General Reports

I happen to be visiting here from the East Coast and would like to see that myself.
When is this happening and exactly where might this be.

Somebody said it was a Block Party type thing. Hope I can make that.

[QUOTE=Excellent Dude]
Now in Maryland, there are clues that tell the amp owner that the customer is a cop. Police in Maryland cannot totally disrobe. Total disrobing, is considered entrapment there.

Excellent Dude[/QUOTE]


Always meant to ask this, and since ED is on the subject...what are the scenarios in Hawaii laws that would constitute entrapment? If you ask a Ho if she's a cop, and she says no and later busts you for setting up a deal, is that entrapment? Stuff like that.

Looks like I might head over to Oceans Friday night. Never made it in the last time.

Will try to dress up this time. Will keep my fingers crossed.

Hope the martini's are as good inside as they were outside.

Anyway, thought I fell for a new lady. These things hardly ever

work out. Hope she changes her mind. Everythings cool.

E. Dude

[QUOTE=Alohashorts]Always meant to ask this, and since ED is on the subject...what are the scenarios in Hawaii laws that would constitute entrapment? If you ask a Ho if she's a cop, and she says no and later busts you for setting up a deal, is that entrapment? Stuff like that.[/QUOTE]

The legal doctrine of entrapment is a bit more complicated than most people realize. In a nutshell, the police/government can't do anything that would induce an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to commit a crime that he/she wouldn't commit were it not for the actions of the police.

Having a decoy stroll the sidewalk is not entrapment, no matter how she's dressed. The ordinary, law-abiding citizen (it is presumed) wouldn't solicit a prostitute. Dangling bait in front of you isn't entrapment. If you take that bait, it's all on you. If you approach the girl, initiate contact, and negotiate the deal, there's no entrapment. If the decoy were to aggressively flag you down, initiate contact, start negotiating, and make the offer of a sex act in exchange for money, then you might have an entrapment defense. The more aggressive the decoy is in trying to negotiate, the better your chances. It has to look like you're a poor innocent citizen who normally would never do such a thing, minding your own business, when this woman starts aggressively trying to make the sale and, in essense, wears down your resistance to the point where you give in to temptation. Entrapment defenses are very difficult for you to prove, and very easy for the cops to avoid. They will never try to flag you down, they'll wait for you to approach them. They will never initiate the deal, they'll try and maneuver you into negotiating. They will never be the first one to mention either sex or money, they'll try and get you to do that.

Even if you do have the makings of an entrapment defense, there are some elements that can trip you up. If the prosecutor can show that you were somehow predisposed to commit the crime, then your entrapment argument goes out the window. How could they do that? Well, one example would be if the police observed you circling the block on Kukui multiple times for half an hour before you made contact with the decoy, you'd better have a very convincing explanation of why you were driving around, otherwise it could be considered evidence that you were "cruising" for a "date." That could undermine your defense. If you are observed approaching and talking to several girls over a period of time, trying to find the right one, or the right terms, that's evidence that you were looking to do the deed. And if you have any prior arrests/convictions for soliciting, forget it! That, by itself, proves that you were predisposed to commit the crime.

Oh, and asking the decoy if she's a cop is a waste of time. Cops are allowed to lie to you during undercover operations, and that does not constitute entrapment. For entrapment, you have to show that the police pressured you in such a way that you agreed to commit the crime when you would never have done so without that pressure.

CA

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have mongered in a Holiday Inn Express.

Yes but the whole decoy thing still seems like it's in violation of an american's basic constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This could be interpreted as a serious violation. Any laws/action by anyone or any organization in this area of life seems in direct violation of the constitution.

The above seems a logical assumption.

Of course, anything can easily be twisted out of it's context by the needs of the political legal system.

Still doesn't make it right.


Also, and I quote C.A.,

"In a nutshell, the police/government can't do anything that would induce an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to commit a crime that he/she wouldn't commit were it not for the actions of the police".

C.A. the above statement has happened a million times over.

What! Why is the law in some sort of distant LaLa land?

As I've said above, "anything can easily be twisted out of it's context by the needs of the political legal system".

My brothers...there is a simple explanation as to why this "hobby" is illegal. It is simply due to the fact that these so called "moral" politicians, who see to it that we have laws and personnel to "protect" us, cannot tax and collect from these hard working young women who provide a great service. Unfortunately human physiology, morality, government and taxation cannot coexist in our mongering world.

Woe is me for not being able to partake in the fun for a
while. Economy and thin wallet syndrome have left me one the sidelines for a while. Hope to go SOMEPLACE soon and report lol. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend!

My 2sense. Thanks for reading. Tear it up as you will.

Stay frosty,
Kaminari

I've been trying for a long time but to no avail.

Search "Japanese Call Girl" in google video or on youporn/redtube.
The video has been floating around the internet for several years but I could never find out the name of the AV actress.

Anyone know who that AV chick is...? If anyone knows, thanks in advance.

[QUOTE=Kaminari]My brothers...there is a simple explanation as to why this "hobby" is illegal. It is simply due to the fact that these so called "moral" politicians, who see to it that we have laws and personnel to "protect" us, cannot tax and collect from these hard working young women who provide a great service. Unfortunately human physiology, morality, government and taxation cannot coexist in our mongering world.[/QUOTE]

Simply not true, Brother Kaminari. Prostitution is legal and taxed quite effectively in the Nevada brothels. However, I definitely would NOT want to see that particular system imposed in other states for various reasons. I favor "decriminalization" rather than "legalization." With decriminalization, you simply repeal the anti-prostitution laws on the books (with the exception of those against forcing someone to be a prostitute). It then becomes an unregulated business (other than taxation), just like any other business. With legalization, you set up a system similar to Nevada's with licensing and regulations. If you allow regulation, you open the door to "back-door" attempts at eliminating prostitution by coming up with such strict and complex regulations that it's difficult to follow them all.

Prostitution is illegal because of the excessive influence of religion in politics. Sexual morality is largely defined by religious beliefs. That means that laws regulating sexual morality are imposing a particular set of religious values on the general population. Isn't that supposed to be a violation of the First Amendment's "anti-establishment" clause?

We can take a lesson from Rhode Island. The only state in the union where prostitution is legal.
The Canadians have it down as legal, too.

Anybody want to do any research, as to how things are done in both places.

I've been to both places. And it seemed like things were similar and different to us.

[QUOTE=Showboatt]Yes but the whole decoy thing still seems like it's in violation of an american's basic constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.[/QUOTE]

That's a novel argument, but wouldn't get you very far. For starters, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn't enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It's in the opening of the Declaration of Independence. Even so, the pursuit of happiness, like any other right, isn't absolute. Yes, bangin' hoes makes us happy. So what? Raping and murdering makes some sickos happy. Should that be made legal, then? Obviously not! Even those rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights aren't absolute. We have freedom of speech, yet you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie house. You can't make public statements about someone that you know to be false. That's called slander. We have freedom of the press, but you can't publish statements about someone that you know to be false. It's called libel. We have the right to bear arms, yet laws regulating firearms are allowed. The point is, as long as prostitution is illegal, you don't have the right to solicit them, even if you consider that to be pursuing happiness.

You don't like sting operations and decoys. I don't either. I don't like the government making laws regulating my sexual morality (see my previous post). I seriously question the legal basis upon which these laws are made. I don't think the government legitimately has the power and authority to make such laws, but until the courts rule that they don't, they'll continue to do so. I don't like it one bit, but it's a fact of life that we all have to live with until enough people take a stand and challenge the government's right to legislate morality. Some have tried, but they're too few, and too isolated to succeed. How many of us are willing to stand up, publicly, and demand the repeal of prostitution laws, the infamous Andy Mirikitani "anti-lap-dance" law, etc.? Most of us aren't in a position to take the hit from the publicity and backlash from doing something like that.

[QUOTE]Also, and I quote C.A.,

"In a nutshell, the police/government can't do anything that would induce an ordinary, law-abiding citizen to commit a crime that he/she wouldn't commit were it not for the actions of the police".

C.A. the above statement has happened a million times over.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree with you. The word "induce" was deliberately chosen. It rises well above something like "enticement." Decoys are definitely enticing. That's why they use them. But enticing you to solicit a prostitute isn't entrapment. You may want to define it that way, but the law does not. "Inducing" is closer to "pressuring" or "coercing" someone. To constitute entrapment, as the legal system defines it, the police would have to use some pretty heavy-handed tactics to twist your arm and get you to do something that you would never do on your own. The decoys never force you to pull over and talk to them. You choose to do that. They don't force you to negotiate an exchange of a sex act for money or other consideration, you choose to do that. If the decoy is the first to name an act and an amount, then you have the makings of an entrapment defense, unless they can show that you were predisposed to commit the crime. If you ask for sex and offer an amount to the decoy, then you're pretty much screwed, and not in a good way. I sympathize with you. I really do! But merely having a decoy strolling the track isn't entrapment, never was, and never will be, no matter how much you want to believe that it is.

I hate to say this. But having been to other countries. People wonder why we live in a country with so many laws restricting our every move.
Even in Mexico, they wonder why mexicans wonder across the border, only to give up their freedom. We are know as the country of no freedom.

[QUOTE=Showboatt]We can take a lesson from Rhode Island. The only state in the union where prostitution is legal.
The Canadians have it down as legal, too.

Anybody want to do any research, as to how things are done in both places.

I've been to both places. And it seemed like things were similar and different to us.[/QUOTE]
You should check your facts before you get others and yourself into trouble. Rhode Island no longer has legal prostitution they closed that loophole. Only Nevada is legal and it has exceptions in Reno and Las Vegas.

It is as CA states, you have to make a stand be ready to be publicly ostricised. The reason is that it is majority rules and quite frankly we are outnumbered.

[QUOTE=Candy Addict]That's a novel argument, but wouldn't get you very far. For starters, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn't enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It's in the opening of the Declaration of Independence. Even so, the pursuit of happiness, like any other right, isn't absolute. Yes, bangin' hoes makes us happy. So what? Raping and murdering makes some sickos happy. Should that be made legal, then? Obviously not! Even those rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights aren't absolute. We have freedom of speech, yet you can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie house. You can't make public statements about someone that you know to be false. That's called slander. We have freedom of the press, but you can't publish statements about someone that you know to be false. It's called libel. We have the right to bear arms, yet laws regulating firearms are allowed. The point is, as long as prostitution is illegal, you don't have the right to solicit them, even if you consider that to be pursuing happiness.

You don't like sting operations and decoys. I don't either. I don't like the government making laws regulating my sexual morality (see my previous post). I seriously question the legal basis upon which these laws are made. I don't think the government legitimately has the power and authority to make such laws, but until the courts rule that they don't, they'll continue to do so. I don't like it one bit, but it's a fact of life that we all have to live with until enough people take a stand and challenge the government's right to legislate morality. Some have tried, but they're too few, and too isolated to succeed. How many of us are willing to stand up, publicly, and demand the repeal of prostitution laws, the infamous Andy Mirikitani "anti-lap-dance" law, etc.? Most of us aren't in a position to take the hit from the publicity and backlash from doing something like that.



I can't agree with you. The word "induce" was deliberately chosen. It rises well above something like "enticement." Decoys are definitely enticing. That's why they use them. But enticing you to solicit a prostitute isn't entrapment. You may want to define it that way, but the law does not. "Inducing" is closer to "pressuring" or "coercing" someone. To constitute entrapment, as the legal system defines it, the police would have to use some pretty heavy-handed tactics to twist your arm and get you to do something that you would never do on your own. The decoys never force you to pull over and talk to them. You choose to do that. They don't force you to negotiate an exchange of a sex act for money or other consideration, you choose to do that. If the decoy is the first to name an act and an amount, then you have the makings of an entrapment defense, unless they can show that you were predisposed to commit the crime. If you ask for sex and offer an amount to the decoy, then you're pretty much screwed, and not in a good way. I sympathize with you. I really do! But merely having a decoy strolling the track isn't entrapment, never was, and never will be, no matter how much you want to believe that it is.[/QUOTE]


I have to agree with you 100% CA on both your posts, people may not like it, but opinion does not matter. When dealing with the law, words are specially chosen, as the saying goes...a gentlemen says what he means and means what he says. Entice and induce may seem similar but are very different. Just as different as saying "I want you to F... me" and "I going make you F.... me."

[QUOTE=Showboatt]I hate to say this. But having been to other countries. People wonder why we live in a country with so many laws restricting our every move.
Even in Mexico, they wonder why mexicans wonder across the border, only to give up their freedom. We are know as the country of no freedom.[/QUOTE]

You are apt to also get more readily killed in mexico. I have also been to many other countries, and many are more restrictive, try living there, not just visiting before you can truly judge.

China, Japan, Singapore, Europe, Middle East, depends on what laws you are talking about. Just sex and drugs? Or overall?

One of the reason the United States as a whole is against prostitution is human trafficking, literally sex slaves, which do exists in the states believe it or not, especially in Mexico, Japan, Singapore, Middle East etc, most on this board proabably don't want to believe that it may exists here in Hawaii, if the girl wants to do this for a living I am fine, but I empathize for those who were kidnapped and coerced into the trade.

From what I understand, these girls parents or the girls themselves borrowed money from certain businessmen, in their country, and the girls are here working to pay that debt off.

A business deal, if you will.

And I would guess perfectly legal in their country.

And the girls probably accepted and agreed to the transaction before it was made.

They are basically agreeing to do this on their own volition.

You can hardly say it was beyond their will.

It probably happens here in this country. Beyond their will. And that's why, we in this country don't understand how the above agreement is possible.

Look, if these girls wanted to escape the trade, how many of us mongers would take them in.

All of us, probably.

A lot of this beyond their will thing is all a "crock of do-do".



Da Boat has spoken truth.