LA girls - beware LE

[notdrunk]

This has to be the most flagrant cases of entrapment I've ever seen.

According to California law, the police officers are in the clear because they were engaged in an undercover operation targeting prostitution in a known prostitution area. They can make the offers; however, the compensation cannot be outrageous like thousands of dollars. Or, they cannot put a gun to a prostitute's head forcing them to take the money (pressure). Additionally, they cannot tell them that it is legal to prostitute.

[whatislove]

why don't the workers require the cops/johns to take there dicks out?

or and this is foolproof... hand them a phone and have them take an xrated pic which is immediately sent to a server or email.

Cops can't start taking pics of exposed girls (which are timestamped!) If they take the picture they won't be cops or the case will be thrown out.

But yeah I would think that would have been entrapment!

[BellaBellucci]

This has to be the most flagrant cases of entrapment I've ever seen.

According to California law, the police officers are in the clear because they were engaged in an undercover operation targeting prostitution in a known prostitution area. They can make the offers; however, the compensation cannot be outrageous like thousands of dollars. Or, they cannot put a gun to a prostitute's head forcing them to take the money (pressure). Additionally, they cannot tell them that it is legal to prostitute.

If what you say is true it should most certainly be contested. I'm sorry, but what these cops did is a clear a violation of a person's 5th Amendment rights. Legal or not, it's still unconstitutional IMHO.

~BB~

[SarahG]

Legal or not, it's still unconstitutional IMHO.

~BB~

Something can't be both legal and unconstitutional.

[BellaBellucci]

Legal or not, it's still unconstitutional IMHO.

~BB~

Something can't be both legal and unconstitutional.

That's not true. The legislature can pass whatever law it likes and until the judiciary overturns it as unconstitutional it's completely legal. Theoretically they could pass a law tomorrow that outlaws breathing and someone would have to sue to get the law overturned - and until that happened it would be 100% legal for the police to arrest people for breathing.

In short, legality refers to the relationship between the legislature and the people while constitutionality refers to the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches.

~BB~

[fred41]

why don't the workers require the cops/johns to take there dicks out?

lots of girls do this..even one of the girls in the video did this..and it worked.

or and this is foolproof... hand them a phone and have them take an xrated pic which is immediately sent to a server or email.

I don't know too many real johns that would be willing to do this...the girl would have very few clients..

[SarahG]

Theoretically they could pass a law tomorrow that outlaws breathing and someone would have to sue to get the law overturned - and until that happened it would be 100% legal for the police to arrest people for breathing.

They would be able to arrest people for it, but it still won't be legal- that's why it wouldn't stand up in court, and why once overturned all those actions are reversed. Legal is not just current practices, but what would stand up to legal scrutiny.

To use an example, if a postop marries a guy in a state of the US, the state might marry him- so the marriage is legal, right? Not so fast, if the guy dies and his surviving family decides to challenge the marriage in court to try to get all of the inheritance, and the judge rules the marriage illegal per her being trans (this is basically what happened in Littleton) the marriage isn't just ended, but made so that it never legally existed in the first place. Every moment of that marriage would be defined as illegal, going all the way back to the first second of it.

In the reverse situation, a cop could try to arrest someone for anything, that doesn't mean a given action is illegal. It would only be illegal if the charge holds up to legal scrutiny.

[The Second Coming- JB]

Your damn straight that fucking doughboy is a fag. Did you watch Part 2 of the video?....

Is that asain bitch a tranny...damn shes fine..

[caliuncut]

Your damn straight that fucking doughboy is a fag. Did you watch Part 2 of the video?....ridiculous, these guys need to get a fucking life. God I hate cops....i know theyre necessary, but why cant they just stick to doing the things that theyre necessary for. They love fucking with people, giving out tickets and generally being assholes.

This is why the police brutalize gay men; because you're so damn snotty.

Tell us the truth. You often drive drunk. How many DWI's do you have now?

First of all I'm not a gay man, not that it matters, but regardless.

Secondly I've never had a DUI and dont drive drunk and havent ever had issues with cops and alcohol.

My issue with them is just what I said, they get their rocks off fucking with people just like that fat fuck in the videos. Check out part 2 and you'll see sparkle in his eye when they're in the restaurant talking about it.

Now as far as me being snotty, I don't see how you figure that. Maybe you got friends and fam in LE and I hate to break it to you but they're prolly douchebags too.

[BellaBellucci]

Theoretically they could pass a law tomorrow that outlaws breathing and someone would have to sue to get the law overturned - and until that happened it would be 100% legal for the police to arrest people for breathing.

They would be able to arrest people for it, but it still won't be legal- that's why it wouldn't stand up in court, and why once overturned all those actions are reversed. Legal is not just current practices, but what would stand up to legal scrutiny.

To use an example, if a postop marries a guy in a state of the US, the state might marry him- so the marriage is legal, right? Not so fast, if the guy dies and his surviving family decides to challenge the marriage in court to try to get all of the inheritance, and the judge rules the marriage illegal per her being trans (this is basically what happened in Littleton) the marriage isn't just ended, but made so that it never legally existed in the first place. Every moment of that marriage would be defined as illegal, going all the way back to the first second of it.

In the reverse situation, a cop could try to arrest someone for anything, that doesn't mean a given action is illegal. It would only be illegal if the charge holds up to legal scrutiny.

"Legal is not just current practices, but what would stand up to legal scrutiny."

No. I'm telling you that isn't true. If a law is on the books then it's legal - period (see Jim Crow laws for instance - 'current practice' at the time but unable to withstand 'legal scrutiny' - people could not be sued for discrimination after the fact). If that law ends up being struck down as unconstitutional that doesn't mean that anybody broke the law by enforcing it beforehand. It can be on the books for years before it's challenged and overturned at which time it THEN becomes illegal - yes retroactively, but the 'current practice' would have been legal at the time it occurred. The 'legal scrutiny' to which you refer is actually what constitutionality is and can only be decided upon long after a law has already been passed.

~BB~