This is so wrong
 

I doubt if I'd expose myself to her in a public place but I can certainly see the temptation to do so. This guy is acting like a normal hetro male and gets labeled a pervert. I'm sorry, I usually side with the police is situations like this but this one seems to be too stacked against the so-called pervert. In the picture she's got her leg on the guy's shoulder. Talk about a come-on. I don't support this at all.:no:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_a..._071227_ms.jpg
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

At what point do these things essentially become entrapment?
Bingo, entrapment. FREE THE MAN WHO FREED HIS JUNK!

I think this is terrible! You can't force people into these situations and then arrest them for it. This is like waving a needle in front of a recovering heroin addict and saying "come on, just one more, no one but me and you will know about it".
This is just wrong. I hope the police stop with these tactics.

wrong ...what a lame setup. I can only hope this kind of police tactic is limited to Columbus Ohio but we know it's not. If anything is to be learned from this, it's that the officials involved should be run out/voted out of office and sent back to school for another round of basic education.

how ridiculous.

Obviously there are no violent crimes in this city which the police can spend their resources solving?

Yeah, that's pretty much bullshit. The worst thing about these things, to me, is that it makes people even less trusting of people they meet.

I'm gonna walk around with my cock hangin' out all day in protest...

I can't wait until we have the technology to read people's thoughts. That way, we can arrest them even before they do anything....

i'd be a lifer if you could read my thoughts.

We all would. That's the point, Shauk.

...

This is sexist. Why didn't the police use a cock-dangling man to lure women?!

(burns his underwear)

SEXISTS!

OK, now l have to explain why l just laughed out loud.

:lol:

Hell, this pearl of an article should have been entitled:

"NEWSFLASH: MEN ATTRACTED TO BARE BREASTS."

that was bullshit...the guy did nothing wrong.

I pointed this entrapment crap to the forum a year ago when it concerned cops selling drugs and guns to entrap people, why did everyone side with the police back then?

... because now they've gone too far. Boobs are involved.

...

Ownership of illegal drugs or guns is a crime by itself.

Staring at a topless woman and exposing your wang on request isn't (in some cases, I'd imagine).

Public indecency doesn't include bare breasts at a public park?

...

Oh, I should read the article again.

In your case someone was intending to buy illegal firearms. This guy clearly didn't intended to flash his junk. If you can't see the difference, you need to go on vacation to get some perspective.

didn't intend to flash? will, he had to unzip his pants, unless they came undone all by itself.
There is NO difference in a police operative enticing an individual to break a public indecency law and a police operative enticing an individual to buy drugs or a gun. It is entrapment and illegal to do all 3 things. If YOU can't see the difference, you have NO perspective. This is simply YOU wanting to see some laws enforced and not others because of your preferences instead of disallowing the government to create criminals by entrapping them.

isn't this the premise for a bad tom cruise movie?

Your case: Some looking to purchase illegal weapons found a source... but it was police.
This case: Some guy walking in the park, who clearly had no other intention of unzipping his pants, was lured into doing so by an already half naked woman.

Again, seriously, take a vacation. Australia is beautiful right now. I've got friends you can stay with in Melbourne.

It wasn't that bad...

If he had refused to show his wang, would he be guilty of failure to comply with a peace officer's orders?

:lol: Excellent point.

Neeways, this ISN'T a gun thread. There's no excuse for threadjacking.

He did offer her his Cock Model 17 with 6" barrel and dual drum magazines.

...

Was the chick showing her butterhogs a cop? Wow, imagine THAT interview.

I gotta know: At the trial... were her breasts Exhibit A, B, C or DD?

okay something is missing here. did the cops not know this was entrapment? not sure about the law for that state but sounds like it too me.

just seems odd to me like how could they be that dumb on such a large scale. i could see a spurr of the moment type thing, but to do this planned out is just stupid. makes you think about all the other stuff they do.....

whoever organized this "sting" should be fired for not knowing basic law.

They go too far when they start using boobs as weapons against us. lol

But seriously- this is stupid, and entrapment. He didn't go to the park to pull out his cock, a topless woman enticed him. That's entrapment by every definition.

legally speaking will is correct. the definition of entrapment hinges on intent. if someone has the initial intent to perform an illegal act and law enforcement simply enables it, it's not entrapment. on the other hand law enforcement enticing someone to perform an illegal act, which seems pretty obvious in this case, is entrapment. the difference:
case A walking up to LEO in park asking for guns/drugs/want to see my penis get arrested, not entrapment
case B LEO initially asking you if you want guns/drugs/show your penis and you agree, entrapment

dateline fits into case A, they dont go around the internet posing as a 13 year old kid who wants to have sex with someone, they just pose as a 13 year old kid and random guys try to entice them into sex/send them porn etc.

now the question of whether these type of stings are justified, legal or not, is another matter. generally I don't think so, because the government takes away far more of my freedom in the course of trying to prevent criminal harm than the harm criminals will ever do to me.

it seems odd that law enforcement can be dumb on a large scale? the only human institution that is generally dumber, and on a larger scale than law enforcement is law making

I like the idea of "to catch a predator," because it targets people that are actively looking to commit a crime, the same as any drug sting where they arrest a dealer and take over his operation so they can snag the junkies coming to buy drugs (regardless of my opinion of the war on drugs, I find this hilarious)

What happened here was a guy was minding his own business walking through the park, met a topless (!) woman that convinced him to show her his wang (hey, she was already showing off her chest), then he gets arrested for it? This guy got sandbagged, how is that not entrapment?

will, wtfu. you know what i'm talking about. your ignorant avoidance is ridiculous. The operative standing on the street corner asking if someone wants to buy a joint. The street walker (operative) looking for a john. The 'arms dealer' finding a buyer. This is all entrapment. You know this. To ignore the obvious in order to have plausible denial is something i'm really tired of seeing in you, who is supposedly intelligent.

I think this is pretty much like picking up a policeman posing as a hooker...even then, the 'john' has to verbalize that he wants money for sex. The 'hooker-cop' can't say "Hey, wanna blow job for 20 bucks?" That, in my understanding, makes it entrapment.

So, in this case, if the guy had whipped it out, without the girl asking him to, that would be one thing...but much like the hooker-cop making the offer, when the topless girl asked to see the guy's johnson, that is the deal breaker.

As for the police believing they were in the right when arresting the man in the park...the only thing I can figure is that if the guy knew, or should have known, that showing his weenie in public, even upon request, was illegal, he should have said (when she asked to see it...) "I'd love to babe, but let's not do it in the public park."

I still think that there are things going on that deserve the police department's attention much more so than a guy showing his wanker to a full grown woman that asked to see it.

Dksuddeth, if I may humbly offer some friendly advice, try not to let your avid interests cloud your judgment and you'll be just fine. I mean once you stop threadjacking and making personal attacks against members like myself, I think you'll be a lot happier not only on TFP but in general. I have my interests too, but when they start making one aggressive towards people that mean one no disrespect or harm then they should be managed.

Take, for example, calling someone ignorant despite the fact that they're not. This personal attack (a breach of TFP rules) not only doesn't help the discussion but it communicates the fact that you're at your computer fuming at someone you're probably never going to meet about something that they other guy really doesn't care about. Does that strike you as constructive? I could very easily bark back insults, but why would one want to behave in such a way?

Speaking to your response to the thread, entrapment does legally include intent, just as DC confirmed. You'd do well to read his informative posts as it addresses your concerns completely and correctly.

what the fuck ever dude.

Don't offer squat. your sarcastic crap is nothing more than to cover up the fact that you were caught dead wrong.

I didn't call you ignorant....this time. I said you were guilty of ignorant avoidance. two entirely separate things. I'm not surprised that you would try to turn this around because you knew you were ignorantly avoiding the acknowledgement of me being right.

I did, in fact, mine and DC's posts are pretty much dead on. what you seem to be unable to bring yourself to accept is that I was right, even though it was about drugs or guns, and you don't like that. I forgive you.

Enough. DK, you're paranoia is disruptive and you don't follow the rules of TFP. I'm not responding to you anymore, and you've lost my sympathy (which was sincere, not sarcastic). I hope you'll change, but if you don't I hope you leave.

Edit: I wish to clarify a few points before hopefully putting this threadjack to rest. When I said "I hope you leave" above, I was referencing the request to take a break from gun threads that I've mentioned in the past. I was not saying that I hope DK leaves TFP.

Also, in an edited post above I wrote something somewhat disrespectful by turning dk's own words against him in an attempt to try and make clear to him how he was coming off. It read as the following:
Upon rereading my post I decided that was too confrontational and I suppose a bit immature. I apologize for that.

willravel and dksuddeth sitting in a tree, k i s s i n g .....

Funny thing is I most likely wouldn't be whipping it out for some chick I never met coming on to me in a public park half naked like she was.

Thats not 'normal' behavior and non normal behavior is how nature says 'don't touch'.

It looks like the purpose of the sting was to catch guys jerking off in the park, and I'm fine with that, you should be able to sunbath in the park without some pervert wanking it in the bushes. She never should have come on to the guy though, thats where I'd call the entrapment.

:lol:
You're just jealous because you don't get to me like he does anymore. Maybe you shouldn't have said anything about being atheist?
This is exactly what I was thinking. Had she not come on to him, there's no evidence that he would have taken his junk out. It's not like he advertised it or it was his idea.

last time. I wasn't referring to guns. I was referring to law enforcement having the power to offer, for sale, items that are illegalized for manufacturing, possession, and usage for the common everyday citizen. law enforcement is allowed to use this 'power' to offer for sale to 'us' and turn us in to criminals. Is that not entrapment? Is that not what happened to this guy in the park?

I'll elaborate on what I said before to make my thoughts more clear:
Let us say that an undercover officer is selling guns out of the back of a car. Someone stops by and purchases a gun. Let's look at this person because, as DC and I said (and you may agree), intent of the entrapped goes toward entrapment. Who purchases a gun from the trunk of a car? I can't speak for anyone else, but if I was in the market for a gun, I'd probably go to a gun store, wait for the background check, and purchase the gun legally.

Someone who doesn't walk away from what is essentially, "Would you like an illegal gun?" is obviously on the market for a gun and is willing to do it illegally. That's the intent.

The firefighter in the park? His only intent is any man's intent: hot topless woman is flirting with you, try to nail her! Had she not been there in this obviously impossible situation, there's no evidence to suggest that he would expose himself to anyone (in public). It was her idea for him to whip out his dong. When he walked up to her, it wasn't his intent to whip out his dong in public, presumably. The intent with this guy? He wanted to fuck her, obviously. His intent approaching the situation wasn't public nudity.

I hope that's more clear.

Wow.....

Not to ruin the DK/Will lovefest but I feel an urge to comment on the OP.

IMHO the case will be overturned for entrapment, however, since he is a fireman for the city (and one of the most conservative cities at that), I see him losing his job and being labelled a pervert and forced to move because of all this.

I'm really surprised that the police went to all this trouble for just a misdemeanor, Hell, just arrest him for gross sexual misconduct, threaten to make him a registered sex offender, then drop it down to public indecency if he has the money to fight it. That way until you get busted for entrapment, you get to bust a lot of poor folk who have to pay fines and become registered sex offenders and you know where they are for the next 10 years, they can't leave the city so you know you will get their tax money, and anytime they break a law..... you make more money on their ass because you say the broke parole/probation and you can fine them into bankruptcy.

Yessirreebobby you found a way to make the city thousands and keep the poor folk under thumb.

I suspect the police were not having much luck catching penis exposers with their topless decoy and decided she had to become more flirtatious to the point of requesting them to show it.

Good lord - what a waste of money for the police department and the courts. Isn't there enough going on to chase after besides something like this? And that poor guy should have had a better lawyer. I can't imagine not doing the same thing he did!

Now this logic I don't agree with. Yes there are bigger crimes but just spending more money doesn't make them go away or get caught. If dudes jerking it in the park were a real issue, and I'll just assume they were or argument sake, then the police should respond to it.

In this case what they did to catch someone was over the top and shouldn't have happened but the concept of a sting like this, properly carried out doesn't upset me.

Will & DK. do either of you know Robin Garrison's penis size? If not, then you are both ignorant.......about the same fact.......so there. :P

As far as the case goes, I feel that I would not be able to make an informed decision without high definition video of the topless woman, in order to study the intimate details and nuances of her........conduct, over and over again, to determine if it was indeed entrapment.

"Her boobs went up, and to the left.... up, and to the left"

Its an interesting one. I don't know the fireman personally but approaching a half naked lady he doesn't know in the park suggests he was after a bit of action. A woman should be free to sunbathe topless without being hassled. In terms of the debate over whether this is entrapment, I'd say he approached her with the intend of pursuing a sexual act, the grey area is whether he intended on pursuing the sexual act in public or not.

Personally I don't think I would have approached her, I probably wouldn't have the balls to do it. I would have dandered on by, chuckled to myself and told my friends about this, 'absolutely hot chick with the biggest boobies I've ever seen, naked in the park!!!'. Mature, I know but it is the truth.

It's a public park, the guy is 40 odd, he should have more sense. If he is the type of guy to approach a girl randomly just cause she doesn't have a top on he is probably not a perv (he probably gets more action than me), but he is most definately a sex pest. A real bummer if hes finally plucked up the courage to speak to a female and this is what happens but me thinks he does it all the time and most probably wouldn't really care about age, how receptive they were about him coming on to them or much else apart from whether he could get some...

I more or less agree with will and Ustwo. The idea of the sting is both technically legal and personally acceptable (to me). The execution was botched badly, and for that reason the case deserves to be overturned in appeal on entrapment. As many have pointed out, prior intent is the key factor.

This is so unfair. I could hardly blame any guy who is lured by a half-dressed woman to expose himself. Either he gets out of it or ends up being labeled a sexual predator of some sort for the rest of his life. I can only imagine the humiliation of going through this and having a moment of poor judgment (and raging hormones I imagine) being exposed to your friends, your family, your coworkers... I feel badly for this man and any others that have fallen victim to this entrapment.

If they put a topless woman out there and looked for dudes hiding in the bushes and jerking off, that would be a proper sting. I wouldn't care about that.

Yea thats pretty much entrapment. She asked to see his wang. If he had offered first that would be different.

The more l think about it, the only way the guy should been arrested is if he didn't whip it out. Topless, leg on his shoulder and she whispers “unleash the monster”, you'd have to be a pervert not to.

I think you would have to be asexual to not follow through.

There's topless women at parks an hour away from me? Why wasn't I told of this before?