Very funny!! A great defense, after all, she WAS smokin' hot!
Talnik
· 2 years ago
Are you trying to tell me you CAN'T whip out Mr. Happy in a public park?
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
Only at the urinal inside the public restroom.
JohnFNotKerry
· 2 years ago
Where was Alan Funt when this was going on? Somewhere, someday, when you least expect it...
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
Sounds more like Playboy Channel's "Totally Busted" to me.
PDQuig
· 2 years ago
Obviously, the Columbus police are receiving too much funding from DHS. A zipped and open case of entrapment. The real question is whether the thin blue line film crew got hard-ons, too?
Seaberry
· 2 years ago
I got one just by watching her flaunting herself around...heck, I could've taken it to the bank and got a loan on it!
Christoph
· 2 years ago
Hear, hear, Captain Ed... and her being topless and caressing him makes his reaction more understandable... certainly I understand it... but, by itself, isn't her simply asking him to show her his penis ipso facto entrapment?
captained
· 2 years ago
I think you'd be correct, Christoph.
Mike
· 2 years ago
#1 Rule for men: Life is not a porn flick. If it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true.
captained
· 2 years ago
I would not have expected a police sting -- but I probably would have suspected the woman to ask me if I had a few minutes for a free, fun personality test at the Scientology Center around the corner .....
flenser
· 2 years ago
"If it is too good to be true, it is too good to be true."
So, you are saying that no women have ever come on to you in a public place?
Wow, how nice of the cops to teach us "life lessons" on taxpayer money. You mean, if a pretty young thing comes up and chats me up I better run and hide? Whew! Thanks. I used to think it was better to stick around and chat and enjoy the possibillities.
mmebrady
· 2 years ago
Yikes! Sounds like entrapment to me! I wholeheartedly agree with the concept of cleaning up parks, but by using half-dressed women to seduce unsuspecting men into behavior that may well not be the norm for them is totally inappropriate!
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
If I were a Columbus taxpayer, I'd be wondering what clown is in charge of the police department and why he's populating public parks with topless, salaried policewomen.
Every single day there's a story about one level or another of government, doing incredibly stupid things like this.
Anyone who believes that we need higher taxes and more government, just isn't paying attention.
mmebrady
· 2 years ago
I'm still shocked by the number of people who think he got what he deserved.
I agree with you all, I know someone who is in that park anywhere from 5 to 6 days a week and saw the whole thing go down. The funny Part is that they are still wasting the taxpayers money by having undercover cars in the park. I can spot the under cover car easily and that means so can the real pervs. I feel that the columbus police deptartment is in the wrong and need to pay for the wrong doing that they did.
bikerken
· 2 years ago
This kind of thing happens out here in SoCal all the time, only she doesn't turn out to be a cop. After he whips it out, she whips hers out, and George Micheal jumps out of the bushes.
rabidsquirrel
· 2 years ago
Maybe this guy should have gone off "half-c*cked".
SwabJockey05
· 2 years ago
Ken... LOL!! Hopefully, George isn't taking the same "wide stance"...
NCC
· 2 years ago
"Rubbing his shoulder with her foot constitutes a serious come-on when done by a half-naked woman in public."
Maybe if done in private, too!
hermie
· 2 years ago
According to the story, she asked him to show it. That crossed the line as she, a member of law enforcement, was encouraging him to break the law.
DanS
· 2 years ago
If a man rubbed a woman's shoulder uninvited in other settings (maybe this one too) he would open himself up to a sexual harassment suit.
I'd certainly rule this one entrapment.
Waste
· 2 years ago
Actually, depending on the state, that could be sexual assault or at least criminal harassment.
It may not be sexual harassment as I believe that requires some type of working relationship.
flenser
· 2 years ago
"While topless sunbathing is legal in the city's parks"
Liberalism has infested even Ohio, it seems.
rbj
· 2 years ago
And why was I not informed of this fact until after I picked Toledo over Columbus?
coldwarrior415
· 2 years ago
Another from the land of Carty Finkbinder? Small world, isn't it?
I suppose the not-so-under-cover officer used the classic defense...she had a "wide stance."
mylegsareswollen
· 2 years ago
Undoubtedly, Garrison should not have exposed himself.
Why? A topless woman comes on to him and leads him to believe he'll get his chrome shined and he has no right to partake in a consensual act of sex?
As long as it's discreet, why is it your business?
captained
· 2 years ago
It's not discreet when it takes place in public. The community owns the property and can set the rules as to what can and cannot occur there. It's their property, and therefore their business.
mer
· 2 years ago
And how come there is no video with this topic? There's video of campaign ads, but nothing for the more serious topics of sunbathing topless.
:)
I could understand if there had been no physical contact, no "you've seen mine, now show me yours" that the police where probably right, but based on the account above, it sure sounds like someone was enticed into breaking the law. Perhaps he should have had her take it out for him, then he could argue "I never took it out, I just didn't stop her from doing it" which is a perfectly natural male reaction (unless his wife is there and it's someone other than her).
JAT
· 2 years ago
I had this happen once, but it was 1963 and I was in Hong Kong...what's wrong in the first place is that it is OK for topless women to lay around in public parks.
Christoph
· 2 years ago
A woman can be topless in Canada. Why is a topless woman ipso facto wrong?
jr565
· 2 years ago
Why is a man exposing his genitals ipso facto wrong, when its ok for a woman to expose her breasts? Or rather, why is it a crime to expose your lower body but not your upper body?
Christoph
· 2 years ago
Whether it's ultimately immoral to be naked is not something I wish to debate for I think it's a silly proposition.
However, laws put limits on human behaviour. In Canada, our Supreme Court recognized men could be topless under the law, but women couldn't, and this was discriminatory on its face.
Further, as a matter of biology, women are the only sex to ever have a reason to require being topless -- feeding offspring, which is of no small importance. Men have no corresponding biological need.
So our court decided -- rightly in my opinion -- it's discriminatory and illegal to ban women from being topless when men are not similarly restrained. And I don't see any politicians running on a "men must cover up their chest" platform, so the matter is decided in Canada.
That said, it it was rephrased, "men must cover up their manboobs" then their may be more votes for that position, if only from female constituents.
jr565
· 2 years ago
True, its just a bit awkward that the cops are using nudity and sexual comeones to target people for showing their naughty bits.
I would think those partaking of the right to expose themselves in public might find it a wee bit hypocritcal using their nudity to get someone busted for for exposing themselves.
flenser
· 2 years ago
"In Canada, our Supreme Court recognized men could be topless under the law, but women couldn't, and this was discriminatory on its face."
In our system of government, we believe that the people make the laws via their legislators. But I suppose you Canadians are still harking back to the old days of monarchy and you crave having your laws made for you by some unelected ninnies in black robes. Your court did not "recognize" anything. They made the law and you tugged your forelock.
On the right coast
· 2 years ago
Flensor - Contrary to your stmt. Canada's federal and provincial legislatures do make the laws. In court cases involving discrimination suits for example, the Courts decision impacts and implores Parliament to adjust the laws accordingly. This is a weighty issue now in Canada with the propensity of groups to access so-called human rights commissions and the courts. Parliaments are bound by these rulings to in fact rewrite the laws. Is it different in the USA? from On the Right Coast
Patty
· 1 year ago
Because ball sack is just wrong and not very pretty.
Bike Bubba
· 2 years ago
Lost in the discussion here is a basic reality; a great portion of public lewdness problems occur when homosexuals decide a park is their playplace. I have to wonder if the police were even going after the real problem.
This troubles me, to put it mildly. Hasn't Columbus ever heard of "beat cops" who "walk" around a certain area, and get to prevent crime by being seen? Apparently not.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Mike- Rule #1- life isn't a porn flick. LOL... words to live by, dude. Rule #2 goes something like this- if you're driving over to meet a 13 year old girl, you might want to think about how you're dressed for Dateline's "Catch a Predator".
DayTrader
· 2 years ago
Wonder what the local laws are.
Where I live a topless female cop would result in her being charged for indecent exposure (with the exception of discreet breastfeeding that must be covered with a baby blanket and only momentary transition nudity allowed).
That is doing a crime to catch a crime, but as others pointed out she specifically made the verbal request , it was not an action totally initiated by the perp without prompting.
MikeA
· 2 years ago
Hummm... a nationwide headline story telling about topless sunbathing being allowed and so common in Columbus' city parks that even female police officers do it shoul do wonders for the tourist business. Now just how do they suppose they will draw tourists to gawk at the naked lady cops, but who won't tend to see the experience in a sexual contotation is another story.
bikerken
· 2 years ago
I don't think there's anything that sneaky going on here Mike. I think the captain is just trying to keep abreast of things.
rbj
· 2 years ago
Don't be a boob with those puns, bikerken
captained
· 2 years ago
I see you all are milking this for all it's worth ...
UncleAlAtHome
· 2 years ago
<Groan>
exhelodrvr
· 2 years ago
Maybe your crack staff should research this!
Cybrludite
· 2 years ago
It's got us as facinated as a deer in the headlights, so to speak.
Seaberry
· 2 years ago
That was 'entrapment', i.e. topless and rubbing him, and waving her legs around in the air. She should not have been topless, and certainly not touching and encouraging him. A pretty woman in a bathing suit can catch the real perverts…
Peyton
· 2 years ago
Now, *how* do you get to this park?
Any two-bit, ambulance-chaser, maggot lawyer should be able to make mince meat out of this charge, flip it to a major lawsuit with 80% contingency fees, and retire. After court fees, Mr. Garrison will be able to clear enough to buy two cases of beer, enough KFC buckets for his whole station house, and the DVD of Playboy's "Hot Cops."
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
"Any two-bit, ambulance-chaser, maggot lawyer should be able to make mince meat out of this charge, flip it to a major lawsuit with 80% contingency fees, and retire."
I agree, a good lawyer should be able to get this man off quickly.
paul_abarge_at_email_dot_com
· 2 years ago
It's been said a thousand times but bears repeating: Ask the babe to agree to a naked photo session.
This is a virtually 100% successful way to detect an undercover police plant looking to bust men.
Undercover police women will not take off their "bottoms" (i.e. pants and panties) and let you take close up pictures of their privates, especially pictures that include their faces.
Women who are not police plants will agree to this in a New York minute.
Always ask for the preliminary naked photo shoot first. If she balks, walk immediately and forget Mr Happy for the moment.
Stephen Macklin
· 2 years ago
We've got dozens of public parks and I have never seen, heard or read of there being any masturbation problem in any of them. But the again there aren't any topless sunbathers either. Without the cause - there's no effect!!!
WSG
· 2 years ago
Garrison should not have done what he did . Having said that we have a Mayor and city govt that is HeJJ and gone over the left field fence. The police chief is as old as dirt and about as effective as Geroge Carlin is couth . That city resources were spent on this sting is not a surprise. Mayor Coleman is a 'progressive' and insists that Columbus is a "safe" city and that we need to do more to combat "global warming." In short the man is delusional .
quickjustice
· 2 years ago
Get a room, dude! And it sounds like the Columbus Police Department has way too much time on its hands. Maybe the City Council should revisit the Department's staffing levels?
aloysiusmiller
· 2 years ago
The fireman's behavior is shameful but so is the police's. I think that the fireman should find out the name of the prostitute that solicited him and his defense should be to publish her name. Her children and grandchildren down to the fourth generation should know that she was a prostitute. The chief of police is her pimp and his children and grandchildren should also know that he was a pimp or better yet a whoremonger.
The Scrutinator
· 2 years ago
Sounds like it was set up specifically to catch a straight man in the act.
As a former Columbus resident, I'm pretty sure Berliner Park (near German Village) is a gay cruising area. I'm guessing most complaints to police were about gay public sex. After all, the story says, "based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park".
Mercutio
· 2 years ago
I'm actually much more interested in thr woman. How did the cops find her and what's her phone number?
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
This is a clear-cut case of entrapment as the woman ASKED him to commit a crime, he didn't do it on his own volition. By asking him to expose Mr. Happy, she also committed a crime: criminal solicitation (a felony). Without her direct illegal solicitation, no crime would have taken place. This is not crime prevention, it's crime invention. That makes it entrapment.
Why is it that the police can commit crimes like criminal solicitation, a violation of their pledge to uphold the law, without repercussions? If it is illegal for me to solicit someone to commit a crime, how can it be legal for the police to do the same? You can't uphold the law by breaking it, even with the best of intentions like getting criminals off the street. When we allow the police to freely commit the very crimes they are suppose to enforce, the concept of law enforcement itself is destroyed.
MagicalPat
· 2 years ago
Let me get something straight. It's legal for a woman to go topless in Columbus. It's probably also legal for a couple to kiss and embrace in public in Columbus. So is it legal for a man to caress the naked breasts of a topless woman? Or does touching them cross a line?
After all, if the reason going topless is legal is because it is discriminatory, then they are claiming that there is no difference between a topless man or topless woman. If she can rub his chest in public, then he can probably rub hers.
Parkwatcher
· 2 years ago
Good point; ultimately men and women aren't equal in every single tiny respect, or we'd all have co-ed toilets and showers, etc. Topless women are a huge excitement factor, even in liberal europe or canada (most porn focuses on that along with the other stuff). Chances are, half the men are staring pretty hard at topless women where allowed, just for you ladies to ponder if considering it...
Patty
· 1 year ago
My ex-husband was a firefighter and exposed himself to all of our neighbors. In my opinion that is just what fireman do. Nothing suprising there.
RanaQuijotesca
· 2 years ago
Despite the questionable tactics, rubbing someone's shoulder isn't a crime, flirting isn't a crime, whipping out your junk is. Nobody made him expose himself; he probably should have asked he to go somewhere private. I don't think that the outrage here is warranted.
captained
· 2 years ago
Using that argument, entrapment never occurs. Entrapment means that the police encouraged or cajoled you into doing something you would not have otherwise done -- and courts recognize that as a valid defense. It's why prostitution stings require the john to initiate the offer and to make it explicit.
RanaQuijotesca
· 2 years ago
Do you think that every man who has a woman proposition him has the predisposition to "whip it out" in a public park? I know that I wouldn't have done it... A certain predisposition towards this kind of act has to exist for someone to actually go through it...
captained
· 2 years ago
Same thing with prostitution -- but the police can't entrap there, either. I'd say that if this guy was one that the police wanted to target, he would have masturbated before approaching her.
flenser
· 2 years ago
"A certain predisposition towards this kind of act has to exist for someone to actually go through it..."
Having a certain predisposition is not a crime. Encouraging somebody to commit a crime is in fact a crime.
"Eventually, she asked to see Garrison's penis"
The only question left for me is, was this woman hired by the police to do this, or was she a police officer herself?
The Yell
· 2 years ago
Yes, I looked closer at the story. I can't tell whether it was agreed the cop asked for that, or whether it was a defense claim they rejected.
Peejz
· 2 years ago
Can I legally walk down the streets of Columbus with my breasts exposed?(okay, the guy probably would have giggled and kept walking or would have given me the name of a plastic surgeon)
Breasts are considered "junk" ,just as was the man's privates...This is over the top, and I am thinking highly unethical if not illegal, all in the name of cleaning a park up...
mmebrady
· 2 years ago
and is the park any "cleaner" for this bust? i doubt it. This guy was not part of the problem they were allegedly trying to solve. A waste of time and taxpayer dollars.
All Comments
So, you are saying that no women have ever come on to you in a public place?
You mean, if a pretty young thing comes up and chats me up
I better run and hide? Whew! Thanks. I used to think it was better to
stick around and chat and enjoy the possibillities.
Every single day there's a story about one level or another of government, doing incredibly stupid things like this.
Anyone who believes that we need higher taxes and more government, just isn't paying attention.
http://mmebrady.blogspot.com
Maybe if done in private, too!
I'd certainly rule this one entrapment.
It may not be sexual harassment as I believe that requires some type of working relationship.
Liberalism has infested even Ohio, it seems.
I suppose the not-so-under-cover officer used the classic defense...she had a "wide stance."
Why? A topless woman comes on to him and leads him to believe he'll get his chrome shined and he has no right to partake in a consensual act of sex?
As long as it's discreet, why is it your business?
:)
I could understand if there had been no physical contact, no "you've seen mine, now show me yours" that the police where probably right, but based on the account above, it sure sounds like someone was enticed into breaking the law. Perhaps he should have had her take it out for him, then he could argue "I never took it out, I just didn't stop her from doing it" which is a perfectly natural male reaction (unless his wife is there and it's someone other than her).
However, laws put limits on human behaviour. In Canada, our Supreme Court recognized men could be topless under the law, but women couldn't, and this was discriminatory on its face.
Further, as a matter of biology, women are the only sex to ever have a reason to require being topless -- feeding offspring, which is of no small importance. Men have no corresponding biological need.
So our court decided -- rightly in my opinion -- it's discriminatory and illegal to ban women from being topless when men are not similarly restrained. And I don't see any politicians running on a "men must cover up their chest" platform, so the matter is decided in Canada.
That said, it it was rephrased, "men must cover up their manboobs" then their may be more votes for that position, if only from female constituents.
I would think those partaking of the right to expose themselves in public might find it a wee bit hypocritcal using their nudity to get someone busted for for exposing themselves.
In our system of government, we believe that the people make the laws via their legislators. But I suppose you Canadians are still harking back to the old days of monarchy and you crave having your laws made for you by some unelected ninnies in black robes. Your court did not "recognize" anything. They made the law and you tugged your forelock.
from On the Right Coast
This troubles me, to put it mildly. Hasn't Columbus ever heard of "beat cops" who "walk" around a certain area, and get to prevent crime by being seen? Apparently not.
Where I live a topless female cop would result in her being charged for indecent exposure (with the exception of discreet breastfeeding that must be covered with a baby blanket and only momentary transition nudity allowed).
That is doing a crime to catch a crime, but as others pointed out she specifically made the verbal request , it was not an action totally initiated by the perp without prompting.
Any two-bit, ambulance-chaser, maggot lawyer should be able to make mince meat out of this charge, flip it to a major lawsuit with 80% contingency fees, and retire. After court fees, Mr. Garrison will be able to clear enough to buy two cases of beer, enough KFC buckets for his whole station house, and the DVD of Playboy's "Hot Cops."
I agree, a good lawyer should be able to get this man off quickly.
This is a virtually 100% successful way to detect an undercover police plant looking to bust men.
Undercover police women will not take off their "bottoms" (i.e. pants and panties) and let you take close up pictures of their privates, especially pictures that include their faces.
Women who are not police plants will agree to this in a New York minute.
Always ask for the preliminary naked photo shoot first. If she balks, walk immediately and forget Mr Happy for the moment.
Having said that we have a Mayor and city govt that is HeJJ and gone over the left field fence.
The police chief is as old as dirt and about as effective as Geroge Carlin is couth .
That city resources were spent on this sting is not a surprise.
Mayor Coleman is a 'progressive' and insists that Columbus is a "safe" city and that we need to do more to combat "global warming." In short the man is delusional .
As a former Columbus resident, I'm pretty sure Berliner Park (near German Village) is a gay cruising area. I'm guessing most complaints to police were about gay public sex. After all, the story says, "based on video footage taken by cops who were targeting men having sex or masturbating in the park".
Why is it that the police can commit crimes like criminal solicitation, a violation of their pledge to uphold the law, without repercussions? If it is illegal for me to solicit someone to commit a crime, how can it be legal for the police to do the same? You can't uphold the law by breaking it, even with the best of intentions like getting criminals off the street. When we allow the police to freely commit the very crimes they are suppose to enforce, the concept of law enforcement itself is destroyed.
After all, if the reason going topless is legal is because it is discriminatory, then they are claiming that there is no difference between a topless man or topless woman. If she can rub his chest in public, then he can probably rub hers.
Having a certain predisposition is not a crime. Encouraging somebody to commit a crime is in fact a crime.
"Eventually, she asked to see Garrison's penis"
The only question left for me is, was this woman hired by the police to do this, or was she a police officer herself?
Breasts are considered "junk" ,just as was the man's privates...This is over the top, and I am thinking highly unethical if not illegal, all in the name of cleaning a park up...