men arrested for lewd behavior...

[Guest ssn774]

:o

 

 

Link:

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/017/region/Police_raid_R_I_adult_video_st:.shtml

 

 

Police raid R.I. adult video store, arrest seven men for lewd behavior

 

By Associated Press, 1/17/2002 19:47

 

JOHNSTON, R.I. (AP) Seven men have been arrested in an undercover raid of an adult video store after police said they were found exposing themselves and performing indecent acts.

 

Undercover detectives went to Amazing Express Video on Route 6 after receiving an anonymous tip, said Deputy Chief Gary Maddocks.

 

Arrested were: Craig Ranshaw, 41, of Woodstock, Conn.; Christopher Scott, 30, of Cumberland; Edward Sherman, 57, of North Attleboro, Mass.; Joseph McGrath, 69, of Warwick; Paul Lichtemberger, 49, of Scituate; Alan Reisch, 48, of Arlington, Mass.; and Stuart Denton, 55, from Plainfield, Conn.

 

All seven of the men have been charged with disorderly conduct for exposing themselves. Four of them McGrath, Lichtemberger, Reisch and Denton are charged with loitering for indecent purposes. They were all released on personal recognizance.

 

The store's owners have not been charged.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Arrested were: Craig Ranshaw, 41, of Woodstock, Conn.;

>Christopher Scott, 30, of Cumberland; Edward Sherman, 57, of

>North Attleboro, Mass.; Joseph McGrath, 69, of Warwick; Paul

>Lichtemberger, 49, of Scituate; Alan Reisch, 48, of

>Arlington, Mass.; and Stuart Denton, 55, from Plainfield,

>Conn.

 

The AP reporter who wrote this story should be shot and fired (in that order). By printing the names of the people who were arrested, the reporter is just letting himself be used by the Police, who know that the only real punishment these hungry cocksuckers will ever get is humiliation from having their names in the paper, and the stupid report obliges by priting their names.

 

How fucking disgraceful of AP - yeah, it's really important news that the following individuals were sucking cock in video store booths: Craig Ranshaw, 41, of Woodstock, Conn.; Christopher Scott, 30, of Cumberland; Edward Sherman, 57, of North Attleboro, Mass.; Joseph McGrath, 69, of Warwick; Paul Lichtemberger, 49, of Scituate; Alan Reisch, 48, of Arlington, Mass.; and Stuart Denton, 55, from Plainfield,Conn.

 

Thank God for the fucking press. Can you imagine if we, as a free citizenry, weren't informed of this development?

[Guest ssn774]

same story, an excerpt from

http://www.projo.com/cgi-bin/story.pl/northwest/06884291.htm

 

 

"Tamburini said he was struck by the varied backgrounds of the people involved. He said background checks run by the department when the men were taken into custody showed that Scott is a Cumberland High School mathematics teacher and Reisch is a lawyer. He said McGrath is retired, Lichtenberger is unemployed, Renshaw is an engineer and Denton is a janitor. Tamburini said Sherman is a registered sex offender in Massachusetts."

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>

>Thank God for the fucking press. Can you imagine if we, as

>a free citizenry, weren't informed of this development?

 

I totally agree with TT - but - keep in mind that the only mandate of the press is to sell papers or boost TV ratings. And a story that "no cocksuckers were arrested today" would not have as much impact.

 

The only way to stop these leaches is to stop buying into their hype!

 

Thunderbuns;-)

[Guest neverbeenhad]

God help these poor guys. That is one of the most horrible things I've ever seen printed. When I was a kid I remember seeing one of those restroom raid stories from a mall; even then it was like, what can possibly be gained from this? The newspaper needs a nice fat lawsuit; even the ones that fail will show these people for the losers they are. I used to do work for a fairly big regional daily, and I know--newspeople are VERY often dysfunctional losers who are so glued to their keyboards that they are prectially living in caves. At my place, they were never happier than when there was a fatal crash or some other disaster. So glad I got out of that....

But I really wish the original poster had just said they published the names, instead of repeating the injury.

[DaninWA]

>The only way to stop these leaches is to stop buying into

>their hype!

 

 

Actually, the way to stop a leech is to burn it off your butt with a red-hot poker.

 

Hmmm, there's a thought. ;-)

 

Dan

[Jeff]

I feel for the guys, but I don't go so far as to say the reporter should be shot. Bottom line is, these guys are breaking the law - and in public, no less, so the risks are high. Unless they're completely clueless, they know it's a risk they take. And the press has every right to print what they want, whether these guys like it or not; it comes with freedom. I'm sorry for them, but I don't think that they are entitled to special rights or treatment; they should go to a bathhouse or other place where such activity is legal, or risk the exposure and don't complain when things don't go as would be ideal. Perhaps some of them aren't humiliated; perhaps some of them don't care. Good for them. But you're probably right that most of them are humiliated, especially in a small town; I sympathize with them, but unless they're retarded, the risks are pretty clear. You got to live with your decisions and their consequences.

[phage]

I assume since you frequent this site that you, at least occasionally, hire the services of an escort. If you were caught up in some bizarre kind of police sting, would you think it appropriate that a newspaper print your name and occupation? Would that just be another price-of-freedom humiliation that you would have to live with because of your “retarded” decision to pursue an illegal activity?

[Guest WetDream]

It is interesting that you think that activities of the sort that these men were arrested for are "legal" in a bathhouse. They aren't. And even if they were, how many American small towns come equipped with bathhouses for gay men? Where I grew up the nearest gay bar was 60 miles away and as for a bathhouse -- forget about it!

[Jeff]

Absolutely. It's a chance I take if I hire an escort. I try to do in it in private and try to be careful, but there's always a fear of a sting or some way of getting caught. If it happens, I know I'll have to deal with it. It's definitely on my mind. I don't expect special treatment were it to happen; I'm sure if it does, I'll feel pretty dumb for having taken the risk. But I won't complain that it's unfair or wrong or insensitive if it gets out, I know it can happen and I accept that possibility. Incidentally I have been arrested for "lewd behavior" very similar to this; it was embarrassing and humiliating - and I felt stupid for doing it after the fact. I accept the consequence. I haven't done it again. But I understand and sympathize with those guys more closely than you may know.

 

As for bathhouses, there are bathhouses where it is legal to do that kind of activity; there are sex clubs too. You're right, many small towns don't have them. TOUGH. You deal with what you got. But that's not an excuse to do something illegal, or expect people just to look the other way if you do. Again, I'm sorry for the guys, but they took the chance and have to pay the price. The law's the law, and someone who breaks it risks being exposed. That's life. Get used to it. Just because I may sympathize with their plight doesn't mean that they deserve any more special treatment than anyone else who breaks the law. I didn't deserve it either, and I dealt with it and moved on.

 

Also, for the record, read my comments more closely next time; I never called them "retarded." My only point is that anyone doing what they did knows the risks - unless they are "retarded," or incapable of knowing the obvious, i.e., you break the law, you get arrested, and it may very well become public information.

[Jeff]

Also, to answer your question - yes, to preserve "freedom," I would accept it if the information gets out. It's the right of reporters to print what is public information. Why should a person deserve any better treatment than anyone else who breaks the law, just because we may sympathize with that person's situation? That comes with preserving freedom, which is far more important than the "right" to masturbate or get it on with other guys in public or in places where it's illegal.

[Guest regulation]

>If you were

>caught up in some bizarre kind of police sting, would you

>think it appropriate that a newspaper print your name and

>occupation? Would that just be another price-of-freedom

>humiliation that you would have to live with because of your

>“retarded” decision to pursue an illegal activity?

 

In a word, yes. We're all adults here -- let me revise that. We're all old enough to understand that public humiliation is one of the risks you take when you commit a crime.

[Guest TexasTaurus]

Actually....

 

...they may have been in places they consider "private". I have seen that here in Dallas, Vice Officers will peek through small cracks in "private" video booths or have two officers lift a third one up into the air so they can look over the top of the booth and see someone masturbating (or whatever) inside a closed booth. If the officers see them, they are arrested even if they have to break down the booth door and get them out.

 

The actions of some customers in video stores can be disgraceful at times, but the actions of Vice are usually disgraceful.:'(

[buzz]

There was a similar case earlier in the week near Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Cops raided a sex club called Chaps in a strip mall and arrested several men including a junior high school teacher who is married with kids. Cops charged them indecency, etc.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>Also, to answer your question - yes, to preserve "freedom,"

>I would accept it if the information gets out. It's the

>right of reporters to print that is public information.

 

Nobody is suggesting that what the reporter did was illegal, or that the law ought to prohibit this disclosure. That isn't the point. The point is that with rights come responsibilities, and the right of a free press imposes upon the media the duty to exercise that right responsibly.

 

If a reporter wanted to, he could follow you around, look through your windows, then write a story about how you cheated on your boyfriend by hiring a whore, that you went into your bedroom by yourself and stuck a dildo in your hole, put nipple clamps on, rented a video on bestiality, etc. You would be humiliated, and the reporter would be well within his rights since everything was true. There would be nothing you could do.

 

Even though the reporter has the RIGHT to publish all of that, we expect him not to, because that disclosure serves no public purpose. It may be fun to watch you be humiliated (and after your defense of this article, I personally would LOVE to see that), and it may be that the reporter has the RIGHT to publish that, but it would obviously be irresponsible for him to do so. If he did, it would be worhthy of condemnation.

 

What distinguishes the New York Times (and, presumably, AP) from the National Enquirer - at least in theory - is that there are limits on what the NYT will print. They will print things which are intended to inform readers about matters of public import, but not things that are purely scurrilous, tawdry, prurient, and of no public importance.

 

It is perhaps a matter of public import that 8 people were arrested for cocksucking in a video store. The identity of those individuals is not of public import; it is designed only to humiliate and punish them, which is, at best, arguably the proper role of the legal system, but not of the media.

[Jeff]

You may think there's no public importance in humiliating people who break the law, but I'm willing to be that many, if the not the majority, of people in the town will disagree. I'm sorry for them--believe me, I was for myself--but in the end they, and I, did break the law, whether we like the law or not, and in doing so did wrong. One could argue there's no public good in printing the names of anyone who breaks the law, but insofar as a community expects its members to abide by the law (and if they have a problem with the law, then at least to challenge it legally), it is the community's right to know who's not abiding by that law. Some may argue that by humiliating these people, others are more likely to think twice before behaving the same.

[phage]

>Also, for the record, read my comments more closely next

>time; I never called them "retarded." My only point is that

>anyone doing what they did knows the risks - unless they are

>"retarded," or incapable of knowing the obvious,

 

You’re right and I stand corrected.

 

>You may think there's no public importance in humiliating

>people who break the law, but I'm willing to be that many,

>if the not the majority, of people in the town will

>disagree.

 

As TT pointed out, it is certainly not, or should not be, the role of the media to meet out punishment in the form of public humiliation. Even the legal system has progressed past public humiliation as a form of punishment. Why don’t we just put them in the stockade in the town square of their little hamlet?

 

There are many things that are part of the public record. It’s necessary for a free and open society to avoid secrecy, but that doesn’t mean it should be open season on privacy rights. I realize that it was all perfectly legal, but is it the right thing to do? I certainly don’t think so, and for the record, I would think it was inappropriate for any misdemeanor crime – not just the ones that I disagree with. (Going out on a limb here and assuming it is a misdemeanor since I’m am neither cop nor lawyer.) I hardly think this kind of information is vital to the preservation of freedom and democracy.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

>If a reporter wanted to, he could follow you around, look

>through your windows,

 

most communities have peeping tom laws. the reporter could stand on the street & look toward your window & report on what he sees, but he cannot (legally) go up to the window & peek.

 

oh, why bother? i'm just "some two-bit little neurotic prostitute obssessed with himself"... i couldn't POSSIBLY have a brain or expect a right to an opinion!

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

>Where I grew up the nearest gay bar was 60 miles away and as

>for a bathhouse -- forget about it!

 

60?? I would have guessed only 35

to at least two.

 

:-)

[Guest TruthTeller]

>You may think there's no public importance in humiliating

>people who break the law, but I'm willing to be that many,

>if the not the majority, of people in the town will

>disagree. I'm sorry for them--believe me, I was for

>myself--but in the end they, and I, did break the law, . . .

 

(1) They haven't been found to have broken any law. They have only been arrested. Being arrested is not the same as breaking a law. Countless people are arrested and ultimately convicted of nothing. What this is, then, is punishment without any finding that they broke any law. How can you be for that?

 

(2) As phage points out, we've rejected public humiliation as a means of punishment. We don't parade people around in the public square or brand them with an A on their forehead (or, in this case, "C" for cocksucker). Even if what they did was illegal, public humiliation is not an appropriate punishment.

 

(3) Finally, and - to me - most importantly, the function of the press is not to punish the guilty. This isn't the Soveit Union, where Pravda operated as an arm of the State. Here, the press is supposed to be antagonistic to the State (that's why the advocates of the Constitution thought a free press was so vital). At the very least, the press should not be used as an arm of the government to punish people; that's the role of courts. The role of the press is to report newsworthy events, not to punish wrongdoers.

[Jeff]

DCEscortboy, everyone has a right to an opinion, yours is just as valid as mine and everyone else's, and I totally respect everyone's thoughts, including yours, whether I agree or not.

 

But I especially disagree with the comments with respect to "privacy rights"; if you commit an illegal act like jacking off in public, you can't ask to be given your "privacy" rights when you find yourself dealing with the consequences. It doesn't work both ways, and I think it's hypocritical to expect that one is entitled to those rights when they behave in such an inappropriate way in public, no matter how much I may sympathize with them for various reasons.

 

Yeah, OJ was never found guilty either, but does that mean the news shouldn't report it? One may be a far more serious crime than the other, but the journalistic principle is the same, like it or not.

 

All I'm saying is you do the act, you can't whine about the consequences, which may include humiliation. And I have no problem with people committing illegal acts being humiliated. It comes with the territory, and they ought to take it like men. I'm sure some of them will.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

jeff, i'm actually in total agreement with you.

[phage]

>DCEscortboy, everyone has a right to an opinion, yours is

>just as valid as mine and everyone else's, and I totally

>respect everyone's thoughts, including yours, whether I

>agree or not.

 

I completely agree and this is just a typical discussion – and a fairly civil one by this board’s standards. I trust that you were addressing me and the ‘DCEsortboy’ was just a slip. (He seems to me very much on people’s mind the last few days.)

 

>But I especially disagree with the comments with respect to

>"privacy rights"; if you commit an illegal act like jacking

>off in public, you can't ask to be given your "privacy"

>rights when you find yourself dealing with the consequences.

 

Do you even agree that people have such things as privacy rights? I believe it is a relatively new and still developing concept, but I thought that even though it’s not clearly spelled out in the Constitution, the courts were pretty consistently confirming that citizens do have a basic right to privacy.

 

Assuming there is some basic right to privacy, why wouldn’t they be entitled to it? Does simply being charged with a crime mean that you lose any of your other rights? Hell, isn’t that when we are generally most diligent about making sure that somebody gets all of their rights?

 

>All I'm saying is you do the act, you can't whine about the

>consequences, which may include humiliation. And I have no

>problem with people committing illegal acts being

>humiliated. It comes with the territory, and they ought to

>take it like men. I'm sure some of them will.

 

These guys – especially the schoolteacher – may have their lives ruined (at least in the near term) and they haven’t even been convicted. Seems harsh to me.

[Guest TopDadBoston]

I have to respond to Jeff's suggestion that the men who were arrested were breaking the law; should accept the consequences don't deserve any special treatment.

 

I agree that in general, scoflaws don't deserve special treatment, regardless of their social position. However:

 

First, we don't know if a law was broken. The fact that the "raid" was conducted "undercover" suggests to me that perhaps nothing lewd would have been observed by the law officers if they hadn't pretended to be receptive to seeing such things. We all know that many police departments work very hard to encourage homosexuals to break the law so that they can arrest them and make the world safe for normal people. It is possible that entrapment was a factor here. If so, the news agency and any paper that ran the story was (probably knowingly) an accomplice to entrapment. If the men are acquited, the paper will not be able to remove the slur to these men's reputations. Not illegal; just cheap yellow journalism. They should be held accountable for their bad judgement.

 

Second, Jeff seems to take the position that all good Americans should accept all laws without question. Personally, I believe that some laws are bad laws and that as citizens, we must stand up and object to them. The examples are endless: Blacks barred from restaurants, sodomy laws, legal discrimination against gays & lesbians, etc, etc....

 

If these men were participating in private sexual behavior, behind closed doors in a booth, albeit in a "public facility" where however, the facility is private property and such behavior is tacitly condoned by the owner(s); even though such an act may be illegal, I believe that this is a bad law and I think these men were unfairly arrested.

 

If we fail to be indignant, we disrespect the founding fathers who authored our constitution. It is just this kind of bureaucratic tyrany that caused them to rise up against the King.

 

Thank God they weren't running around India Wharf yelling "Don't throw that tea into the harbor - it's breaking the law!"

 

My 2 cents worth. I feel badly for these guys.

[Guest DCescortBOY]

several of the founding fathers were slave owners...