Skip to comments.New Mexico State Police Officer Fired After Caught Having Sex on Car
Posted on 09/03/2011 3:57:29 PM PDT by NoLibZone
A New Mexico state police officer has been fired after security cameras caught him having sex with a woman on the hood of a car.
Officer Bert Lopez's dismissal from the New Mexico state police was confirmed by The Santa Fe New Mexican on Saturday. The newspaper said Lopez has 30 days to appeal the firing.
The surveillance photos were taken from a motion-triggered security camera positioned at the front gate of the county-owned La Bajada Ranch south of Santa Fe. The encounter was at the remote Canyon Ranch.
Two photos showing a uniformed officer having sex on the hood were forwarded to Santa Fe Sheriff Robert Garcia, who identified the officer as being with New Mexico State Police. He forwarded the images to State Police Chief Robert Shilling.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
How does a guy have sex with his uniform on? I generally do not think of intercourse as a clothing optional activity.
Maybe he could use the Bill Clinton defense-- it was just a little blow job or whatever, not really sex.
If every cop in the country received a 5 dollar bill for couples they caught doing the nasty and didn’t arrest them, the national debt could be paid off.
NM list PING! Click on the flag to go to the Free Republic New Mexico message page.
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for anyone to use. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list. For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, scroll down to the bottom of the page to view the article for free after watching a short video commercial.)
Yep, it’s all in who you know around here. I’m surprised he was fired. I figured with those connections he’d be safe.
If there are no victims why do we have the laws in the first place? That’s my question, and it sounds like that’s your point as well. I’m not sure where I stand on some of the libertarian issues but I don’t believe it should be a crime to leave off your seatbelt if you’re an adult, for example. I don’t believe it should be a crime to smoke tobacco or to go without health insurance.
But I don’t believe that there are no victims just because nobody besides the slut and the cop were there to see each other’s indecent exposure. Or to notice the sex on public property. I think the police chief used that rationale as an excuse to not bring charges against a politically-connected officer.
There are some cases where you just have to draw a line in the sand because the OVERALL effect includes victims, even if each particular instance has no distinct “victim”.
For example, one person peeing in the pool isn’t problematic because the chlorine will take care of it. But if everybody pees in the pool we have a problem. Each person could say, “But it wasn’t specifically MY pee that made the pool dangerous; it was somebody else’s.” And how would you prove that any one person’s pee made the pool dangerous? And yet if you allow anybody to pee in the pool it will endanger others.
That’s kind of a ridiculous example because you can’t prove who peed in the pool anyway, and peeing in the pool isn’t a crime. But it illustrates how there can be GENERAL victims even when a specific victim can’t be identified. I think you recognize that, since you agree that illegally crossing the border onto non-private property is a punishable crime.
The BC forgery thing is a case in point. The courts have all said that the identity fraud, forgery, perjury, and treason of he-who-shall-not-be-named (because we don’t even know his real name) is not the business of military officers who swore to defend the US Constitution, not the business of other candidates, not the business of leaders/contributors to the DNC, and not the business of taxpayers - because none of them has an injury that is specific to them above and beyond the injury done to everybody. IOW, as long as you screw everybody equally, it’s nobody’s business that you’re screwing us all.
IMHO, Bert Lopez was screwing us all when he used the time the taxpayers paid him for and the land that the taxpayers bought in order to indecently expose himself and have sexual intercourse on public property.
That camera was there because the cops wanted to be able to catch illegal activity - probably such as trespassing, which is the wrong use of property that belongs to somebody else (and the wrong use of the property IS the injury; it is how the owner of the property is victimized). If there is a law against indecent exposure or sex on public property, then exposing yourself and/or having sex on that property is trespassing. There is automatically a victim even if nobody sees it or there is no specific person who experiences “tangible” harm from the trespass. The taxpayers of NM own that property, and the laws govern what is allowable on the property. If somebody violates the terms of the property-holder, they are trespassing.
What I am trying to point out is the double standard of this police chief. When he throws out all the speeding tickets because there were no victims then I will believe he actually believes what he’s saying in this case, and will give his argument due consideration - just as I can respect the points/arguments you’re making and recognize it as worth sorting out. What I’m saying is that if he’s going to make that claim, then he better be ready to explain why all these other “victimless” crimes are being enforced when this lone instance isn’t. Which is the same consistency you seem to be advocating for.
On the hood of a car in New Mexico? Now that’s hot sex!
Crony law enforcement is exactly what has put an ineligible, forging and perjuring, treasonous enemy combatant in the White House and kept him there. Enough is enough.
We have only to look at Mexico to see what happens when law enforcement serves personal and/or political interests rather than impartially enforcing the law. The difference between the US and Mexico up to this point has been that our law enforcement system, for the most part, has not been for sale to the highest crook.
But now the highest crook is actually in the AG office, selling guns to the highest crooks in Mexico while suing AZ to make sure they can’t do a dang thing to stop the drug cartels and terrorists waltzing across their border and killing innocents.
What Bert Lopez was caught doing on video is what Obama and his administration (especially including AG Eric Holder)are doing to the entire nation, except that America has NOT consented to the throwing out of our Constitution and the rule of law. They are raping the country, and the people we have elected/appointed to protect us from precisely that are like that little chihuahua - watching (at best) or waiting their turn (at worst). They are all having a good laugh at our inability to stop what is being forced down our throats/pants/whatever.
Wouldn’t they have to hire him back like the drunk truck driver as the truck driver was a disabilities case being an alcoholic as this cop surely must be as a sex addict .....
He should instead have dealt 2,000 machine-guns to the most violent drug-dealings gangs in Mexico, permitting for officer dealths, casino conflagrations and helicopter shoot-downs.
Then he would have been OK.
What a hood ornament.
Might have been the NM State Police bigdog’s squeeze.
He was probably barking while he was at it.
She has nice legs.
What I have wondered is, was this done as a bribe for the woman to get out of some sort of trouble? I have not followed this closely, but it seems likely. And even in NM I bet this is illegal...
I think it was a “romantic tryst” of sorts with consenting adults. I wish I was tech-savvy enough to find the original posting on the topic. The FR comments were hysterical (rated R but funny). For whatever strange reason, there is a small dog that looks exactly like a meerkat in the photo.
I think his firing was probably caused by him being on duty at the time. Yes, he was in his police officer uniform (although the Sam Brown is swung to one side) and it does appear to be on the hood of a police car. We live in crazy times!
Well, it’s certainly not what he’s paid to do while on duty. I want people who are hired to cary a gun and use good sense to actually use good sense too. This doesn’t seem like good sense behavior to me. I realize men and women are somewhat different in these things but sheesh, we are a little different than animals. If you can’t wait and get a room you are not exactly a civilized adult.
At the very least, anyway, I don’t think it’s what the taxpayers pay him to do.
Thanks for the info tho. (and I’m generally on the side of law enforcement and get plenty of grief for it around here).
“I’m generally on the side of law enforcement and get plenty of grief for it”.
With every profession, there are bad apples. Period. We usually only hear about the bad apples, too. I am sure there are many good stories about an officer and the great work that he or she does. I think the outrage/sensitivity towards the bad apples is because of the power of a law enforcement officer. They can arrest, detain, place handcuffs on you, taze you, shoot you etc... With that type of power, comes huge responsibility and scrutiny. When one sees a story, for example, of an officer losing his cool over a traffic stop and dragging someone out of their car... we immediately “place” ourselves or family in that position. The question becomes, “Could that have been Me?”.
I personally think if this person had been off duty.. maybe the worst that would have happened would have been placed on limited duty till the situation cooled off. That is why I really think he was on duty (he was in full uniform with the police car). People expect more control over the activities/duties especially when our taxes fund them. Yes, they should have gotten a “room” somewhere, when he was off duty. One of those, “there’s a time, there’s a place” situations.
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.