Your local cops and DA's...
... probably want you to save up your sperm count, so you can donate to their wives for free, giving them a few more kids to feed...
[QUOTE=Fairwinds]It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Isn't this supposed to be a free country? You can't even be approached by a couple of girls in a fast food place without the cops asking you a zillion questions. Why can't they get their priorities straight and stop wasting their time hassling providers and hobbyists? Every other country in the world tolerates prostitution (except child prostitution) to one degree or another. Only our LE are paranoid about it. When I hear stories like Herb Surfs', I really get angry.[/QUOTE]
1076-C (in Tustin) ... analysis
If indeed this establishment beat a LE bust in Court ... let's analyze what may have transpired (and the Court said "NO" to).
The defense may have raised the issue of entrapment. You know the argument. It goes something like ...
"Your guys walk into our business. You get undressed. You suggest you have sex on your mind instead of a legitimate massage (does the crime of "solicitation" apply to LE as equally as it applies to the whoremonger public?). YOU suggest money for sex ... a crime if ever there was one. And when our employee massuese takes the bait you claim that the employee is on the wrong side of the law and that your behavior has no flaws. Prove to the Court that this sex-for-pay behavior would have taken place if your side had done nothing to encourage it. You Can't!"
That may have been the defense argument (and apparently it won out).
Hey guys, think of your streetwalker pickup days.
The guy's part of picking up a streetwalker was easy. Don't talk business until she gets in the car. That simple. A decoy cop will NEVER get in a car. It's too dangerous (her support cops lose all control over her safety should the "John" speed away and pull a gun on the imposter).
But for the lady SW the problem of being picked up by an undercover cop is a living nightmare hell. Think about it.
The undercover cop could be driving almost any make/model automobile. It could be a clunker, it could be a luxury car. Anything!
The undercover cop could take on any appearance. Young, old, trim, out-of-shape. He could be sporting a beard that hasn't been tidied up in over a month!
She can ask "Are you a cop?" but that means nothing. The Court has established that the undercover cop does NOT have to answer that question truthfully.
The parties can do the "touch-me, let me touch-you" thing, but that also means nothing. That is no impediment to busting the gal.
The gal had no reliable method of determining if the guy she got into a car with ... no way of proving whether she is dealing with a cop.
But if the 1076-C massage parlor did beat a bust in Court arguing that the cops essentially "entrapped" the massuese, entering a legit business complete with a paid up city business license ... entered the business establishment and hinted that they wanted to partake (solicit) in a crime, then act offended when the massuese took the bait ... what a great legal victory for the sex crime industry!
That's my take of what I think probably happened.
Feel free to respond (positively, for sure ... negatively, uh, alright go-ahead).
