Posted on 12/28/2007 11:53:43 AM PST by jdm
Police have a tough job, especially when it comes to vice-squad details. They have to keep areas free of predators in order to allow law-abiding citizens to enjoy public places. However, they also have to take care not to entrap people in behavior that they ordinarily wouldn't commit. In Columbus, Ohio, it seems very clear they crossed that line:
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.
Right off the bat, the hypocrisy here is apparent. The police want to clean up the park -- and how do they do that? Have topless women laying around to attract supposed perverts. I can see where that would make the park so much more family-friendly than before this particular sting operation.
Undoubtedly, Garrison should not have exposed himself. However, would he have done so had it not been for the interaction with the "undercover" police officer? Rubbing his shoulder with her foot constitutes a serious come-on when done by a half-naked woman in public. Garrison only popped out Mr. Happy after that physical contact, which strongly suggests that Garrison thought this an unusual opportunity, not that he prowled the park looking for opportunities to expose himself.
Columbus should ask whether they have created more problems than they solve in these cases. Rounding up perverts who masturbate in public places is a good use of police resources and allows people to use community assets as intended. Having topless women laying out in the open and caressing men who act on understandable signals of sexual openness turns these places into precisely what they're hoping to avoid.
Maybe she didn’t really ask. The parks are full of pervs
The man.
Now I'll read the article.
LOL.
I suppose there are no pictures(of the topless woman) so we can render judgement on who is guilty
I guess that means I was right.
What, no pics?
I was wondering what happened with my first exwife....
My question is: How do I lobby to get some of those parks around here?
lol. We can determine his guilt based on that.
If she is grotesque, I vote to convict.
No love for pervs (at least outside the bedroom), but this sounds like entrapment to me.
Still, I’ll need to see a picture (of her, not him!).
The law’s the law. If she’d brought the Beaver out for some sun, she’d have been arrested too.
by pervs, are you referring to the undercover cops or the
passing firefighter?
Garrison only popped out Mr. Happy after that physical contactNo matter what the circumstances, you take it out in a public place, and you're asking for heaps and heaps of trouble.
How are we to judge whether the woman is guilty or not?
.
So the vice squad employs topless women now?
I thought many communities have had women fight for the right to go topless (top free is the common term they use). Do the police support the policy?
It is good to patrol the parks for public sex. At what point is the personal contact the woman had with the man (while she is in an undressed state and requesting that he do the same) unreasonable entrapment?
I live in Ohio and I am really not sure this is a good thing . . .
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.