Topless Woman Lured Perverts in Police Sting

[Oerg]

We have a similar problem around at my place where over-zealous drug enforement agents set up entrapment ploys against generally law abiding citizens. It gets a little more serious though as just trafficking about 20g of heroin warrants a death sentence.

 

[jostpuur]

You would rather them spend long hours day after day patrolling, hoping to catch them in the act, when they could just spend a couple hours in one day to round up a bunch at once?

It is true that using "a bait" is more effective, but what these cops were doing was not really using a bait to catch criminals. They should put a female police officer in civil clothes (perhaps having some defense spray with her) walking alone on some quiet street at night, and then if somebody attacks her, arrest him. Now some would probably criticize this as too dangerous for the female officer, and there could be difficulty getting volunteers. It is understandable, but if using somebody as bait is too dangerous, then it is too dangerous, and nobody should be used as a bait. Now these cops got the effectiveness of using bait, and still kept it safe by using the bait to mostly ordinary people instead of those who would really commit a crime.

 

[JasonRox]

You would rather them spend long hours day after day patrolling, hoping to catch them in the act, when they could just spend a couple hours in one day to round up a bunch at once?

It's NOT about what I rather be doing like you and turbo are thinking. It's about what you SHOULD be doing.

Cops should be preventing crime and NOT creating scenarios to create crime. If you don't like the job, don't take it!

 

[Astronuc]

I didn't see there was a video associated with the story. Geez, yeah, if she's putting her legs up on his shoulders, yeah, that's pretty much doing anything one can to tempt an innocent guy into losing all hope of self control. That's not being a pervert, that's being a guy who thinks he's just found a consenting gal!

Yeah, she's getting pretty frisky! I hope the judge dismisses this on the grounds that the woman initiated the contact and made the request. I don't see anyone else in the park - but then I didn't watch the whole thing.

Maybe the guy on the video should get those who videotaped him for invasion of privacy, althought that's a stretch because he's out in public view.

 

[Cyrus]

The judge should make her take him out on a date, pay for his meal on the police's dime, and then take him back up to her place. ---Ive been very bad, arrest me officer.

 

[Astronuc]

The judge should make her take him out on a date, pay for his meal on the police's dime, and then take him back up to her place. ---Ive been very bad, arrest me officer.

I agree!

 

[moose]

Oh, and also, why is the woman topless? Going along with their plan for a moment, wouldn't it be more effective to use a woman who is actually clothed? I mean, a lot of guys would be too scared to walk up to the topless woman. A clothed woman could act just as seductive and it would probably work better... I think the fact that the woman was topless made this more newsworthy... maybe that's why she was topless.

 

[Hurkyl]

Now these cops got the effectiveness of using bait, and still kept it safe by using the bait to mostly ordinary people instead of those who would really commit a crime.

The people who got caught are not merely people who "would really commit a crime" -- they are people who actually did commit a crime.

 

[Cyrus]

Hurkyl, that was a classic case of entrapment. Its illegal, and not what the police are for.

She can flash me in a public park, anyday.

 

[animalcroc]

Hurkyl, that was a classic case of entrapment. Its illegal, and not what the police are for.


She can flash me in a public park, anyday.

LOL nice
Same here.

 

[jostpuur]

Now these cops got the effectiveness of using bait, and still kept it safe by using the bait to mostly ordinary people instead of those who would really commit a crime.

The people who got caught are not merely people who "would really commit a crime{}^1" -- they are people who actually did commit a crime{}^2.

These are different kind of crimes. In 1 it means to cause harm to other people against their will, and possibly cause injury. In 2 it means to show the erected organ when asked to.

 

[jostpuur]

This is of course not my problem. I have enough difficulty approaching fully clothed women. I would have survived, while Cyrus would have lost!

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, that was a classic case of entrapment. Its illegal, and not what the police are for.

Since you apparently haven't noticed... I'm not talking to the people who think the operation was performed illegaly; I'm talking to the people who are complaining that there was an operation.

 

[Cyrus]

Isnt that one and the same? The police should not be doing operations of entrapment. They should have been doing better things with their time. Like watching entrapment.

 

[Hurkyl]

These are different kind of crimes. In 1 it means to cause harm to other people against their will, and possibly cause injury. In 2 it means to show the erected organ when asked to.

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

 

[Hurkyl]

Isnt that one and the same?

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

 

[Cyrus]

How are they not the same? The police are not allowed to entrap people. Therefore the mere act of them entrapping someone is illegal, and not something they should be doing. Hence, why they should be doing something better with their time. Like eating doughnuts.

Could you explain to me how police engaging in entrapping activities is a good use of their time?

 

[Hurkyl]

(I added to my previous post)

 

[Cyrus]

Jasons complaint makes perfect sense, but what you said to him in response made no sense. Jason said they should not waste their time scheming how to entrap people.

What Jason said was:

Police officers HAVE WAY TOO MUCH time on their hands. Instead of preventing crime, they setup scenarios to create crime.

but then you said:

You would rather them spend long hours day after day patrolling, hoping to catch them in the act, when they could just spend a couple hours in one day to round up a bunch at once?

And this puzzles me.

 

[moose]

I have to agree with Cyrus.

I would rather the cops spend long hours day after day patrolling, hoping to catch a criminal in the act of committing a real crime.

 

[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.