The female is allegedly allowed to go topless because males are allowed to go topless, because as the theory goes, anything a man can do a woman should be able to do, although not vice versa. Entrapment is allegedly ok as long as there is some technicality to obfuscate it, as long as only men are being entrapped of course.

You know it’s bad when even ABC news recognizes it as entrapment, although the above links are now dead, possibly because ABC is afraid to cross the feminists.

It is disconcerting to see men react in a way that says, ok, I need to watch out for a new form of criminalizing maleness because now they are obfuscating entrapment just like they did with debtor’s prison, again, so long as it only applies to males. That’s a higher level of entrapment, just getting men to go along with the idea that anything a female does is fine because it’s her choice, while anything a male does can be criminalized.

What should be happening here is that ABC and the rest of the media should not be afraid to report it, the woman should be prosecuted for indecent exposure, and the police in question, and their superiors who put them up to it, should at least be fired if not prosecuted for entrapment. But what will happen instead is that the judiciary will become further entrenched in feminist jurisprudence, while real criminals continue to go free.

if that is true i see why crime does pay so well.

how about this scenario. the cops were videotaping topless women in the park and accidentally came across this guy.

either way… i smells a rat.

— it’s a lie and a trap.

Kind of like marriage, eh?

She’s very good at what she does and enjoys her work.

What’s really funny is that she is a lesbian!

Now that’s gotta hurt for some poor dude to have to do the perp walk and get cuffed and fingerprinted for coming on to a dyke.

That’s just morally wrong. There oughta be a law…

Furthermore, isn’t it solicitation for her to ask him to commit a crime? What about battery–didn’t she caress him with her foot without first gaining permission?

And something smells about the gal who allegedly wasn’t “in” on the entrapment op…I ain’t buying that for a moment. She had to be involved, otherwise the cops should have busted them both…him for indecent exposure (like she wasn’t!), and her for solicitation and battery.

Based on Columbus’ crime stats, the cops would do better to pay attention to more serious crimes, rather than busting lonely guys in the park who succumb to the advances of an attractive woman.

I think in the case of u/c cops arresting “Johns” word of mouth and publicity in the papers would lead to “Johns” avoiding that area and the prostitute’s business would dry up or move elsewhere.

A society that revolves around the ideal that male sexuality and identity is a perversion needing correction must experience the worse of it before it gets better.

Self respecting officers should be ashamed of themselves!!

If they can put enough hysteria out there, by “churning fear”, then missplaced heroes such as Joe Biden can come save the day, with A seemingly endless supply of feminist pork!!

Is Joe Biden A modern day Don Quiote????

The test for entrapment is whether the idea originated with him or with her. In this case it obviously originated with her. That’s why the police are claiming she’s not one of them, since a non-cop can’t entrap someone. But she obviously had to agree to be the agent of the police. I mean this didn’t just happen. There were cops there waiting to swoop in, a videographer, etc.