If it were possible to make an accurate calculation of the evils which police regulations occasion, and of those which they prevent, the number of the former would, in all cases, exceed that of the latter. – Karl Wilhelm Von Humboldt
Knowledge is power; it not only allows one to manipulate one’s local region of the universe, but also to resist attempts by others to manipulate one. I’m sure all of my readers have noticed that once they become familiar with a subject that articles or stories written by people ignorant of that field become annoying or even laughable, and the omissions and misinformation inherent in propaganda stand out like dirt under an ultraviolet light. The following is paraphrased from an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazetteof Sunday, October 17th, 2010; it is an excellent representation of the sort of prohibitionist propaganda which the police love to issue and which gullible reporters swallow whole because they can’t be bothered to investigate the facts or interview anyone with an opposing view (and wouldn’t be allowed to print it if they did).
An Illinois prostitute was arrested recently in Monroeville, Pennsylvania after allegedly offering an undercover cop sex for $200. Prior to going to the room, she met him in the hotel parking lot and grabbed his crotch. Police call this a “cop check”, one technique women use to tell a cop from a customer. Schooled by the Internet, experience and fellow prostitutes, they post lookouts, frisk johns, demand that men get naked or ask them to fondle them. They think cops will balk at such demands, but they’re wrong. “These girls take it to another level,” said the Monroeville officer, who has worked prostitution stings for 18 years and asked that his name not be used.
She certainly didn’t learn that from the internet, unless it was from some dumb bunny who’s never been popped before; all experienced girls know that neither touching nor anything else will expose a cop because they can do whatever they like, and even in jurisdictions where there are rules of behavior the cop will just lie and say he didn’t do whatever it was he wasn’t supposed to do. Note that this slimeball enjoys victimizing women so much he’s done it for 18 years.
This kind of prostitution bust goes on every day at area hotels, which have asked police to do something about increasingly savvy hookers traveling to Pennsylvania from as far off as California, Texas, Nevada and Hawaii. But it’s become news in Green Tree, where police Chief Andrew Lisiecki reportedly allowed a 32-year-old Fort Lauderdale, Florida woman named Akudo Duru (whom he contacted from her Backpage.com ad) to begin performing a sex act on him in a hotel room on September 9th before arresting her.
Hotels “asked police to do something about” touring escorts? Oh, please! Aside from the odd bluenosed manager, hotels love escorts; they’re clean, quiet, tip housekeeping and book rooms out of season. What’s actually going on in this paragraph is an intentional confusion of travelling escorts (who stay in 3-star hotels) with streetwalkers in fleabags, who may very well anger management with noise, drama and attracting cheap undesirables. Also note these yahoos giving themselves airs by pretending that Pittsburgh is some kind of Mecca for touring escorts!
According to Lisiecki’s affidavit, the two met at the Radisson and disrobed at her request. He asked her whether she wanted her “donation,” code for payment. After she told him to put it on the table, Lisiecki claims, the woman used her hand to start a sex act. He said he stopped her and told her he wanted more. When she pulled out a condom, he arrested her and called in two other cops. Lisiecki said the appearance of a condom is an obvious indication of sexual intent and predicate for an arrest. The chief has since been criticized for going too far, but prosecutors and police say he did nothing wrong. Touching, they say, is sometimes necessary because veteran hookers are careful not to verbalize sex acts.
Yes, it’s “code”, which is why the cops know it too; the word is “jargon”, ignoramus. The “indication of intent” thing infuriates public health advocates; by pretending the presence of a condom is “evidence of prostitution”, cops discourage streetwalkers from carrying them. But I guess the cops think their weird aversion to condoms is more important than public health. But of course he did nothing wrong; he’s a big, brave hero who busted a damned dirty whore! And even if he had done something wrong, he would simply perjure himself and deny it.
Lisiecki, a former Pittsburgh police lieutenant who became chief of the 10-man Green Tree force last year, said criticism of his conduct is unfair and has hurt his wife and children. He claimed that he doesn’t enjoy physical contact with prostitutes, many of whom are drug addicts and are at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. “I don’t like being touched by these girls but sometimes you can’t avoid it,” he said. “Some will not voice any sex act, so you can’t make the arrest.” He said he decided to do stings himself because hotels in his community have asked for help, but his force is small and he won’t make officers work a detail if they don’t want to. “A lot of guys don’t want to do this work,” he said.
This paragraph is a gold mine. The big booming metropolis of Green Tree (population 4422) has such a huge problem with prostitutes that it has to devote a THIRD of its force (i.e. all who were on duty at the time), including the chief himself, to deal with the scourge of wanton women running up and down the streets and causing general consternation. Next, a PUBLIC OFFICIAL claims immunity from criticism on the grounds that it has “hurt his wife and children.” Gee, maybe he should’ve thought of that before accepting public office and then abusing his position to get free hand jobs. Then he claims that he doesn’t like being touched by girls, despite the fact that he clearly had an erection because otherwise she wouldn’t have brought out the condom. Obviously, an erection constitutes clear legal proof of sexual disinterest in Pennsylvania; the “rape is not a crime of sex” crowd may buy that, but no sexually aware woman would. Then he trots out the old “diseased whore” stereotype, followed by a pathetic attempt to cast himself as a hero. And the reason “A lot of guys don’t want to do this work” is because of these things called scruples, which the chief clearly lacks.
At least 25 recent affidavits from area police indicate that his tactics are not uncommon; cops often take their clothes off and touch or allow themselves to be touched. While it’s legal, some officers don’t think this is a good idea, and some lawyers also question whether contact is appropriate since the law simply states that prostitution occurs when an agreement is made to exchange money for sex. David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said most police around the country usually make arrests after a verbal agreement. “It’s not illegal for him to do what he did,” he said. “It is simply unusual…I’m not sure he had go that far to make the arrest.”
I think this speaks for itself.
Chief Lisiecki disputed that, however, saying he has received messages of support from vice units around the country who use similar techniques such as the Indianapolis PD policy which instructs officers to wait until the prostitute touches them before arresting her. “Most (prostitutes) know not to talk,” said Sgt. Jon Daggy, late-shift supervisor of the Indianapolis vice unit. “They put you through these tests to see if you’re a cop. In many cases they’ve been coached by lawyers.”
Is even one person surprised that he received kudos from other vice cops? They probably swap these stories over beer. Apparently the brilliant legal mind of Sgt. Daggy is superior to that of the lawyers who “coach” prostitutes by giving them incorrect information about the efficacy of cop tests.
The prostitutes, who often carry laptops to keep track of appointments and post online ads, keep working because they make good money despite the occasional arrest. Some can clear $5,000 in a weekend, police said. If they have to pay a $300 fine now and then, “That’s the cost of doing business,” said Lisiecki.
$5000 in one weekend? Not hardly. In a busy week, sure, but not in two days. Long division is your friend; try it sometime. But since you admit you can’t stop prostitution, why the hell are you wasting public money trying to?
Prostitution is often referred to as a victimless crime, but police say it isn’t because it attracts other crime that can degrade the community. If independent prostitutes are permitted to work, detectives say, the stage can be set for an organized ring to move in and control the sex trade. What’s more, police say, prostitution is rampant. During one bust at a Monroeville hotel, officers learned that five hookers were working the same building that day. In Moon, police have made 33 busts this year. In the city, Lt. Mathias said, officers arrest between five and 10 prostitutes every day.
Once again we have the intentional equation of internet escorts with local streetwalkers. How, pray tell, do touring escorts “attract crime”? Do they carry thugs in the trunks of their cars, perhaps? And then we get the old “whores and pimps” fallacy again; “an organized ring…move in and control?” WTF is that even supposed to mean? I’ve been in this business for ten years and I’ve never heard of an “organized ring moving in” (from outer space, apparently) to “control” anything. Do these retards mean escort services, or are they talking about the Mafia? And how do they imagine these imaginary bogeymen “control” independent escorts, especially ones who are only there for a few days? Once again, we’re faced with a lurid masturbatory fantasy of whores enslaved by pimps, dreamed up insecure men who cannot handle the fact that the sex trade is controlled almost entirely by WOMEN.
Since the Green Tree incident, several departments have asked the district attorney’s office for guidelines on stings. Lawyers can generally challenge arrests on two fronts: entrapment and “outrageous government conduct,” but neither usually succeeds. “Entrapment” happens when an officer deceives an innocent person into committing a crime; interstate hookers rarely fall into that category. “Outrageous police conduct” means a violation of due process; the landmark Pennsylvania case involved a 2006 arrest in Allentown where state troopers paid an informant to enter a massage parlor and have sex four times with two women. The judge ruled that the man did not need to have sex four times and a verbal agreement would have sufficed. “We expect more from the police, and demand that they conduct their investigations and utilize their resources without resorting to such embarrassing investigative techniques,” the judge wrote. “No standards existed for this type of investigation, and some of the behavior by the participants was sophomoric.” He dismissed the case and prosecutors appealed, but last year Superior Court upheld the ruling.
Yes, they can challenge on those grounds, but only shysters try because they know it won’t work and merely advise their marks (excuse me, “clients”) to fight because it results in more billable hours. Lawyers know they can’t win prostitution cases because they’re “he said, she said” and the court is biased in favor of the cops, so any half-decent one will simply advise his client to take the plea bargain, pay the fine and get on with her life. The fine doesn’t even cover the cost of the trial much less the sting, so the public is left paying the bill for crooked cops to get their sadistic jollies by having sex with whores and then busting them.
there was an interesting case on cnn last night about two teens who were “abducted” and made to work. This may or may not be common, but added with your comment of: “… with streetwalkers in fleabags, who may very well anger management with noise, drama and attracting cheap undesirables.”, it is easy to see how people get so worked up about the line of work.
If the only thing one sees is 3%, but it’s all bad, how easy is it to accept that the other 97% isnt bad too? Not agreeing with it, just can see how people see it very differently.
but i do think that a fair amount of what the public sees is controlled by men, even though what they see is only that same 3% that isnt pretty.
disclaimer – i have no idea what the percentages really are, just picked a number from thin air to use for discussion.
Then why aren’t people clamoring for the prohibition of cops and politicians? Far more than 3% of them are bad, and we see them on the news far more often than hookers. The problem isn’t bad press, it’s entrenched stereotypes supported by official propaganda.
Because of the perception of which is more evil.
And a lot of it is press/media driven. In the past the media only set the agenda, now people just seem to believe and think what they hear from the media.
You are getting hung up on facts, instead of belief. 😉
Yeah, I’m kind of silly that way. 😉
Yup. Even entrapment is legal here in the UK, and female cops pose as street sex workers to capture ‘kerb crawlers’ in places like Nottingham.
I do think a film set in NY at a precinct boundary in which two cops – a guy client cop trying to entrap hookers and a female hooker cop trying to entrap clients – end up arresting one another could be quite fun. Directed by Woody Allen, don’t you think?
Jon Daggy’s blog by the way (bet you can’t wait) is here:
http://blueguardian.wordpress.com/
🙂
Funny thing about Daggy’s blog is that I didn’t know about it until after I wrote this column, then noticed the link on your site last night. He mentions the reporter who wrote the original article I paraphrased above had contacted him, which makes that reporter look even worse since his “internet research” consisted merely of finding another prohibitionist true believer rather than attempting to interview someone from SWOP or USPROS for an opposing view. 🙁
Only if they later got married and winded up cheating on each other with real johns and prostitutes.
Whatever happened to investigative journalism? You don’t find out what’s going on by asking one side a few questions and then reading an article that agrees with it. I see a lot of reporters and anchors interviewing each other, and asserting that since what is claimed was already printed somewhere, that should be good enough.
Reporters, please. You are supposed to be what protects us from disinformation. You are supposed to be noble enough a profession that is makes sense that Superman would choose to be one of you when he isn’t in uniform. You are there to dig deep and check the things the rest of us would check if
a) we could spare the time from work (it IS you work) and
b) we had the resources (which more and more of us do, thanks to the Internet).
Exactly so. I think the problem is that the big media conglomerates who own every non-internet news outlet have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo; controversy sells, but unpopular editorial positions do not.
Well-said! 🙂
One of the problems with the media in this area as in many others is that the vast mass of media have little time to be anything other than superficial. Investigative journalism is also very expensive journalism.
Realistically, I think we can hope for two things: sex worker rights organisations to raise their profiles and efficiency, so that media outlets think of and contact them, and that therefore at least an alternative perspective can be communicated; and secondly that they undertake pro-active initiatives so they are not caught on the back foot all the time.
ant is sort of right about perception, except that when you survey the actual public (our UK public, anyway), some polls suggest that antipathy to the sex industry is nothing like as widespread as people think. I think what holds up progress more than anything is (a) politicians’ understandable fear of media backlash if a more liberal regime is proposed, and (b) disunity among those advocating change, between decriminalisation; various forms of legalisation/regulation; and the Swedish catastrophe advocated by the radfems.
But polls are only a limited snapshot and not always accurate in reflecting the sentiment of the whole. More importantly, some people say things in one environment, and something completely different elsewhere. Give me a thousand people and you may get seventeen hundred opinions on the same matter.
I started to type a reply, but soon realized it would make a whole column for tomorrow. 🙂
While reading this, I kept thinking of the South Park episode in which a male cop masqueraded as a female hooker to arrest the customers. He always insisted on sucking their dicks, and always waited until they were finished before arresting them.
LOL! 😀
Pittsburgh is one of the most corrupt cities in the country, it just flies under the radar because it’s…Pittsburgh. It’s an old time mob town and a lot of the police here act like they’re in the mob instead of public service. Greentree and Monroeville are suburbs and not in the actual city but their police forces, like most others in Allegheny County, have the same bad reputation. I think prostitution is the least of their worries considering drugs and gangs are rampant. They should legalize prostitution everywhere in this country. I’m sure the government could make a lot of money taxing it and guys (and girls) who lack the charm, looks and money to attract one of the local gold diggers here could get something besides a beat-down from their miserable lives.
You’re comments are awesome! I live about 15 minutes from where those arrests took place and I grew up with a lot of the people in the area that became cops (and I’ve visited my share of escorts).
1. Cops on the whole are lying pigs. Pittsburgh cops are stupid lying pigs who are terrified of actually getting caught up with the real trouble in the area. See if any of those cops want to go three miles away from Green Tree to the Hill where people do drug deals in the open, in front of cops, and laugh at them because the police know they’re outgunned (and out-manned). That’s why they pick on traveling girls.
2. I simply cannot understand the problem the cops have with internet escorts that travel from city to city. You know, not all guys are married. I travel 40 weeks a year so it isn’t though I can date. And I don’t want to hang out in bars trying lame pick up tricks on women. And to be honest – I like escorts. They tend to be pretty down to earth as far as it goes with women.
What is wrong with me having protected sex with a woman who takes almost exactly the same amount of money that I would spend on a date, or at a bar? We’re not bothering anyone. It takes place in a quiet hotel that is usually not crowded. No one is walking the street or flagging people off the road. Escorts don’t make trouble in hotels because they want to fly under the radar – the ones that do are just trash. They’re usually not even on the internet – just picking guys up in bars and bringing them back, which is disgusting.
[…] departments in the Pittsburgh area have a long history of this kind of misbehavior, such as the 2006 case in which state troopers paid an informant to pay for sex at a massage parlor four times before busting anyone (the judge dismissed the case, calling the scheme “sophomoric”). […]