Following up on my discussion of underutilized police and prosecution resources comes this important story from Columbus Ohio, via ABC News.
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
Does this not tell you that the cops in Columbus have way too much time on their hands? Mind you, this “undercover” police woman had been there for days, just waiting for the chance to put her foot on some guy’s shoulder. This beat sounds almost as exciting as the cop who had to hang out in the airport bathroom waiting for a Senator to toe tap. And just like the toilet cop, she must have been trained in foot placement to induce some sicko firefighter to be overcome with penile revelation. This is another trick that you should never try at home.
And why are the police, both underdressed officers and back up teams, spending day after day awaiting the opportunity to nab some perv with foot issues?
Law enforcement officials say that such sting operations are an extremely effective means of lowering crime rates and stopping the criminally minded before they commit worse offenses.
See how that “extremely effective means” language pops up all the time to explain why cops get to do stuff that is either wrong, deceptive or just plain stupid, and get away with it? But at least Columbus is safe should this firefighter consider seeking out a topless sunbathing cop who might put two feet on his respective shoulders. I shudder to think what “worse offense” he might then commit.
Lest you think that this is the sort of silly case that was tossed by an incredulous prosecutor, or slam dunked by an offended jury of tax-paying Columbians,
At Garrison’s trial, his attorney argued that it was a case of entrapment. “Columbus police utilized this topless woman to snare this man,” said Sam Shamansky. “He sees her day after day. He’s not some seedy pervert.” [Ed. Note: regular pervert?]The argument failed to sway a Franklin County Municipal Court jury that found Garrison guilty of public indecency last month. He was ordered to stay away from the park, placed on a year’s probation and fined $250.
Sleep well tonight, good people of Columbus, Ohio. You are safe.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There’s some ambiguity about the story. At least some accounts suggest that the topless woman was neither a cop nor an informant, but, well, kind of an attractive, topless nuisance who the cops staked out.
Assuming that’s true, I’m less willing to condemn them. Seems to me that folks should be able to use public parks without being unwilling spectators to others’ copulating.
I’ve seen no ambiguity at all. If you have an account from a credible source that differs from the others, I would like to see it, as every account I’ve seen is consistent. Nor has anyone suggested that he was copulating.
http://www.columbusdispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/11/12/robin13.html
You’re quite right in one thing — he wasn’t copulating; apparently, he had whipped out his penis. (Let’s not go to the tape….)
On the other hand, the link strongly implies that the woman wasn’t a police officer or agent, but a sunbather who was sunbathing topless — apparently legal there — and who had, at the request of a police officer, moved to a less prominent location.
The quote from his lawyer doesn’t say that she was either a police officer or an agent of them, but just that they had “utilized” her in what he characterized (perhaps imprecisely; I think that’s where the ambiguity comes in) as a “sting,” apparently as an attractive nuisance of opportunity.
I’m certainly of the opinion that it’s wrong for the cops to set up either a cop or somebody else acting under their direction to persuade men to whip out Mr. Happy so that they can be busted. Are you of the opinion that, if such thing are happening without the instigation of the cops in public parks, it’s not okay for the cops to bust them?
Thanks for the link, but I fail to see where this creates any ambiguity whatsoever. The Columbus Dispatch story, from November 12, takes its info from the opening statements at trial. It doesn’t say that the woman was not an undercover. The ABC story, from December 28, comes after the trial was completed, and makes express reference to the fact that she was indeed an undercover officer, and is confirmed by police comment. The absence of conflicting information does not create an ambiguity, and give rise to valid opinion based upon a non-existent set of “facts”. In fact, I’ve read nothing about the defendant “whipping” anything out. There’s no information that he did anything beyond showing himself to a person sitting right next to him, who asked him to do so, and that it was visible to anyone else.
This was a story about police use of resources, not about whether exposure of one’s genitalia (Mr. Happy?) is a good or bad thing. Had the defendant unilaterally exposed himself in a public park, he would indeed deserve conviction for his conduct. But the question in this post is whether this is where the good people of Columbus want their police spending their time.
1. You’re right; the Columbus Dispatch story doesn’t say that she wasn’t an undercover; it also doesn’t say that she wasn’t a left-handed Lebanese lesbian eating baba ganoush. If the ABC story says that she was a cop; I missed it — could you point to me where the reporter or the police say she was? (His attorney apparently argued that it was a “sting”, but his attorney’s job is, after all, to advocate for the defendant. That the judge didn’t allow an entrapment defense argues that either 1. the judge was in the wrong, or 2. the woman wasn’t an agent of the government. I don’t know which it is.)
I’ll certainly agree that if the woman was a police agent (and I don’t care if she was an onduty cop, or somebody else acting on behalf of the police) they shouldn’t have been setting up such stings.
2. I’m glad that we’re in agreement that if he unilaterally exposed himself in a public park, he deserved conviction. I think that if he bilaterally exposed himself in a public park, he deserved conviction . . . unless the person he exposed himself to was somebody acting on behalf of the police, to create a crime that otherwise wouldn’t have happened. You seem to be arguing that it’s important whether or not that others could see him exposing himself. I agree.
3. Yup; there’s a legitimate question as to whether or not the good people of Columbus should want the police spending their time this way. Since I don’t live there, I’ll talk about where I live: I wouldn’t want the MPD — my local cops — wasting their time creating such crimes in the public park near my home. Should it become a venue for any of various nuisances — drug dealing, public drinking, public masturbation, people exposing themselves, public copulation — I’d want the cops to spend some of their time shutting that down, as long as they limited themselves to arresting people for crimes that they, the cops, didn’t inspire the commission of. (That said, if it did become a locus for drug dealers or hookers, I wouldn’t have a problem with undercover cops setting up buys, whether they were acting as buyers or sellers; I’d prefer that such activities be chivvied down the road to somewhere else. If it became a locus for other public naughtinesses, I’d not be comfortable with that.)
I’m pleased that it hasn’t; it’s where my kids walk our dog, and I like it as a place where folks can play with dogs, throw frisbees when the weather’s nice, or sled when there’s snow on the ground, without being witnesses to any of the above.
We seem to be in agreement that the key issue, here, is whether or not the topless woman was an independent actor or somebody acting on behalf of the police (I don’t think it matters whether, if she was, she’s a cop or another sort of agent of the authorities), and you’ve got me curious enough to see if I can find out which it is.
It may be that the woman was not a police officer per se, but an agent working with the police. That much isn’t clear, but both serve to create the same issue/problem.
But one point needs to addressed:
Which is why you can’t assume that she is a left-handed, etc. The absence of a statement in the Dispatch does not contradict an affirmative description by ABC. Since this was never a post about the merits of indecent exposure, or whether cops should stop drug dealing in parks, or any of the other potential issues you may think up, there’s no purpose in pursuing tangents.
For what it’s worth, Jodi Andes — the Columbus Dispatch reporter — informs me that the police said in court that the topless woman was neither a cop nor unofficially working for them. Their story (true or not) is as I’d surmised, apparently.
So was she “officially” working for them? I’m guessing that’s a typo, and you meant she was not “officially” working for the cops.
Given their defense of the “sting”, coupled with the fact that they immediately pounced on the exposed firefighter (meaning they were waiting for this) and the topless woman’s request that he expose his penis, there is something quite disingenuous about this parsing of words, that she was not “officially” working with the police.
Well, my Spidey sense is tingling. I’m informed by somebody who has seen the tape that a: the women was “sunbathing” in the shade, and b: showed no particular surprise with the squads rolled up.
I’ve emailed a local acquaintance, asking that he do a public records request on the tape; my curiosity has been piqued.
Return of the Texas Tornado
For those of you who, like me, suffered severe withdrawal while Mark Bennett, the Texas Tornado, jetted across the pond to rile up the locals by doing every Paris
Return of the Texas Tornado
For those of you who, like me, suffered severe withdrawal while Mark Bennett, the Texas Tornado, jetted across the pond to rile up the locals by doing every Paris