money in our society always win out over innocence and truth.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:12 am

I'm still wondering where the "crime" is in this instance.
Is it a crime to respond as asked in a private place? If thats the case then there is no victim here & lacking a victim I dont think there can be a crime.
If the crime is simply that he pulled out his widget in public I reckon we are all guilty. Or is anyone here ready to say they never peed out of doors?

This is simply abuse of power & abuse of a law. I'm fairly sure laws regarding public decency were not intended to be used like this.

Bogie35 · Post by **Bogie35** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:29 am

The girl and the cops were the perverts!

bogie

C. Cash · Post by **C. Cash** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:49 am

Definitely not right how the police did it.

Gun Smith · Post by **Gun Smith** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:54 am

Kind of reminds me of Bait Car on TV.

buckeyeshooter · Post by **buckeyeshooter** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:17 pm

Unfortunately, I happen to live in the suburbs of Columbus. Here are the 'facts' that you were not told. This city park among 3 or 4 others are well known for 'cruising' and open sexual activity and has a history of inappropriate behavior occuring there. Of the child-molesting, homosexual and heterosexual type. Genearlly speaking the fact that the cops set up in them is known and advertised by media.
Are the cops in Columbus too concerned with sex crimes --- YEP. Are there alot of sex crimes committed here under the surface-- I think so.
Would you find me in this city park-- not on a bet.

Joe Reilly · Post by **Joe Reilly** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:28 am

It is good to hear "The rest of the story" from a local.

But then also, "Your tax dollars at work" has a nice ring to it too.

cutter · Post by **cutter** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:54 am

So... Did the police hire a stripper? Was she an undercover officer?

Hmmm... Undercover doesn't quite sound right in this case.

I don't see what is wrong with a good pair of binoculars, and running shoes? Or an attack dog. Yep, definately an attack dog.

There are two public parks in my area that had the same problems. One was closed after the police tried for years to clean it, and is now a haven for all kinds of horrible activity. The other was put under observation by a volunteer force, and has become a very nice place to take the kids.

It was very cool how the second park was cleaned. The volunteers would catch the nasties in the act, then run in with video cameras. The next day, you would see the pervs in the paper along with pictures of their cars and liscence plates! It only took one summer to clean this place up!

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:50 am

cutter wrote:From what I understand, entrapment can only exist when the person in question has no history of the act in question.

Where are you gonna find an adult man that has never shown a topless woman his wiener when she asked? Pottery barn? A PETA meeting?

Travis Morgan · Post by **Travis Morgan** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:06 am

buckeyeshooter wrote:Unfortunately, I happen to live in the suburbs of Columbus. Here are the 'facts' that you were not told. This city park among 3 or 4 others are well known for 'cruising' and open sexual activity and has a history of inappropriate behavior occuring there. Of the child-molesting, homosexual and heterosexual type.

Then let them go after the offenders there already showing intent. This is like the chicks that started getting guys all ready to go, then yelling date rape because they whispered "stop" while he was in mid-thrust.

Crazy Horse · Post by **Crazy Horse** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:56 am

It is a darn shame these cops have nothing better to do than try to make someone break the law so they can arrest them. I am sure there are plenty of punk thug gang bangers around the corner selling dope that they could arrest but they don't want to catch them because they can't geat any MONEY out of them. Sounds like if they want to get the perverts out of the park they need to make the women quit laying out toppless!!!!

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:09 am

While I agree these "sex stings" are a very poor use of public funds and police time, none-the-less there was a crime committed.

If you haul our your willie and do a show and tell in a public place, you have committed a crime. This is not a two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom type of event.

Do this in a public place, and there is a strong chance somebody (including children) who did not ask for the view will get it. Herein lies the crime. The Cop Chick invited him to commit the crime, but he knew what he was doing was against the law.

I have been doing a little more thinking and research and I am pretty well convinced this was not entrapment, as defined by the law. Poor use of public funds to be certain but not entrapment.

ursavus.elemensis · Post by **ursavus.elemensis** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:49 am

Let me get this straight: A guy is in a public park and starts talking with a woman who is topless, and she asks him to do something that is against the law, and he does it, but somehow it's her fault or the Police Department's fault? Is that it? There's nothing illegal about being topless in the park, and nothing illegal about talking to the topless woman in the park, so why is it that if she asks him to do something illegal he can't say, "No, not here, but let's go to XYZ private location..."? The guy was found guilty. I bet the appeals fail. He did something illegal. How is this any different than selling drugs in a sting to a junkie who is addicted to the drugs and can not think clearly due to the addiction? How many of you will protest that such a scenario is entrapment? But a topless woman asking a guy to do something illegal, that is OK? I don't buy it.

As for the use of public / police resources, I hope the cops take quality of life issues, like public sex in public parks, very seriously and target it for enforcement action. It is the "petty" stuff that affects my quality of life. Major crimes rarely affect most of us, but the little stuff makes or breaks our quality of life.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 12:07 pm

I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But wheres the difference between her toplesness & his flashing his thing? Thats what I dont get. Unless she got arrested too.
Now, if she was just hanging around clothed I'd see it different.

Its not the same as a drug sting, unless the cops are shooting dope with the junkies. I dont think thats how it works.

As I also mentioned, most every one of us has relieved ourselves outdoors. Who's to say who might have seen regardless of where you were.
For that matter I bet most adults, if they were honest, would have to admit to haveing sex somewhere they might have got caught, be it in a park at night, the backseat or the woods, whatever. If you think this guys guilty & you ever had sex outdoors or ever relieved yourself outdoors then I imagine your on your way to the police station to turn yourself in eh?

If this guy doesn't have a record of being indecent in public or other sexual offences I think he's being persecuted. If he does & they targeted him intentionally it changes things slightly but is still a dirty trick.

Rebel1972 · Post by **Rebel1972** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:11 pm

All he has to do is say he did it in the name of art

.You Can call anything art anymore ,no matter how disgusting.

What she was doing, in my opinion is the same thing as inciting a riot.If an undercover officer infiltrates a gang of bank robbers and helps them rob a bank, in order to catch them ,is he guilty or not?

ursavus.elemensis · Post by **ursavus.elemensis** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:19 pm

Well, I was going to leave the public urination thing alone, but since it was mentioned a few times, I will address that. I doubt you would be accepting of men publically urinating if the men were coming out of a bar and peeing on your front yard while walking back to their car at 2 AM. Right? That is a major quality of life issue for a lot of people who live in towns and cities. And you probably would agree with me that it is not acceptable to have men peeing in public in the stairway of a downtown parking garage, or along a sidewalk in your town. That IS public indecency, and it is gross, and it is an unlawful act for which the police should have enforcement activites, right? Now, peeing in the woods while you are hiking or hunting is not the same thing, although doing it in a park where you are in view of other park guests IS indecent exposure, and it is gross and it is inappropriate. Yes, many of us have urinated while we happen to not be in a lavatory. Sure. BUT, doing that within public view of people in a park, or doing it anywhere within the non-restroom areas of a town or city is indecent exposure and it is a quality of life issue.

Dude, come on, admit it, taking your wing-wang out to play show and tell with some woman while you are in a public city park is just wrong. There is no excuse for that. He knew it was wrong, and he should not have done it and he got what was coming for doing that.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:58 pm

Leverdude wrote:I dunno, I'm not a lawyer. But wheres the difference between her toplesness & his flashing his thing? Thats what I dont get. Unless she got arrested too.
Now, if she was just hanging around clothed I'd see it different.

If this guy doesn't have a record of being indecent in public or other sexual offences I think he's being persecuted. If he does & they targeted him intentionally it changes things slightly but is still a dirty trick.

Leverdude.. The difference is her toplessness was not against the law. His flashing his thing was.

If a person is not prosecuted for a first offense, there never would be any prosecution for a second offense. You can't have a second without a first. The fact the fellow doesn't have a record doesn't mean, he has not done it before, it just means he has never been caught.

Iron_Marshal · Post by **Iron_Marshal** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:24 pm

I registered at this site because I was going to ask for opinions about the Marlin 1894SS, but I saw this thread about law enforcement entrapment. Now, you may think a law enforcement officer would stick up for the practices of his fellow officers, but this is an asinine use of resources and, in my opinion, is entrapment. I understand that females in that area are allowed to sunbath topless, but I think it is as morally wrong for females to be able to air their private features but preclude men from doing the same thing. I am not saying that men should be able to wave their private parts in public, but whatâ€™s good for the goose is good for the gander. I also understand that the officers are combating a perceived sexual misconduct problem in the park. Where I feel that this is entrapment is that the undercover officer obviously enticed the man to commit the act while baring her breasts and she even apparently placed her foot on his shoulder while they reclined on the grass. When he exposed himself was his exposure viewed by anyone other than the female officer? Was it visible to the public? Was it visible only to officers peeking from hiding spots? Or, ere they in a secluded area where the man had an expectation of privacy? What if he was urinating and he exposed himself? Again, in my opinion, having a topless woman rub her leg on the manâ€™s body really exceeds the reasonable expectation that he would then resist the womanâ€™s request to expose himself. Nice site ya got here. Mind if I ask some questions about guns now?

Rebel1972 · Post by **Rebel1972** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 5:36 pm

Welcome Irish Cop .Pull up a stump and sit around the campfire .

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:35 pm

Charles wrote;

Leverdude.. The difference is her toplessness was not against the law. His flashing his thing was.

If thats the case I supose he got caught with his pants down. I wonder if he knew it was more wrong for him than for her?

Charles wrote;

If a person is not prosecuted for a first offense, there never would be any prosecution for a second offense. You can't have a second without a first. The fact the fellow doesn't have a record doesn't mean, he has not done it before, it just means he has never been caught.

True to a point. But to lable a guy as a sex offender, which will undoutably happen, because of something like this is wrong IMO. Its real hard for me to envision a woman sitting topless in a public place as a victim when a man does as she asks. But that may just be me. I dont like seeing folks set up.

ursavus.elemensis wrote;

Well, I was going to leave the public urination thing alone, but since it was mentioned a few times, I will address that. I doubt you would be accepting of men publically urinating if the men were coming out of a bar and peeing on your front yard while walking back to their car at 2 AM. Right? That is a major quality of life issue for a lot of people who live in towns and cities. And you probably would agree with me that it is not acceptable to have men peeing in public in the stairway of a downtown parking garage, or along a sidewalk in your town. That IS public indecency, and it is gross, and it is an unlawful act for which the police should have enforcement activites, right? Now, peeing in the woods while you are hiking or hunting is not the same thing, although doing it in a park where you are in view of other park guests IS indecent exposure, and it is gross and it is inappropriate. Yes, many of us have urinated while we happen to not be in a lavatory. Sure. BUT, doing that within public view of people in a park, or doing it anywhere within the non-restroom areas of a town or city is indecent exposure and it is a quality of life issue.

My apologies, I hadn't realized this happenned in someones front yard or on a sidewalk. Kinda figured it was a secluded area of a park.

For whatever its worth I live in a city & while I dont think its ok for folks to pee in the gutter or fornicate on the street I also dont think thats what hapenned here. I think, with laws or ordinances like this discretion is real important. Like you said, a guy peeing in the street is being obsene, a guy peeing in the bushes unseen isn't & I think can be & is often overlooked. A couple haveing sex on the sidewalk is obsene. A couple in a secluded park at night is not the same. I know I'v been caught as a young man & the cops gave us a moment to gather ourselves & then told us we were pretty stupid & to move along.

It doesn't sound like this guy walked up to an innocent woman & whipped it out. She used bait thats been trapping men for thousands of years.

Laws might have been broke but in many places its against the law to spit on the sidewalk. Discretion folks, discretion, if you need to bait a trap how can it not be entrapment?

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:04 pm

Leverdude wrote:... if you need to bait a trap how can it not be entrapment?

A moment of clarity...

Rebel1972 · Post by **Rebel1972** » Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:22 pm

FWiedner wrote:
Leverdude wrote:... if you need to bait a trap how can it not be entrapment?
A moment of clarity...

+1

Texican · Post by **Texican** » Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:39 pm

Quote from the story:
"But such operations veer dangerously close to entrapment, say lawyers, civil libertarians and defendants who've been caught in sting operations."

OK, so I would expect that from the defendants, but those naughty lawyers and civil libertarians...

Politics-Entrapment or no?

Politics-Entrapment or no?

entrapment

Definately Entrapment, IMHO

POOR GRAMMAR