Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Topless Woman (Police Officer?)Lured Perverts in Police Sting
Drudge Report ^ | 12/28/07 | Marcus Baram

Posted on 12/29/2007 6:53:12 AM PST by Bulldawg Fan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: rom

I always thought it would be tough or dificult to get a female officer to go along with the whole “I’m a hooker” thing,perhaps the bar is lower than I thought.


61 posted on 12/29/2007 9:25:59 AM PST by redstateconfidential (If you are the smartest person in the room,you are hanging out with the wrong people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

You fool! Actual crime isn’t important. What Columbus needs to do is dispatch a crew of several officers to a park for several hours to keep their binoculars trained on a man’s penis.

Oh wait...


62 posted on 12/29/2007 9:46:47 AM PST by flintsilver7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Just take a leisurely walk to any public beach and you will find that most of those willing to bare their assets aren’t worth looking at.

Reminds me of a leper colony at times.


63 posted on 12/29/2007 9:50:51 AM PST by commonguymd (Move it to the right -Vote for Fred! Filler' up at www.fred08.com!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
If I was on the jury, I would buy the entrapment defense in this case.

Just to make this case look as stupid as it seems, I'd be asking for all the evidence and re-enactments in the courtroom.

64 posted on 12/29/2007 9:53:53 AM PST by Loud Mime (Things were better when cigarette companies could advertise and lawyers could not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

The sex crimes defenses are expensive.

I believe the lawyers are behind this stuff.


65 posted on 12/29/2007 9:55:58 AM PST by Loud Mime (Things were better when cigarette companies could advertise and lawyers could not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
But what is wrong with this lawyer? If he was using an entrapment defense why didn’t he explain entrapment to the jury? This lawyer must be trying to milk this case for billable hours.

It was not the lawyers fault in this regard, unless he failed to ask for an entrapment instruction. It is the Judge who issues the instructions to the jury before deliberation. The Judge's instruction would be something to the effect of

"The Court instructs the jury that where a person has no previous intent or purpose to violate the law, but is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime, he is a victim of entrapment and the law as a matter of policy forbids his conviction in such a case.

The judge apparently refused to instruct the injury on this matter and they convicted him..so it should be an interesting appeal.

66 posted on 12/29/2007 9:57:50 AM PST by Fast Ed97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Fast Ed97

I would also add that the who defense case was based on entrapment since the article does not mention that there was a dispute whether or not he exposed himself. Therefore the judge probably instructed the jury that if they find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed indecent exposure you must find him guilt of the charge.... Therefore without the entrapment instruction the jury was likely led to believe they had no choice under the law but to find him guilty. (Especially given that most jurors are not familiar with the concept of jury nullification)


67 posted on 12/29/2007 10:11:10 AM PST by Fast Ed97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
Personally, I’d be a little worried about the guys who weren’t interested in her.

Not really, it was German Village. Mecca of homo-ism.

68 posted on 12/29/2007 10:24:38 AM PST by smith288 (Ohio State, close to being 2007 NCAA Champs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Bulldawg Fan

69 posted on 12/29/2007 10:39:05 AM PST by Clint Williams (Read Roto-Reuters -- we're the spinmeisters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Savage Beast

That’s funny. How do you think undercover cops bust drug dealers?


70 posted on 12/29/2007 10:41:22 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock
LOL. That bit is one of the top five funniest scenes from the entire series.

Yessiree Bob.

71 posted on 12/29/2007 10:59:08 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
That’s funny. How do you think undercover cops bust drug dealers?

If the undercover cop was in the park, asking folks passing by if they'd buy some drugs from them, it would be considered entrapment. The 'mark' did not initiate or propose the illegal act.

72 posted on 12/29/2007 11:05:09 AM PST by Ghengis (Of course freedom is free. If it wasn't, it would be called expensivedom. ~Cindy Sheehan 11/11/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Last I checked, even mere possession of any sizable quantity of illegal drugs is illegal, and everyone knows it. So if you get a guy to deliver the illicit drugs regularly, you have probable cause. It’s typically not easy for the disinterested to acquire illegal drugs to distribute them, so entrapment doesn’t work here. If a police officer asked me for some illegal drugs, I can’t deliver. I could direct him/her to some part of town where such activity commonly occurs, or (if I knew one) to a person connected with such activity.


73 posted on 12/29/2007 11:18:40 AM PST by dufekin (Name the leader of our enemy: Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, terrorist dictator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: dufekin

Don’t hurt yourself with that stretch.


74 posted on 12/29/2007 11:19:52 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dufekin

By the way, a kid in Michigan got a 10 year stretch for just what you described in your last sentence. “Conspiracy” and all that.


75 posted on 12/29/2007 11:21:29 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: AfterManyASummer

Legal???????????????? Man, I know liberalism has degraded American culture to where it looks and behaves like swollen anus, but this is nuts! So I take my two young boys to play catch in the park and some topless wench is sitting in a “tree”?????” giving them an impromtu and unwanted anatomy lesson? How did they ever figure that one! Good grief!


76 posted on 12/29/2007 11:29:26 AM PST by Doc Savage (The tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bulldawg Fan

BTW.....on further looking at the photo from the video, if she is sunbathing, why is she sitting in the deepest shadows of that tree?

If she is sunbathing, why is she sitting up talking to this guy in what appears to be a very friendly manner?

If she is actually trying to mix the preception of sunbathing with that of being a whore waiting for customers, she appears closer to the mark.


77 posted on 12/29/2007 12:04:19 PM PST by Bulldawg Fan (Victory is the last thing Murtha and his fellow Defeatists want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bulldawg Fan

Besides the entrapment defense, he’d certainly be entitled to the ‘temporary mental incapacity’ defense.

An attractive woman, half naked, boobs out, rubbing up against you automatically incapacitates the male because all the blood rushes out of his brain and seeks a lower level, causing him to be helplessly brain dead.

And the police know this and used it against him.


78 posted on 12/29/2007 12:48:16 PM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76; All

Poor guy , he took the bait.

( Possibly the police officer in question....?)


79 posted on 12/29/2007 1:13:31 PM PST by Las Vegas Dave ("We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton, June 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Dave

omg........


80 posted on 12/29/2007 3:22:13 PM PST by Bulldawg Fan (Victory is the last thing Murtha and his fellow Defeatists want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson