Live Nude Girl Entraps Fireman

But then the real question should be

"Were there reports of topless sunbathing women who asked men to show them their penises who were accosted or harrassed?"

If this is a big problem in society I see the solution is educational rather than one for law enforcement. On the preventative end of things that is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but that doesn't make for spectacular headlines. It's harder to measure, which makes it harder for campaigning officials to exploit for votes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought the portion I bolded above was very funny in context. Oh, yes. I also agree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hmm lets see, topless sunbathing = legal

exposing penis = illegal.

Whats the problem?

 

Say huh?

What, in general? Nothing. In this particular case? It's a little more complicated than that.

 

I can live with that distinction. Especially when someone is showing the latter unasked for.

But to set up a situation where women ask men to show their penises and then rush out of the bushes and arrest them....I think we need to spend our little tax dollars better.

Men who pop out their penises unasked for, oh please, rush out of the bushes. You can even tackle them for all I care. In fact recent research shows that men who do it unasked for in parks tend to turn out later to be real heavy abusers.

But the case in question sounds like entrapment to me.

If his penis was visible to people other than the woman lying there topless, well, that was pretty bad judgement, even criminal. But since this just doesnt happen - women asking guys they don't know to show them their penises in parks - we are not preventing crimes, but creating them. And really the US has the highest % of humans in its correctional system perhaps in the world. We do not need to create more crimes.

There's the rub.

So to speak.

 

Is this any different than a 'speedtrap'?

 

yes because a speed trap is passive. They just sit there waiting for someone to speed past. This is active, they activly lued a guy into commiting the crime so its entrapment

 

In essence, no.
If a town posts speed signs in a way that creates speeders and is not really protecting anyone, it is the same sick principle.
The primary difference is that speedtraps give little town income. It is fairly cheap to run, no real court costs, we are talking about tickets - compared to a trial for public indecency, etc. Whereas the 'sting' operation in the park will cost the town money.

So morally the same, but in fundraising effectiveness the sting is the clear loser.

 

sowhatifit'sdark its late here so source data will have to follow later. I am training to work as a paramedic and MVA's are part and parsal of the job. I also grew up with the head of the major crash squad of victoria's daughter (she was in my brother and sister's class at school). So i have some experiance with road crashes.

For tonight i will leave you with the latest TAC (trafic acident commision) ad

diving at 65 you see a girl walk out onto the road 10m (we think, if im wrong i will fix this) ahead. You hit her at 30km\h, killing her as she flys 6m from the force of the acident. If however you are travling at 60 you hit her at 5km\h which causes only very minor injurys. 5 km\h is with in the tolerance of most speed cameras.

Trust me SPEED KILLS!!!!!!!!!!

I have seen first hand the damage caused by a motor cycle rider doing 80km\h where he should have been doing 50. He was thrown off his bike and slid for a good 500m before hitting a power pole. His spin was torn from his body infront of me so please dont bullshit me that speeding is revinue rasing. Speeding COSTS the tax payer MILLIONS each year

 

Speedtrap. Speedtrap.
I have nowhere asserted anything about speed laws being wrong in general.
Not at all.
A speed trap is, for example, when you come around a bend in the road and there is suddenly a much much lower speed limit. You would almost have to go into a skid to meet the transition. And right past that sign the local sherrif is sitting in his car bringing in extra money for the town coffers.

That is a speedtrap.

A speedtrap also, often, means that the speed limit does not fit the road. It is NOT ABOUT SAFETY.

A speed trap should not be confused with appropriate speed limits that are sign posted in ways that make them easy to prepare for.

One is about safety, the other is about making money.

 

well i know that in Australia there is a general goverment policy that says that the bottoms of hills ect should not be places for speed camera's (basically because the goverment is terrifide of pissing everyone off to much and getting fired). The phrase "speed trap" here is used for any camera or radar op.

actually the operations you just go around a courner and find HERE are generally random drug and achole testing operations. Thats something that i think america should have more of. You get together 10 cop cars, block off a road and funnel all the cars through, blow in a plastic tube and off you go. Brillant idea.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

would MUCH rather have them then be scraping up families off the road

 

Sure, one person's speed trap is another person's serious safety measure. But if it is in fact a speed trap, then it is a no, no.

Nah, let the innocent be treated as innocent and keep the police from acting like paramilitary units against random civilians. The means will catch up with you and bite you on your ends.

 

you know how high the road toll was till they implemented these mesures?

cant think of the exact figure off the top of my head but it sounded like a YEAR not a death toll. Put it this way, what harm is there in blowing into a tube if it saves 1000's of lives?

 

That has to be one of the best straight lines anyone has ever handed me.

Ignoring that aspect of it however, I just need to say that we are trained to look at causes and effects in very shallow ways. What you have when you do such random testing is fascist situation, where the government is taking control of a portion of your life. In the actual instance, yes, it does not cause problems, but it creates a habitual acclimitization to fascist behavior. We get used to. Our children get used to it.

What harm does it cause if the police can enter random houses at night, even if they have no reason to suspect the people have terrorist ties, and search the house and computers_

Sure, you lose a little sleep. But if it saves thousands of lives.

No. There are other ways to save thousands of lives.

And the consequences of, for example, the USA sliding into open fascism and dictatorship are unthinkable.

Short term direct cause analysis is very shallow. Effects ripple outward in very complex ways from acts like the ones you approve of. We are not Newtonian creatures.

 

Its breakfast plate discrimination.

Topless = Fried eggs
exposing penis = sausage

 

The practical obstacle is that you would have to alter the United States Constitution:

This is the "supreme law of the land".

 

Tiassa actually all it would take would be a disclamer when you get your licence. "By accepting this you agree to abide by the road laws of the states and you also agree to be tested for drugs and achole at anytime" ect.

I always throught it was highly amusing watching the american driving under the infulance tests. "Walk in straight line" people may not be able to normally, they may not have the balance but are not impared when it comes to driving. "can spell achole on your breath" subjective, what if i had just been to a bar and some idiot had thrown it on my shirt. A random breath test is the ONLY way (short of a blood test) to get an accurate and unbias reading if a person has consumed achole. If the first road side test comes out positive they wait half an hour (in case it was just mouth achole) and blow into a much more acurate breathlizer. If you dont agree with the results you can request a blood test. Also anyone apearing at a hospital AFTER a MVA is required by LAW to provide a blood sample (ok this can get rediculas at times because by rights they have to test infants but some discression is used in these cases).

It is the law in Victoria that anyone stoped by police for ANY reason be breath tested before anything else happens, even if your stoped for a random licence check.

(this is to sowhatifit'sdark)
We are such a facist state. Oh wait we dont have a prision for throwing political prisioners in, ops. We dont have un warented searches of our houses. The police CANT force you to reveal your name, where you live ect UNLESS your driving (they can require your licence)

How many drivers under the influance are charged every year in the US? (pick one state if thats easier). How many acidents happen where achole or speed is a factor? We are not perfect here (would love to see MORE breath testing stations) but at least our laws alow the police to be PROACTIVE in preventing road deaths rather than just punishing after the fact

 

And that is just peachy, for you guys, in your state, where I would guess very few of your leaders unconsciously think of themselves as the next Caesar and have a very active unbelievably powerful military itching to do something and a lot of pressure from the arms industry to make up a problem. You do not have a culture addicted to Wars on _________, nor the incredibly high incarceration %ages we have. Nor do you have the same kind of law enforcement culture. What works in your country and seems to mean nothing might mean something very different here. I do not want people getting used to random testing and everyday mobilizations of many cops in relation to random citizens. And really, you shouldn't either. You do not want a fully fascist USA - having declared martial law to deal with internal troublemakers and terrorist sympathizers - with a poor economy. So for a moment consider that what you consider harmless might not be so harmless in a culture that looks similar but really is not.

Police can be proactive, but not as proactive. And your arguments, as I have pointed out, again and again, justify all sorts of government action that you would not like. You are used to the road alcohol related ones, but the others might make you bristle. Yet you think your argument holds.

The same argument, especially in the US, could justify home searches of random citizens - around drugs or around terrorist activities.

Why do you draw the line where you draw it or would draw it?

In other words you are acting as if you would be swayed by your logic, but I really doubt it.

I also have to point out that neither would the Vikings have had much approval for such laws nor would their gods. Perhaps you should change your name.

 

There's a reason it's called the supreme law of the land

We actually have that rule. It's called "implied consent". In order to get a driver's license, you must agree to be searched by the police at any time for any reason during a traffic stop. Things like random roadblocks, though, generally don't fly with the courts, and every once in a while, a court gets some stones and actually throws out implied consent. It happened in Oregon in 1995. And here in Washington state, where the rule is, technically, still intact, if you're willing to pay your lawyer to make that point, just about any court will let you keep your license until you're actually convicted of DUI.

The question is whether or not the state can demand that you surrender your Constitutional rights in exchange for a required license of permit, and the answer is and should be no. In order to change it, the Constitution itself needs to be altered.

Although it is perhaps irrelevant to the larger issue at hand, I find it a bit ironic that this is one of the provisions in the Bill of Rights, amendments aimed squarely at ... um ... well, the Crown.