Topless Woman Lures Perverts in Police Sting

[Blain]

Originally posted by: Linux23

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?

Your view towards men and women that have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their communities.
Grumbling about a speeding ticket is one thing. But to have such a cavalier attitude as yours is quite another.


1980 - Police Officer John F. Gottfried...
Officer Gottfried was shot and killed when he attempted to stop a bank robbery. Officer Gottfried, a member of the Emergency Bureau, had gone to a nearby bank on his lunch break to cash a check. While waiting in line three suspects entered to rob the bank. Officer Gottfried exchanged shots with the suspect and was fatally wounded. He was able to wound one of the suspects as well. All three men were apprehended and sentenced to life.

1993 - Detective John Sczyrek...
Detective Sczyrek was shot and killed in court by a suspect who was trying to keep him from testifying on an undercover assignment. As Detective Sczyrek walked down the hallway of the courthouse the defendant's cousin opened fire with a .357 caliber handgun. The suspect attempted to flee but was apprehended a short distance away.

Detective Sczyrek was survived by his wife and daughter.

1997 - Police Officer Dewey Joe Sherbo III...
Officer Sherbo was killed when his patrol car was intentionally rammed by another vehicle during a vehicle pursuit of a stolen car. Officer Sherbo's patrol car burst into flames upon impact. He was transported to a local hospital where he remained in critical condition for 20 hours before succumbing to his injuries.

Four suspects were apprehended at the scene of the crash. The suspect who was driving was sentenced to 15 years.

Officer Sherbo had been with the agency for 3 years. He is survived by his wife and two children.

2003 - Police Officer Melvin Lisojo...
Officer Lisojo was killed in an automobile accident when his patrol car was broadsided by a driver that had run a red light at Bergen Street and 18th Avenue.

The driver of that vehicle was later found to be intoxicated. Officer Lisojo was the passenger in the second of three patrol cars responding to a shots fired call at 0200 hours. As Officer Lisojo's patrol car entered the intersection, it was struck broadside, causing it to flip onto its side. Officer Lisojo and his partner were both transported to University Hospital in critical condition. Officer Lisojo succumbed to his injuries a short time later.

The driver of the vehicle that struck the patrol car was arrested and charged with vehicular homicide, recklessly operating a vehicle and driving while intoxicated. The suspect was also wanted on several outstanding warrants, including one for an incident earlier in the year when the suspect exchanged gunfire with several Newark Officers. In late 2005, the suspect accepted a plea agreement and in January 2006, he was sentenced to 20 years; 15 years for vehicular homicide and an additional five years on several drug counts.

Officer Lisojo had served with the Newark Police Department for five years and is survived by his three children, parents, sister, and four brothers, one of whom also serves with the Newark Police Department.

2007 - Sergeant Tommaso Popolizio...
Sergeant Tommaso Popolizio died from injuries sustained when his patrol car rolled during a vehicle pursuit.

At approximately 0300 hours Sergeant Popolizio responded with several officers to a call of drag racing on Doremus Avenue. The officers arrested a male after seeing him throw a gun into a bush. He was handcuffed behind his back and placed in the back seat of a squad car. The suspect was able to move his hand to the front of his body climb through an opening in a Plexiglas partition. The suspect then stole the patrol car.

Sergeant Popolizio pursued the suspect in a marked Ford Explorer SUV. During the ensuing chase the stolen police vehicle and Sergeant Popolizio's SUV collided near the corner of Doremus Street and Wilson Street, causing the SUV to roll several times. Sergeant Popolizio was taken to University Hospital after the crash where he died from his injuries.

The stolen patrol car was abandoned near the crash scene. A Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police officer found the suspect hiding in some bushes nearby and took him into custody. He was charged with murder and a number of other offenses.

Sergeant Popolizio had served with the Newark Police Department for 12 years. He is survived by his wife, four children, and a brother, who is also a Newark Police Sergeant.

 

[brandonb]

Protect and Serve has turned into Conspire and Collect.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Blain

Originally posted by: Linux23

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?

Your view towards men and women that have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their communities.
Grumbling about a speeding ticket is one thing. But to have such a cavalier attitude as yours is quite another.

*emotional bullcrap snipped*

Want me to dig up a list of innocent people killed by the police? Or maybe a list of people executed after being railroaded by the pigs into a false confession?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Linux23

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?

man if that isnt vacation material i dont know what is.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Protect and Serve has turned into Conspire and Collect.

QFT!

 

[GoPackGo]

Also..everytime the government wants to increase revenues, they lower the DWI BAC.

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Linux23

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?

man if that isnt vacation material i dont know what is.

Vacation for what? I never asked anyone to take any action against any law enforcement. I simply stated how I felt, no action implied.

You may put the police up on a pedestal, but from what I have experienced and what I was told (and read) will give you a different perspective about some of our finest men and women.

Anyway, should I be banned for saying I wouldn't care if Paris Hilton gets killed in a horrible car accident?:roll:

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: Vic
Meh. It's not entrapment, there's no crime. They didn't even talk money from what I read. He probably he just thought was gonna score in the park. Would that have been a crime?

Yes, that would have been a crime which is why he was arrested.

a misdemeanor, based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park.

Whipping your wang out in a park is considered a no no by law.

But if the woman in the park implied she was potentially interested in Garrison (the foot on his shoulder, for example), and said, "I only go out with guys with big wangs. Show me what you've got," I think that WOULD constitute entrapment:

(1) The idea to expose himself wouldn't have come from Garrison,
(2) the implication by the woman that her interest in Garrison was contingent on him showing her his penis would have constituted "persuasion,", and
(3) it would NOT be the case that Garrison was "ready and willing" to expose himself independent of the woman's request.

 

[ericlp]

topless sunbathing is legal in the city's parks

Hmmm guess I be visiting this park!

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
"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?

I wouldn't sorry and I'd suspect most guys with IQ larger then penis size wouldn't either. If you are smart you'd suggest to get a motel room or else leave her alone. Sorry but this is not a good defense.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: manowar821
So talking and/or flirting with a topless chick who approaches you in the park is bad? Dumb-ass cops.

Pulling out your penis in a public park is considered "bad". If talking is all you do you have nothing to worry about unless you admit to something crazy like being a drug dealer, hitman, etc...

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

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.

If a bike thief takes the word of a undercover cop and steals the bike then that is not entrapment. No one forced him to listen to a undercover cop and as long as the cop did not threaten him and the guy willingly starts a conversation with the cop and agrees with him without being resistant to the idea then this is not entrapment. If the bike thief is pre-disposed to stealing bikes and/or anything else that is not considered entrapment either as long as he is willing to commit the criminal act.

The average person should be smart enough and honest enough to say "No thank you" to such a request and move on. If the request is made forceful via a threat or implied threat or asked again despite the initial rejection then you a good case of entrapment. If the cop comes to a random person's home and offers to help them steal a bike then that is entrapment. Your example is not anywhere close to entrapment.

With entrapment the officer's intention is to talk someone into committing a crime.

No that is a very simplistic view of entrapment. Sorry but it is. Entrapment involves a officer cajoling and persuading someone who is resistant (like you saying "No!" the first time but they are insisting you go along with them) and or using forceful means (threats of jail time, violence, blackmail etc..) to get them to act in a manner they would not ordinarily act in order to commit a crime.

If you are predisposed to whipping out your penis in public with very little effort and/or persuading involved by another person then you have no defense. Using a form of temptation or someone's predisposition against them to entice them to commit a criminal act is not considered to be entrapment by the courts as long as these people did so on their own accord.

Like talking a recovering drug addict into buying some? The Supreme Court calls that entrapment, unanimously.

Of course this was entrapment the FED's approached him and not the other way around and they used a forceful method ie...his drug addiction in order to get him to commit a criminal act after he had initially rejected their first offers. Had he not rejected their initial first offer and several others after that he would be sitting behind bars today.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: shira
it would NOT be the case that Garrison was "ready and willing" to expose himself independent of the woman's request.

apparently the purpose of the sting was to apprehend exhibitionists who were exposing themselves to women using the park. but they haven't apprehended an exhibitionist. this is apparently not a guy who is running around exposing himself to random, non-consenting, unwilling women. the police have apprehended an "average joe" who was naive enough to think a smiling, flirtatious, topless women in a park wasn't lying when she said she wanted to see his penis. I think a more legitimate approach would have been to have fully clothed, undercover female police pretending to be park patrons. When the exhibitionists turned up and exposed their genitals with no prompting, they could have arrested them. But that would have taken a much longer amount of time and would have cost a lot more. I think this guy is being used as a scape-goat. Maybe the publicity from this arrest will cause exhibitionists to go elsewhere, which would reduce the problem in that particular park, but I don't think it is an acceptable trade off.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: shira
it would NOT be the case that Garrison was "ready and willing" to expose himself independent of the woman's request.

apparently the purpose of the sting was to apprehend exhibitionists who were exposing themselves to women using the park. but they haven't apprehended an exhibitionist. this is apparently not a guy who is running around exposing himself to random, non-consenting, unwilling women. the police have apprehended an "average joe" who was naive enough to think a smiling, flirtatious, topless women in a park wasn't lying when she said she wanted to see his penis. I think a more legitimate approach would have been to have fully clothed, undercover female policemen pretending to be park patrons. When the exhibitionists turned up and exposed their genitals with no prompting, they could have arrested them. But that would have taken a much longer amount of time and would have cost a lot more. I think this guy is being used as a scape-goat. Maybe the publicity from this arrest will cause exhibitionists to go elsewhere, which would reduce the problem in that particular park, but I don't think it is an acceptable trade off.

As an adult he should be smart enough to understand that he can't just take out your genitals in a public place. If it's against the law to do so in his home town even someone asks him to do so he cannot do so at all. It does not matter if it was a undercover cop or not.

What you guys fail to grasp and what courts have upheld over and over again is that tempting someone or using their predisposition is not entrapment as long as they willingly agree to do it the first time around. The average adult with an IQ above 70 should understand that just because someone asks you to do something doesn't mean you have to do it.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Linux23

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?

man if that isnt vacation material i dont know what is.

people get a vacation for far far less

clamum is proof

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
The average person should be smart enough and honest enough to say "No thank you" to such a request and move on.

I think a lot of guys probably would have responded in a similar manner. They probably would have taken into consideration things like whether or not the park was crowded with people or deserted. If a tree falls in a forrest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?? If a man exposes his penis to a consenting women in a deserted park, and no-one sees it, does it really matter?? I say no. I'd also like to know exactly how this guy exposed his penis. Did he whip it out of his pants and wave it in the air for all to see? Or did he discreetly unzipper his trousers, and reveal his equipment in a way that only someone close by could see? If the police hadn't been observing the proceedings with a zoom lens, would anyone have even noticed?

Entrapping this guy in this manner (and I do believe this meets a commonsense definition of entrapment, if not the legal definition) has not left society in a better position. A dangerous predator has not been removed from the streets. Instead, a guy who seems to be a decent person (he is a fireman, so when he goes to work he is basically risking his life to protect your life & property) has been publically humiliated and is now on desk duty at work. How does this benefit anyone? Does this somehow "save the children" or protect women? If anything, these actions have merely stirred up a lot of suspicion and contempt towards the police.

 

[aidanjm]

I suspect a majority of the population could be tempted into breaking the law, given the right conditions. Should it be the job of the police to create those tempting conditions? Under what circumstances if any should this occur?

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Drift3r
The average person should be smart enough and honest enough to say "No thank you" to such a request and move on.

I think a lot of guys probably would have responded in a similar manner. They probably would have taken into consideration things like whether or not the park was crowded with people or deserted. If a tree falls in a forrest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound??? If a man exposes his penis to a consenting women in a deserted park and no-one sees it, does it really matter??? I say no. I'd also like to know exactly how this guy exposed his penis. Did he whip it out of his pants and wave it in the air for all to see? Or did he discreetly unzipper his trousers, and reveal his equipment in a way that only someone close by could see? The simple fact is entrapping this guy in this manner (and I do believe this meets the commonsense definition of entrapment, if not the legal definition) has not left society in a better position. If anything, these actions have merely stirred up a lot of anger and hatred towards the police.

The "fallacy of popularity" is not a good argument to make and would not hold water in court. What the you "think" most guys would do is not what the courts deal in or is of great importance to them. Not to mention that is strictly your opinion. Also the severity and degree of his exposure is not taken into consideration when determining guilt or innocent. Again this was not entrapment because he willingly exposed himself. Read the law and understand it folks.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I suspect a majority of the population could be tempted into breaking the law, given the right conditions.

So are you suggesting that most people are criminals just waiting to commit a crime? That is a pretty bleak and unrealistic view of society IMHO. I'd wager there I more times when people say no to temptation and behave themselves accordingly then not.

Should it be the job of the police to create those tempting conditions? Under what circumstances if any should this occur?

These are philosophical and/or political questions that have not been answered as of yet. Again temptation is not considered entrapment because as a adult you should have enough will power to say "No Thank You!".

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Drift3r
The average person should be smart enough and honest enough to say "No thank you" to such a request and move on.

I think a lot of guys probably would have responded in a similar manner. They probably would have taken into consideration things like whether or not the park was crowded with people or deserted. If a tree falls in a forrest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound??? If a man exposes his penis to a consenting women in a deserted park and no-one sees it, does it really matter??? I say no. I'd also like to know exactly how this guy exposed his penis. Did he whip it out of his pants and wave it in the air for all to see? Or did he discreetly unzipper his trousers, and reveal his equipment in a way that only someone close by could see? The simple fact is entrapping this guy in this manner (and I do believe this meets the commonsense definition of entrapment, if not the legal definition) has not left society in a better position. If anything, these actions have merely stirred up a lot of anger and hatred towards the police.

The "fallacy of popularity" is not a good argument to make

My comments were not an argument, they were a statement on what people are actually like. I made a response to your statement on what the average person "should" be like. I think a lot of guys probably would have responded in a similar manner to this guy. That would account for the poll results in this thread, and the very many angry posts in this thread condemning the police actions. This is human psychology, not legal argument.

Originally posted by: Drift3r
and would not hold water in court. What the you "think" most guys would do is not what the courts deal in or is of great importance to them. Not to mention that is strictly your opinion. Also the severity and degree of his exposure is not taken into consideration when determining guilt or innocent.

I'm not making a legal argument. I'm expressing my opinion. My opinion is that the police should not be behaving in this way. My opinion is that the police have probably not benefitted society by arresting this man. My opinion is that this guy's behavior has harmed no-one.

Originally posted by: Drift3rAgain this was not entrapment because he willingly exposed himself. Read the law and understand it folks.

I think we have already established that the police have their legal bases covered. But I think the behavior of the police is immoral and stupid.

 

[Cooler]

What happens if undercover cop mistakes a 16-17 year old for 18-19 year old. Then she is making advances on a MINOR. I know there must be a law against this on the books.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I suspect a majority of the population could be tempted into breaking the law, given the right conditions.

So are you suggesting that most people are criminals just waiting to commit a crime? That is a pretty bleak and unrealistic view of society IMHO. I'd wager there I more times when people say no to temptation and behave themselves accordingly then not.

I would say most people could be persuaded or tempted to break a law, given the right circumstances. That isn't a bleak view point or cynical viewpoint, I think it is just a realistic appraisal of human psychology and the fact that everyone has vulnerabilities or loyalties which can be exploited. What is cynical is the police running about exploiting those weaknesses or vulnerabilities. Actually part of the role of law enforcement should be creating conditions that bring out the best in people, not the worst in people. But that would take money and effort - so much easier to take the lazy route as was done in this case.

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Should it be the job of the police to create those tempting conditions? Under what circumstances if any should this occur?

These are philosophical and/or political questions that have not been answered as of yet. Again temptation is not considered entrapment because as a adult you should have enough will power to say "No Thank You!".

Well, these questions are fundamental to this particular case. A guy has been arrested in a situation that almost certainly would never have occurred without the police actually creating that situation. What are the chances a random, flirtatious, topless women is going to ask to see your penis in a park? There is almost no chance at all. So if the police hadn't manufactured this ridiculous situation, in all likelihood this guy would have continued to be a law-abiding citizen. Which makes you wonder if anyone is actually benefitting from having this guy arrested in the first place.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I suspect a majority of the population could be tempted into breaking the law, given the right conditions.

So are you suggesting that most people are criminals just waiting to commit a crime? That is a pretty bleak and unrealistic view of society IMHO. I'd wager there I more times when people say no to temptation and behave themselves accordingly then not.

I would say most people could be persuaded or tempted to break a law, given the right circumstances. That isn't a bleak view point or cynical viewpoint, I think it is just a realistic appraisal of human psychology and the fact that everyone has vulnerabilities or loyalties which can be exploited. What is cynical is the police running about exploiting those weaknesses or vulnerabilities. Actually part of the role of law enforcement should be creating conditions that bring out the best in people, not the worst in people. But that would take money and effort - so much easier to take the lazy route as was done in this case.

Your point would make sense if cops were actually running around knocking on the doors of law abiding home owners and asking them to commit murder or rob a bank while offering them big wads of money.

If you willfully engage in a conversation with someone and they ask you to expose yourself then do yourself a favor and say "No" or say "Let's get a motel room instead.". If they are insistent that you expose yourself then do so yourself a favor and walk away for your own good.

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Should it be the job of the police to create those tempting conditions? Under what circumstances if any should this occur?

These are philosophical and/or political questions that have not been answered as of yet. Again temptation is not considered entrapment because as a adult you should have enough will power to say "No Thank You!".

How interesting that you are not willing to engage with such questions, but rather just robotically parrot that temptation isn't entrapment.

You are asking a philosophical question that can be argue from both sides. Being that the rules for entrapment are pretty clear and that is what I am concerned with myself i could care less about engaging in "What if" style questions.

So whether the police should be engaged in sting operations or not is not my concern in regards to this post. Also if you want to resort to insults then I am justified in not responding to you anymore. As I stated before what constitutes entrapment has been laid out in front of you. If you refuse to acknowledge the legal description and qualifications of what courts across the US consider to be entrapment then that is your loss. Then again you live in Australia so I don't see how any debate on the subject would make a difference to you or me.

 

[maluckey]

aidanjm

The reaason that we are robotically repeating the LAW, is that it's clear that many seem to want ot consider the motive, which isn't even part of the equation in this case. The way these laws are applied is most always without regard for motive, just the simple fact that the act occurred with witnessess.

If the law says jaywalking is illegal, and i "talk you into it" without threats or duress, then you still jaywalked on your own volition. No matter how glamourous or exciting I made jaywalking sound....I didn't jaywalk...did I?

As for feeling cops should bring out the good in people Great Idea. BUT...police aren't reponsible to PREVENT crime. That being said, I agree that Community Policing is a good idea IF you have the manpower and time. Let's face it...most folks aren't willing to be a cop any more than they want to be a soldier. You would need huge numbers of "Beat Cops" to make this happen. People TALK about law and order but aren't willing to put their life on the line for it.

Why don't you get with your local police dept. and help them recruit enough cops to do as you suggest. Or maybe you can start a neighborhood watch program? Grass roots movements are what changes communities, not talk.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Cooler
What happens if undercover cop mistakes a 16-17 year old for 18-19 year old. Then she is making advances on a MINOR. I know there must be a law against this on the books.

I am not sure but I suspect that if you look below 21 or so they'll pop in the question "How old are you honey, you look kind of young to me." but that is not what happened in this case. I suspect though that the law may apply differently to minors but of that I don't not fully know so take this post with a grain of salt and inform yourself.