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 ...
Mmmm. I thought I read he wasn’t gonna be punished.
Not punished by a court case anyways
ping
It seems Trooper Lopez goes above and beyond the call of duty and beneath and far short of the call of duty.
I hope the few seconds of pleasure was worth his job.
Shouldn’t we ha e some pi s of the perpette to make a de ision?
Had he done it dressed in civvies, and if it was consensual including the car’s owner, nobody would have cared. This is one seriously kinky occifer, however.
I’m betting that he was officially on duty during this encounter. I think that is what got him into trouble since it would be very difficult to explain to the good tax paying citizens what their local law enforcement does on duty. If he was off duty and still with his take home car, I bet he wouldn’t have lost his job. Just a thought.
Dare I say it?...he should have stuck to eating...well...donuts while on duty..
I wonder if he was married and lost that job too?
Just curious...does your husband read FR?
Fired seems a bit harsh. We’d have to see pics of the female involved.
>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. <
Reminds me of the Whitesnake video..
Yep, if on the clock and with a city issued car (if that was it) he would apparently have no legitimate business engaging in such antics. But, could he claim he was trying to charm the lady into revealing some secrets to crack a murder case, or sumfin like that??? Doing “it” on top of an automobile is not easy. Sounds like some serious passion was involved. Otherwise it’s easier to do “it” inside the automobile.
Nah, he needed to be canned.
I didn’t know it was possible for an officer to reach a sexual climax without shooting a dog. Maybe if the lady involved yelped and whimpered convincingly...
Not charged with any crime because “there was no victim”, since nobody saw it happen.
I’ll use that next time I get caught speeding on a desolate street. I’ll ask who the victim was, since there was nobody around to get endangered by my speed. They’ve got these cameras to catch people who are speeding, but I hope they have a wide-angle view because if the rationale of the police chief holds up, they’d have to prove that there was anybody within (what distance?) of the person speeding. At that rate we won’t need cops, we’ll need referees to call each play.
And it would have to be a victim other than the person committing the crime, using that rationale also, since the gal on the hood would be a victim of the cop’s indecent exposure and the cop would be a victim of the slut’s indecent exposure if participants in the crime were allowable as “victims”. So there could be no victim in a person’s failure to use a seat belt also.
The rationale used could call all law enforcement arrests into serious question.
It made it to post 18 without “If I had known that this was frowned upon here...” ??
What about a charge of indecent exposure?
victim= taxpayers who paid him and trusted him with that job and anyone who watched that video. ick. Mental anguish should be millions.
What he is thinking now...
“ONE MILLION ACRES of New Mexico desert and I had to stop under the one acre with a camera!”
Good. Stupid bastard has no business being a cop. Even our insipid KKOB with “Terry Q” was all giggles over this.
He has forever given new meaning to the term: Hoodie
Bert Bert Bert
You supposed to have sex IN da hood, not ON da hood
oy!
The police chief said there were no charges because “there was no victim”, since nobody (except the slut) was there to see the indecent exposure.
The rationale used there would mean that a participant in a crime can’t be a victim of the crime. So how could they ever arrest somebody for drug use? Not using a seat belt? Speeding when you’re the only person on the road? Entering the country illegally if nobody sees you do it? Forging a birth certificate? Who are the “victims” of those crimes?
The excuses made reveal a mindset that deserves further scrutiny.
This cop was connected to the democratic polical establishment. I posted a link to a site that noted some of the connections earlier; I could fetch it again.
Not according to the chief of police. Who needs to have his head examined, IMHO.
I was commenting on the duration of an O... not the act. (I guess I should have clarified...)
Humm, that’s true. Indecent exposure (both him and the woman) would be virtually impossible to avoid if doing “it” atop an automobile. Though sometimes indecent exposure laws go too far, such as when a guy steps behind a bush on public property to pee, clearly hidden from view.
Old cop saying:
Your badge’ll get you pu$$y; pu$$y’ll get your badge.
Here’s what I posted earlier:
Apparently this guy is well-connected with the NM Democratic Party. According to http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/ :
“The ties of La Politica go deep indeed and they are now surfacing in the notorious case of State Police Officer Bert Lopez. He’s been identified by the press as the officer who had his way with a lady friend on the hood of her Honda while he was in full uniform . The sexcapade near Santa Fe was captured on security video and Lopez, Jr. awaits disciplinary action. Now to the officer’s ties to La Politica from one of our Alligators:
Lopez is the grandson of Alex Armijo, a former Santa Fe politico and former Dem state land commissioner. And his political ties don’t stop there. His mother, Raquel Lopez, is a close friend of Lenore Naranjo, the Chief Clerk of the State Senate and serves as a Senate clerk...Lenore Naranjo is pushing Bert Lopez Jr.’s nephew, Vince Torres, for Deputy Chief Clerk of the Senate. If this comes to pass, Vince Torres would be the first male to have such a post... “
Motion triggered camera, lol. You know your gettin’ bizzle when you trigger the motion triggered camera.
“... he was trying to charm the lady into revealing some secrets to crack a murder case...”
You are too funny. It is uh.. a new... investigative tool. Yeah, that’s it. LOL!
What absolute, utter nonsense.
I’m surprised that PETA isn’t after him for ruining the psyche of the Chihuahua that watched the incident..
Not long ago, that would have been considered a resumé enhancer around here. A little more discretion would have helped but....
Just sayin’.
Typical anti-police hatred.
Doesn’t anyone understand how dangerous it is to be a police officer?
Each and every interaction with the civilian population can endanger their lives!
Office Lopez had to have sex with that woman on the hood of a car! For all he knew his fate that day may have been to be gunned down by a home-grown terrorist!
I’m sure he did it for the chidren!
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.
Disgusting.
Thanks!
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 .....
/sarcasm.....
Oh well...
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.