Thread: Supereloquent's Reports - Camden
+
Add Report
Results 1 to 15 of 28
-
10-15-10 09:52 #28
Posts: 2334Fantasy vs. Reality
More from my Philly thread about solicitation-related LE ticketing in Camden:
Fantasy vs. Reality in Camden
-
10-14-10 13:40 #27
Posts: 2334Monday Morning Quarterbacking
I recently posted this in my Philly thread, but it directly relates to the discussions here in Camden regarding the ticketing of mongers for violating various solicitation-related local ordinances.
I haven't been mongering in Camden recently and the prevalence of all the potential legal hassles is a big part of the reason.
Monday Morning Quarterbacking
-
07-11-10 09:47 #26
Posts: 2334Remembering Your Rights
Originally Posted by Johnboy
Originally Posted by Johnboy
Originally Posted by Johnboy
Originally Posted by Johnboy
Originally Posted by Johnboy
Originally Posted by Johnboy
Originally Posted by Johnboy
-
07-07-10 14:32 #25
Posts: 2334Camden's Finest?
I have been reading with great interest the recent unfortunate incident involving Johnboy and a ticket from Camden LE for "MC 395-5 "Visiting a disorderly area for an unlawful purpose (prostitution)."
I was never aware of this ordinance, although I was aware of the state and Camden municipal laws regarding "loitering for the purposes of prostitution."
It would seem to me, as others have pointed out, that all of Camden is a disorderly area! On that basis, anyone simply driving through town is committing a crime.
I am no lawyer, but it would seem to me that a charge involving this ordinance would require evidence to stick in court. The only evidence I can think would make it stick would be self-admission of the crime or solid evidence that you knowingly picked up the SW for sex. Knowing what I know about 5th amendment rights, always be polite to LE and answer their questions to the degree absolutely necessary, but NEVER, EVER give up your right to NOT make a statement or answer a question that would tend to incriminate you; it WILL be used against you in a court of law, especially, and apparently in Camden. It seems to me that, even if they got a statement from the SW involved, and used her as a witness, that it is still a he said/she said type of situation. It's a matter of credibility, his vs. some previously arrested/convicted SW they might try to flip on him. For all they know he was giving her a ride. There is no crime in that. It's not like they caught them in the act or anything.
Regardless of whether this rap can be beaten, it is a royal pain in the ass to defend, and involves a not inconsequential commitment of time and money. I think that is the point of the citation. With all the stings and busts in Camden vs. the K in Philly, they must be hell bent on driving mongers away. Philly LE seems to have bigger fish to fry on the criminal front. They seem to concentrate more on the SWs and the drug trade than on the mongers. And, there is plenty of robbery and violent crime to keep them more than busy.
I have a friend who shared with me in a PM a similar thing that happened to him just off the K in Philly. LE rolled up behind him at night without his noticing, as he was parked with a SW. He had his pants down, and the SW was fully undressed, and was sucking his cock as they shone their searchlight into his car! You don't get caught much more red-handed than that! Yet, after an interrogation and paperwork check and a verbal warning, the SW was cut loose to walk away, and so was he to drive away. Talk about a difference in handling prostitution between two neighboring cities!
Maybe Camden LE will get it's wish, because mongering there has turned downright risky. It's time perhaps to stick with digit dates and drop-offs and pickups FAR from any known strolls.
-
07-04-10 20:00 #24
Posts: 214Are you kidding me!!!
Originally Posted by Badlarry76
-
07-03-10 14:01 #23
Posts: 626Public pics, Civi vs. SW
I too can see both points of view on this topic.
I think that SuperE was doing an honorable deed by clearly mentioning that she was NOT a sw. I consider not showing her face as a good thing in this type of instance.
It would not bother me if I found a friend or relative's pic on this forum in this manner. It would only bother me that someone who didn't read the report might try to engage in a pick up attempt with her. That is why I'm thinking that a covered face pic, such as sunglasses or no face in pic might be proper etiquette with civi pics.
Now I personally won't post unknowns.
-
07-03-10 09:42 #22
Posts: 2334Both Sides of Public Pic Taking
Originally Posted by Seva Lurker
I take many pictures and post them here. The total is now in the thousands. So, I don't understand someone who would get their panties in a wad over my posting TWO eye candy pics! There are far many other members who post far more public pics than I do. At least I made it very clear that the gal was public eye candy, and did not imply nor state that she was a working girl. That is a LOT better than most of the other public pics posted here.
On the other hand, I see the point someone might make about posting pics of some innocent civilian on a site dedicated to finding women for sex. However, IMHO, if purists want to keep eye candy photos out of this site, then they should be fair about it and petition the Admin to make it a rule that one must have personal knowledge that the pics one posted are of females one KNOWS to be available for sex. That would mean one would at least know her name and/or the circumstances in which one has experienced this woman. Just being on a known stroll or standing on a hot corner isn't enough to prove anything. Are you telling me that every gal standing or sitting or walking at the Huntingdon Station is a SW, and not just a civilian waiting for a bus, or just planning to enter the El or meet a friend at the station? I would think that taking a public pic of a civilian there, or anywhere on Kensington Ave, or any known stroll, and then labeling her as a SW, when you don"t even know FOR SURE that she is a SW, is FAR, FAR worse than what I did! And that goes on ALL the time in here all over the country. If you have your undies in a twist about public eye candy pics, then complain about that before you knock my two pics, which were VERY CLEARLY identified as NOT being a working girl.
I took two eye candy pics, and already I have taken flak for it. That comes with the territory of posting a lot of reports and pics. The biggest targets attract the most attention, positively or negatively. But, I have not been convinced that I have done anything in posting these pics that others have not done, and done in MUCH greater volume. If you have a problem with eye candy pics, then you should also have a problem with any unidentified pics, and your fight about this should be with EVERYONE who does it and NOT JUST ME, or get the rules in here changed regarding public pics.
I have a firmly established pic taking MO that CLEARLY involves women available for sex. However, if I choose to deviate from that MO from time to time and take some eye candy pics and/or girls on a known stroll in public then I will do so, and disclose the circumstances, so there are no misunderstandings about what I know and what I only think I might know.
-
07-02-10 07:14 #21
Posts: 1123Originally Posted by Badlarry76
Like SE, I've stated up front they are not working and even add that statement to my photos.
On your side, there is something to be said for us not posting photos of non working girls. Some of us mongers are less than honorable, or don't read the posts but just look at the pictures, and would go up to any lady they've seen posted on the site and try to pick them up.
-
07-02-10 01:02 #20
Posts: 314Hi. I post mostly on the WV board, where I'm a Senior Member but I happened to notice this over here off the photo gallery. If this were a "girl-watching site" then maybe you might be right about taking random pics of attractive gals you just so happen to see and think look good in public places. But this site is about discussion, commentary and exchanging information on prostitutes, strippers, escorts, massage parlors -basically the world of sex for compensation and favors. If you photograph a random woman - a "civilian" in the parlance - a woman who is not of this world, and post it here, that then associates that woman with this world. She may not BE associated with this world OR MAY NOT WANT to be associated with this world. So any LEGAL recourse she might take against you or this site might be justified. Yes there are plenty of pics of gals out on the street, but they're in areas known in those locales for prostitution and it's obvious by their dress and patterns of activity what they're doing. Just because you've seen a few others on here do the same stupid thing doesn't justify it either. Again, this is a site about prostitution. Stay on that subject. I'd say you're lucky that gal didn't provide a shot of her face or you could be in trouble.
-
07-01-10 13:52 #19
Posts: 2334Rules for Public Pics?
Originally Posted by Badlarry76
Here is just ONE other example of literally hundreds posted on this site, a girl descending on an escalator:
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/at...&stc=1&thumb=1
Or this one and hundreds of others like it where the poster implies she is a SW and readily admits he doesn't even know who she is!
http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/at...&stc=1&thumb=1
It sure doesn't seem like there was too much "permission" going on for the escalator pic and hundreds of other public pic shots in here.
I see all kinds of pics taken in public in here: pics on street corners, pics of women walking, pics on the beach, whatever. I don't see any criticism of them. We don't know if they were SWs or whether there was "permission" to post them here or anything else for that matter. Many of the pics identified as SWs could be unsuspecting civilians for all we know. Even celebrity photos are posted here. So, if I disclose the circumstances of a pic, is that worse than others who do not? Was it the "mother" thing that crossed the line? For all I know the kid belonged to one of the other many adults in and around the pool. It's not like I took a deposition to find out. I made an assumption. However, she actually looked awfully young to have a kid that age. Maybe I assumed incorrectly.
My point is that if you want to criticize me for posting public pics, then you should be criticizing the HUNDREDS of others in here as well. Go for it crusader! It will be a full time job.
-
07-01-10 12:43 #18
Posts: 64Not too cool in the pool
With all due (or undue) respect Super E, it's one thing to post thousands of pics of the "ladies" you pick up, pay, and actually get permission to shoot. Lurking behind tinted glass and snapping shots of an innocent mother with her kid going about their legitimate business to post on a site such as this is just plain wrong. I'm glad she didn't turn to face your camera for her sake.
Not interested in starting any sort of war, I'm a fan of this site and many of your posts. That one just struck me as shameless.
-
07-01-10 08:57 #17
Posts: 2334Motel Bikini Sighting
When I recently took Pixie Jessica for a date at a nice motel, I noticed there was a pool in the center of the place. While I was checking in I saw a young spinner MILF (her kid splashing in his inner tube nearby) in the pool. She was built like a brick shit-house. I saw her at first from the front, and she was awesome: very pretty, blonde hair pinned up, nice tits, incredible shape, and wearing a striking striped bikini. When she turned around I noticed she had a tramp stamp on her lower back and a killer ass. But, by the time I discreetly tried to set up my camera to suppress the flash, get high resolution and set the lens for a long-distance shot, she had turned her back to me and stayed that way for whatever reason (I am sure she didn't see me because the sliding doors to the pool area were tinted). So, I was left with taking a few shots from the back. I hope you appreciate them. Man, would I have loved to tap that yummy morsel!
-
06-30-10 14:34 #16
Posts: 2334RE: Jessica and Leigh
Originally Posted by Hoe Hunter
Originally Posted by Hoe Hunter
-
06-30-10 13:34 #15
Posts: 626The my last few visits to Bway, I noticed a very aggressive leo presence. Not enough to deter my interests, but a good reminder to not let your guard down!
-
06-30-10 12:54 #14
Posts: 123Originally Posted by Supereloquent
Be safe
JB