• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Topless Woman Lures Perverts in Police Sting

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: piasabird
I say arrest the woman. I did not know Ohio was a Topless State?

Ever heard of indescent exposure?

I was going to ask the same thing. The guy is arrested for something similar and the woman isn't?

Edit: Nevermind...I just read the following....

While topless sunbathing is legal in the city's parks,
 
Originally posted by: runzwithsizorz
Originally posted by: maluckey
but it IS illegal to have sexual contact and/or expose oneself in public for a lascivious purpose.
Quote from story;

" 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".
Okay, so now I'm confused.

See this is why I do not see it as entrapment. He made the first move toward contact and initiated the conversation. No one forced him to talk to that women sun bathing. He could of kept on moving along in the park and he could of ignored her.

We also do not know the full gist of the conversation that took place between the two.

P.S. This police women legally topless sun bathing in the park does not constitute her asking to be hit on by men so lets get that fact cleared out of the picture. I also have a feeling they did this because women might of been complaining about guys harassing them in the park while they sun bathed.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
See this is why I do not see it as entrapment. He made the first move toward contact and initiated the conversation. No one forced him to talk to that women sun bathing. He could of kept on moving along in the park and he could of ignored her.

Similarly, the women could have just ignored the approaching man, or told him to piss off and stop staring at her breasts. Instead, she chose to smile and flirt, rest her leg playfully on his shoulder, and after a period of time (enough time for him to become worked up) even requested that he unzip his pants... so basically you have the police going out of their way to place someone in a position of great temptation, and then actually encouraging that person to break the law. it might not meet the legal definition of entrapment, but to my mind it is very dubious, mean-spirited behaviour on the part of the police.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Drift3r
See this is why I do not see it as entrapment. He made the first move toward contact and initiated the conversation. No one forced him to talk to that women sun bathing. He could of kept on moving along in the park and he could of ignored her.

Similarly, the women could have just ignored the approaching man, or told him to piss off and stop staring at her breasts. Instead, she chose to smile and flirt, rest her leg playfully on his shoulder, and after a period of time (enough time for him to become worked up) even requested that he unzip his pants... so basically you have the police going out of their way to place someone in a position of great temptation, and then actually encouraging that person to break the law. it might not meet the legal definition of entrapment, but to my mind it is very dubious, mean-spirited behaviour on the part of the police.


Temptation is not a defense. If I leave my brand new, expensive flashy bike outside unattended and unchained in front of a store to get some water it's not legal for someone to come by and steal it because they were tempted. The same goes with internet stings of guys who troll teen chat sites to pick up underage girls. The officer's intention was to catch preps committing crimes. According to the link provide by the OP there is a statement made by a university law professor in which he states it's not entrapment give someone the opportunity to commit a crime. As long as person has a reasonable ability to opt out and/or they are not being forced to act in a illegal fashion against their will then it's not entrapment.

"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."
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
According to the link provide by the statement by the university law professor it's not entrapment give someone the opportunity to commit a crime as long as they have a reasonable ability to opt out and/or they are not being force to act in a illegal fashion against their will.

it is not entrapment according to local laws, but I question whether any good has been done by luring this individual into breaking a law.
 
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: Drift3r
According to the link provide by the statement by the university law professor it's not entrapment give someone the opportunity to commit a crime as long as they have a reasonable ability to opt out and/or they are not being force to act in a illegal fashion against their will.

it is not entrapment according to local laws, but I question whether any good has been done by luring this individual into breaking a law.

What do you consider "luring"? Is a cop posing as a drug addict or drug dealer "luring". What about a cop who is on the internet posing as teen in hopes that some adult starts a chat with him/her? Or cop who "accidentally drops" a wallet in front of group guys hanging out in front of a corner store. As stated before the act of being tempted and/or using someones predisposition is not considered entrapment it seems by law officials. Whether this type of sting has any effect on crime cannot be determined by us unless they've already released crime stats for the particular park that we can review.
 
How the hell is that not entrapment?

Woman exposes self, man reciprocates and gets arrested...

I'm convinced that you have to be a mental retard to be eligible to sit on any jury.
 
These guys do this sort of thing on a regular basis and these are the guidelines they use in order to avoid the entrapment argument being succesfully used.

This is from perverted-justice.com who work with Chris Hanson to catch a predator from their faq page.

Is it entrapment?
A.
To the people who like to make that claim, let's deal with an analogy real quick. Pretend that there is a twelve year old sitting in a park dancing around and asking older males for sex. Yes, that extreme of a situation. What should the male say? Yes, or no? Is the prospect of an underage kid so irresistible that we now consider a willing underage kid to be so persuasive that a male can't do anything but say yes? Get real.

So are the files we post "entrapment"? No. Not on any level. First, entrapment is a term created and judiciated against law enforcement officials. We are not law enforcement officials. Secondly, these people IM our names first. We don't IM them. They choose to say the things they say, to agree to the things they agree to, and to give their phone number for the verification call. Entrapment is a situation where you go out of your way to entice a citizen as law enforcement to commit a crime they otherwise would not commit. For example, if a department sent around female police pretending to be prostitutes to knock on the doors of private citizens offering sex, that's entrapment. We don't do the figurative "knocking on doors." Rather we sit, wait, and allow them to knock upon our online "door." And when they do, they're in for a surprise. As the law states regarding entrapment, the defense fails when it can be shown that the person being charged had a predisposition to the crime in question. Nobody can argue who knows anything about the law in any honest fashion that those we get arrested are not predisposed to attempting the crime they do.

Dozens and dozens and dozens of convictions... zero successful entrapment defenses.
 
"Entrapment is a situation where you go out of your way to entice a citizen as law enforcement to commit a crime they otherwise would not commit."

How many people would actually drop their pants in a public place unless there was a topless woman getting friendly with him and asking him to?
 
What really surprises me is that there aren't any pics of this topless cop. Columbus Ohio of all places, nobody notices a topless chick in the park and snaps a pic ( whether it be a random guy with his cell camera or the weirdo in the van with his DSLR ).

 
Police do use this tactic against gay men, and it appears to be considered justified by the mainstream community.

It's cos most people are glad to have this 'disguisting' behaviour be punished.

BTW, not my opinion.
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r

Temptation is not a defense. If I leave my brand new, expensive flashy bike outside unattended and unchained in front of a store to get some water it's not legal for someone to come by and steal it because they were tempted.

No, but if you were a cop doing that, and when a potental theif came allong you suggested he should steal it, then busted him for doing so, that would be entrapment.
Originally posted by: Drift3r
The same goes with internet stings of guys who troll teen chat sites to pick up underage girls. The officer's intention was to catch preps committing crimes.
With entrapment the officer's intention is to talk someone into committing a crime.
Originally posted by: Drift3r
According to the link provide by the OP there is a statement made by a university law professor in which he states it's not entrapment give someone the opportunity to commit a crime. As long as person has a reasonable ability to opt out and/or they are not being forced to act in a illegal fashion against their will then it's not entrapment.
Like talking a recovering drug addict into buying some? The Supreme Court calls that entrapment, unanimously.

 
Not to self...

Stop at Krispy Kreme, buy donuts
Make some index cards that say Free Donuts for all pi...err cops
wait in the bushes and make citizens arrest for theft

or should I just say here you go, here are your free donuts...or would that be considered entrapment?
 
Originally posted by: Linux23
This is why I don't bat an eye when most police die in the line of duty.
:| WTF??? :|
I've read some crazy things there on the forums, but that takes the cake.

 
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: Linux23
This is why I don't bat an eye when most police die in the line of duty.
:| WTF??? :|
I've read some crazy things there on the forums, but that takes the cake.

what's so hard to comprehend?😕
 
Originally posted by: Blain
Originally posted by: Linux23
This is why I don't bat an eye when most police die in the line of duty.
:| WTF??? :|
I've read some crazy things there on the forums, but that takes the cake.

Meh, I don't get too worked up about it either. For every cop who gets killed in the line of duty, there's any innocent person who got gunned down or tasered to death by asshole pigs. I'd say the score is probably even.

Perhaps if police forces across the country would work more on earning respect in their communities instead of trying to instill fear, people wouldn't hate them so much.
 
Back
Top