Front Office Football Central - I better stay out of Columbus,OH parks.

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)

- FOFC Archive (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=27)

- - I better stay out of Columbus,OH parks. (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=62877)

I better stay out of Columbus,OH parks.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

First page of story....

Quote:

Robin Garrison, an off-duty 42-year-old firefighter, was walking in Berliner Park in Columbus, Ohio, in May when he saw a 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; he unzipped his pants and complied.

Seconds later, undercover police officers pulled up in a van and arrested Garrison; he was later charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor, based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park. While topless sunbathing is legal in the city's parks, exposing more than that is against the law.

The case is just one of the more extreme examples of police stings aimed at luring people into committing crimes, a tactic that has resulted in hundreds of arrests, many convictions and plenty of controversy.

Law enforcement officials say that such sting operations are an extremely effective means of lowering crime rates and stopping the criminally minded before they commit worse offenses. From early 2006 to the spring of 2007, there were 160 citations for public indecency in the city, according to an investigation by 10TV News. Among those who were caught in the stings: an Ohio State University doctor, government employees and a retired highway trooper.

But such operations veer dangerously close to entrapment, say lawyers, civil libertarians and defendants who've been caught in sting operations.

At Garrison's trial, his attorney argued that it was a case of entrapment. "Columbus police utilized this topless woman to snare this man," said Sam Shamansky. "He sees her day after day. He's not some seedy pervert."

The argument failed to sway a Franklin County Municipal Court jury that found Garrison guilty of public indecency last month. He was ordered to stay away from the park, placed on a year's probation and fined $250. Currently, Garrison remains on paid desk duty while the fire department conducts an internal investigation into his behavior.

"We want to be held to a higher standard, we are in the community every day and we put our best foot forward, but sometimes we stumble and make a mistake," said Columbus Fire Battalion Chief Doug Smith.

Garrison could not be reached for comment.

Shamansky plans to appeal the verdict on the grounds that the jury wasn't instructed on the definition of entrapment.

I would never think of just whipping it out in a park for no reason or public masturbation, but I probably would have done the same as this guy who was thinking he was about to get laid.

On the other hand, I am liking the topless chicks being allowed. :D

How is this not entrapment?

SI

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1624176)

How is this not entrapment?

SI

Entrapment is a specific defense you can take up when charged with a crime. Because these offenses are minor (citations or very low misdemeanors) I'm guessing most of the people ticketed just plead down, pay the ticket, and don't ever get to the stage where they could bring up the entrapment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cringer (Post 1624153)

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4022717&page=1

On the other hand, I am liking the topless chicks being :( > aloud. :D

Allowed. :)

Your tax dollars at work!

No wonder Columbus has such a huge problem with property crimes. All of the cops are busy luring men with topless women and arresting them when they think they are going to get some.

Ahhh, another great leap in the traditional Cops vs. Firefighters rivalry. :rolleyes:

Though him being an off duty firefighter really has nothing to do with this story. He could've been an off duty baker, garbage man, or rancher and they wouldn't have mentioned that.

If it'd been a teacher, cop, or in this case a fireman....man, print that up!!! People in THOSE professions are NOT allowed to be human. :rolleyes:

I hate the media.

Cheers!

Dola,

If he were on duty....punishment due. Off duty? Bad judgement, but the department shouldn't be involved.

And yes, in case you were wondering (as most of you know already) I've been a firefighter for 15 years (4 years reserve, last 11 career).

Cheers!

I masturbate in public

Fuck you, fuckin' queers. Firemen gettin' pussy for the first time in the history of fire or pussy. Hey go save a kitten in a tree, you fucking homos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shorty3281 (Post 1624260)

Fuck you, fuckin' queers. Firemen gettin' pussy for the first time in the history of fire or pussy. Hey go save a kitten in a tree, you fucking homos.

Ahhh, The Departed. :D

Cheers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tucker rocky (Post 1624245)

Allowed. :)

Fixed that for you. I have no excuse, that was pretty bad to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe (Post 1624259)

I masturbate in public

They have warning signs about you at the state lines IIRC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1624176)

How is this not entrapment?

SI

Entrapment requires a bit more than this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

Quote:

For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime.

I'm seriously doubting that this guy can say that he was an unwilling person, that the police induced... unless he originally was like no, no, no, and the woman kept pressuring him. It seems to me that from the write up, he whipped it out right away and had no qualms about doing so. Seems he was perfectly willing, and therefore entrapment would fail.

I mean if this was entrapment than any prostitution sting or drug string would be illegal as well.

If you read the next couple pages of that article it focuses on other "stings" like this in other cities. Mostly it talks about one they did in NYC were they left bags in subway stations with cash, video games, phones, or other stuff. People would pick them up and they would arrest them. It says atleast one guy got off from that because there is a NYC law that saws anyone would finds something like that has 10 days to return it to the owner or hand it into the police. The NYC police argue that it was lost though, just left sitting there by an officer who was still in the area.

Overall I think these kinds of things are pretty dumb and a waste of time and money.

I think half the stings should just be renamed 'Revenue Generating Projects'. They are the bake sales of cities and a way to generate a fast buck for cities.

Yes, I'm a pessimistic bastard when it comes to these type of policing activities.

And some cops wonder why they go under-appreciated by some people.

I like and respect cops in general, especially when they are doing their best to take down "real" criminals. I can't stand ones like these. Why can't those 4-8 (I'm guessing on the manpower) losers do something productive like stake out a drug dealer or follow up leads on a homicide investigation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez (Post 1624752)

I am not sure I would blame the cops directly involved in the arrest. They have superiors who give them their orders. I am pretty sure it was one of those idiots who came up with this bright idea. If the genius who wanted to do this was there, then yes he is a dumbass.

Dola- I really wish this thread had gone more the "topless chicks in the park" way..... :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cringer (Post 1624755)

You're right, actually. I rephrase instead to blame the 1-2 losers who are their superiors who waste manpower like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cringer (Post 1624756)

Dola- I really wish this thread had gone more the "topless chicks in the park" way..... :D

My thoughts as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cringer (Post 1624756)

Dola- I really wish this thread had gone more the "topless chicks in the park" way..... :D

I'm typically against public nudity just because while we hope it will be more like Baywatch, in reality, we will get Golden Girls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustang (Post 1624884)

I'm typically against public nudity just because while we hope it will be more like Baywatch, in reality, we will get Golden Girls.

I really wish this thread had gone less the "topless crones in the park" way.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shkspr (Post 1624886)

I really wish this thread had gone less the "topless crones in the park" way.....

I agree. No need to throw a good dream into the crapper with reality.

From the original article:

Quote:

At Garrison's trial, his attorney argued that it was a case of entrapment. "Columbus police utilized this topless woman to snare this man," said Sam Shamansky. "He sees her day after day. He's not some seedy pervert."

This "he sees her day after day" quote makes me believe that this girl was not an undercover officer. In order for a charge to be entrapment, the Police have to lure you into commiting the crime. If they were just watching this random topless woman and buddy walkes up and does his thing then he wasn't entrapped.
And some cops wonder why they go under-appreciated by some people.

Quote:

If you ask most Police Officers they would probably not put working stings like this at the top of their list of things to do. Most of these operations are a result of complaints from the public. A handful of people had a comminuty meeting,demanded to know what the Police were doing about this issue, and this operation was a result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shepp (Post 1624953)

Yep, that's what I was thinking as well. Some prudes, who were all upset about the fact that public parks allow topless women, were concerned about people having sex there and made a stink. Of course these people vote in every single election, so there you go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shepp (Post 1624953)

From the original article:

This "he sees her day after day" quote makes me believe that this girl was not an undercover officer. In order for a charge to be entrapment, the Police have to lure you into commiting the crime. If they were just watching this random topless woman and buddy walkes up and does his thing then he wasn't entrapped.

I took it as she was working with the police, though maybe not an officer herself. I guess I could be wrong, but I figured that would be the whole arguement behind the entrapment defense. She was working with the police, and she asked him to unpeal his banana. If she wasn't working with the police, and they were just sitting in the park watching for this kind of thing, then no it is not anywhere near entrapment. They never say the name of the woman in the article either, which I found odd especially if she was not working with the police and would have been a key witness.

But the article calls it a police sting -- doesn't that imply that it was a setup? Or perhaps in this case, they're using "sting" as a fancy term for "checking out the topless women"?