Topless Woman Lured Perverts in Police Sting

[ShawnD]

No, they are not. Your complaint is that the cops did something illegal. Their complaint is that the cops did something, legal or not.

Entrapment doesn't depend on whether the cops did something illegal or not. Entrapment is when the police coax you into breaking the law.

Refer to the one episode of Beavis and Butthead where they are talking to an undercover cop posing as a prostitute. She flirts with them and they laugh like idiots. She eventually gets frustrated and yells "Are you or are you not interested in exchanging money for sex?" at which point the hidden cop yells "Damn it, Barbara, that's entrapment!"

Refer to the first sentence on wikipedia's article as to what entrapment is:
"entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because he/she was induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit those acts"

Saying something like "hey show me your cock" is entrapment.

 

[rewebster]

So, entrapment/(boobs) is just the cop's 'leader sales' technique to get more people into their 'store' and spend money!-----

low output and high return

----------------------------

I was just thinking---she (the topless woman) had to be an undercovered cop

 

[out of whack]

I was just thinking---she (the topless woman) had to be an undercovered cop

Not necessarily. She could have been a wallet.

As to whether something like this is entrapment or not, it depends on which lawyer you can afford. The police probably expect that everyday dudes who fall for it cannot afford the best defense; this gives them license to stretch the limits of the acceptable.

 

[arildno]

Since what that man was doing was not immoral, it cannot qualify as a crime.

 

[out of whack]

Since what that man was doing was not immoral, it cannot qualify as a crime.

It's not a very strong defense since morality is subjective. Did the behavior deviate from what is considered right, proper and good in the society in question? It's a judgment call of course.

Another consideration is to identify the victim. Whose life and/or health and/or property and/or well-being was affected? If nobody suffered from this in any way (except the taxpayer whose money was spent on the sting) then it's hard to justify.

 

[Oerg]

My opinion is that the basic duty of a law enforcement agent is to enforce the law. Not entice someone to break it, regardless of the moral issue of entrapment, it is irresponsible to be doing something other than enforcing the law and making sure no one breaks it.

Unless of course, you can tell me that you are 100000000000000% certain that no one will be breaking the law today, then go ahead and do whatever you want. But if no one is breaking the law today, why would you want to entice someone to break the law? It serves absolutely no purpose at all since no one would be breaking the law and that the law is abided.

The argument that those who got enticed into breaking the law would still commit them under the influence of others is valid to me, but is largely dependent on the possibility of such a case happening without police interfence.

Ultimately, i feel the debate is on whether people who have commited crimes under entrapments designed by the police should be criminalised as people who have commited crimes. Should they be criminalised at all? Should they be less or none at all?

Maybe the governmemt can come up with a separate penal code for entrapments and that separate agencies can be created to deal with this. It would almost certainly bring down the crime rate, but the citizens must approve of this first. If majority of the population approve of this, then why not use entrapments to bring down the crime rate? That way lesser poeple would think of commiting crimes for fear of entrapments arranged by government officials.

Just like the naked woman case, the male might not have broken the law if he was aware that the government approved of entrapment methods and that he might be in the middle of an entrapment.

 

[rewebster]

Another facet of this is...I wonder who the perverted cop was who thought up the 'sting' in the first place

 

[BobG]

The video sure looks like entrapment to me. One problem with this sting is whether he's displaying himself somewhat discreetly to just the woman that asked him to or displaying himself pretty brazenly.

The wallet, iPods, and cell phones sound pretty questionable, as well. It kind of depends on how they run the sting. In other words, did the police leave the wallet on the bench and someone sitting next to him immediately snatch it up and walk off in the opposite direction? Or are you snatching people that see a wallet sitting unaccompanied on a bench with no way to know who it belongs to?

I would certainly hope picking up a cell phone laying around unattended isn't a crime in itself. I once reached the end of the open portion of a mountain road (the rest of the road was buried under about 3 or feet of snow) and noticed either a cell phone or GPS receiver or some other electronic object sitting in the middle of the road while I was turning around. It turned out to be a cell phone. I sure wasn't about to end my trip and head immediately back to town, so I waited until I was back in town at the end of the day to turn the phone on and start telling callers to get ahold of the owner and have him contact me.

That doesn't mean all sting operations are entrapment. Busting a pawn shop for fencing stolen goods and accepting a plea bargain in return for taking over the fencing operation would be one example of a good sting. The crime is stealing the objects in the first place. The pawn shop is just a means of gathering the criminals in one place after the crime.

 

[jostpuur]

No, in 2, it means an act that is forbidden by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by the law.

Since it is forbidden by law, understandably it is a crime, but compare it to some other crimes, like killing, robbing, drinking and driving. Showing one's penis is nothing compared to these. For example exceeding speed limits with some vehicle would be a lot more serious crime than showing one's penis, yet you don't get arrested for it but instead get tickets. The cops could have just said "sir, you violated the law by revealing too much of yourself. Don't do it again", and it could have been appropriate.

Buy a video game that let's you blast off people's head and it's fine, but show your natural skin, and hell breaks loose.

Americans...

 

[arildno]

It's not a very strong defense since morality is subjective.

Say that next time somebody steals your money. It wasn't wrong, according to the stealer's morality.

Another consideration is to identify the victim. Whose life and/or health and/or property and/or well-being was affected? If nobody suffered from this in any way (except the taxpayer whose money was spent on the sting) then it's hard to justify.

Now, you are onto something.

 

[out of whack]

Say that next time somebody steals your money. It wasn't wrong, according to the stealer's morality.

I was saying that morality is not a good defense in response to your comment that it couldn't be a crime since it was not immoral. You are now repeating the same argument that it's not wrong if the thief doesn't think it's immoral. I continue to find this a poor defense on the grounds that everyone's morality is relative to their own situation. That's why there are written laws since what is moral for this guy and what is moral for that gal is unwritten.

 

[ranger]

Hey, if a topless woman wanted to see my pee pee, Id show her too!

Id probably be the first one they arrested. HAAAH!

Ditto that.

 

[rewebster]

These things can come close the police even going one step closer to, say, even a undercover cop handing out money that was recovered from a robbery---then busting that person for having possession of money from a robbery. ---but, 'over tempting' just to get extra arrests and the cash flow from those arrests is terrible---it's mostly about the money for fines, etc. why I think some of that goes on.

 

[Astronuc]

I wonder of the guy who got busted could file a counter charge that the police are contributing to delinquency. But then that may only be illegal if it occurs with a minor.

Perhaps its not illegal for an adult to contribute to the delinquency of another adult?

 

[Gokul43201]

Why do they CONFINE women who want to go topless just to the parks?

They don't! In Columbus, toplessness in public is legal!

Incidentally, CPD is claiming that this was not a sting operation, and the topless woman was not working for them.

 

[rewebster]

They don't! In Columbus, toplessness in public is legal!

my, my-----is that really true?-----would French Lick (IN) be near Columbus?

Incidentally, CPD is claiming that this was not a sting operation, and the topless woman was not working for them.

I wonder how they got the audio then?

 

[JasonRox]

They don't! In Columbus, toplessness in public is legal!

Incidentally, CPD is claiming that this was not a sting operation, and the topless woman was not working for them.

It's legal to go topless anywhere in Ontario.

Flashing at concerts is legal.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's legal to go topless anywhere in Ontario.

You'd never know it... Hmph.

 

[animalcroc]

You'd never know it... Hmph.

I find this statement hard to believe coming from a conservative

 

[DaveC426913]

I find this statement hard to believe coming from a conservative

What on Earth makes you think I'm conservative?

 

[animalcroc]

What on Earth makes you think I'm conservative?

fine, i'll say "relatively conservative".

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=206011&page=2

 

[DaveC426913]

fine, i'll say "relatively conservative".

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=206011&page=2

What from that makes you think I'm conservative? I'm fairly certain that nowhere in there did I express any of my own personal preferences, my intent was simply to describe the world as I think TV show producers see it. That has (or at least should have) nothing to do with how I see the world.

(Do I interpolate then that you have been thinking my personal preference is against interracial relationships on TV shows? That that would be a complete misunderstanding of the whole conversation.)

 

[animalcroc]

In the link you refer to yourself and the viewing audience as relatively conservative

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=206011&page=2

 

[DaveC426913]

In the link you refer to yourself and the viewing audience as relatively conservative

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=206011&page=2

No, I explicitly state a difference between myself and the viewing audience. Read it again, carefully:

("Heck, a heterogeneous relationship is a distraction to you?")

"Not to me, to the viewing audience, which is considered as relatively conservative by show writers."

 

[animalcroc]

No, I explicitly state a difference between myself and the viewing audience. Read it again, carefully:

("Heck, a heterogeneous relationship is a distraction to you?")

"Not to me, to the viewing audience, which is considered as relatively conservative by show writers."

I see what you're saying. The sentence looks (until clarification) like you meant it the other way.

 

[DaveC426913]

I see what you're saying. The sentence looks (until clarification) like you meant it the other way.

The real point though, is that my personal opinions are irrelevant as it is an academic discussion. I might be anywhere on the bell curve, but it doesn't make hoot of difference, since what we were talking about was - not what you or I believe should be the case - but those who write the shows actually do. I only stated my personal viewpoint because you were asking the question as if is was personal, not academic.

 

[rewebster]

They don't! In Columbus, toplessness in public is legal!

Incidentally, CPD is claiming that this was not a sting operation, and the topless woman was not working for them.

If the woman wasn't working for them, why were the undercover cops there, why would the woman ask such an upfront question, and why were the cops able to hear the conversation and have a video of it?