Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Appeals court finds for Palm Springs cops, not “filthy mother-f*ckers and c*cksuckers”

Timothy Kincaid

January 18th, 2013

Two years ago, the police in Palm Springs decided that they wanted to crack down on the “bunch of filthy mother-f*ckers” and “c*cksuckers” who frequent the Warm Sands area. So they set up a sting. They dressed attractive officers in tight clothes to give come-hither looks to the gay men going to the various spas.

And when a man approached, the officer would say, “show me what you got“. Some of those foolish enough to suppose that the police in gay-friendly Palm Springs would never engage in entrapment fell victim to the officer’s encouragement and were arrested for indecent exposure.

This did not go over well with the city’s residents and the Chief of Police resigned. But the Riverside County District Attorney, who answers to a larger much more conservative constituency wasn’t going to let the obvious entrapment and homophobic slurs stop him from prosecution. So rather than go for the mild “lewd acts”, he sought prosecution on “indecent exposure” charges, a criminal category designed to punish predatory acts on unwilling victims which requires the guilty party to register for life as a sex offender. And he was shocked, shocked!, when four of the victims didn’t just plead guilty in exchange for dropping the sex offender registration, like he requested.

And when they got to court, the judge wasn’t at all interested in the fact that the police regularly ignored heterosexual lewd acts and made no attempt to crack down on repeated complaints about heterosexual acts. Nor did he think it worth noting that there had been no complaints at all – none – about this “threat to public decency”. Instead he discovered that there was nothing at all discriminatory about the targeting of gay men – and only gay men – in sting operations.

So they appealed.

And on January 3rd, the appellate court agreed. (mydesert.com)

A three-judge panel concluded that “there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the prosecution did not engage in invidious discrimination.”

“As unprofessional and inappropriate (as) the comments may be, they do not demonstrate discriminatory intent on the part of the Department,” the judges wrote in the ruling.

Which is, of course, absurd. There really is no question whatsoever that this was discrimination. Not to those who are open to even the possibility that gay people should be entitled to the same treatment by their government as straight people – which, it seems, does not include these judges.

Even the police force couldn’t muster up a statement of agreement.

“The Police Department respects the decision of the Riverside County Superior Court in this matter,” Chief Al Franz wrote in an email. “We reached out to the community after those events transpired in an effort to regain the community trust that was lost. We will continue building upon the relationships with all of the citizens and businesses that we serve and are dedicated to moving forward.”

So, unless they fight on, these four men will be sex offenders, a danger to the safety of children, criminals. All because some police officers channeled the 70′s and decided to go show the faggots who is in charge.

But the vile truth is that it is perfectly legal to target gay people for discrimination in law enforcement. Laws directed at gay people, and only at gay people, are legal. We are not a protected class, there is no presumption of unconstitutionality in the behavior of federal, state, or municipal officers, and if the courts protect the police from the people (instead of the other way around), we have little recourse.

Today.

Which is why the cases before the Supreme Court right now, the DOMA3 case and the Prop 8 case, are so very important. Yes, they address marriage, but they really address a bigger issue: do the protections of the US Constitution also apply to gay people. And are laws (and relatedly behavior) which target gay people for abuse to be subjected to merely to “rational basis” rules or are the realities of millennia of oppression and hostility directed at the LGBT community to be recognized and some form of enhanced scrutiny applied when police and district attorneys and judges decide that heterosexuals deserve one type of treatment while reserving quite a different treatment for the “”.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

David Foreman
January 18th, 2013 | LINK

I really, really don’t understand why there isn’t more outrage. The police get more and more wicked, even have much of that wickedness caught on video, and there seems to be very little outcry.
Americans seem to think that they must accept the abuse, or lose security. We’re losing our freedom in the name of freedom.
And yes, DOMA, Prop 8, and here in Indiana HJR6, are legal battles whose importance cannot be over emphasized.

Lucrece
January 18th, 2013 | LINK

The police don’t get more and more wicked; what absurd ignorance if you had any understanding of how the police has functioned throughout history.

It’s always been that way. Police corruption is not new. Profound, callous allowance of injustice by judges? Not new either.

The sex offender registry itself in its current iteration is an abomination against civil liberties. A reminder of what fear does to people.

charlie
January 19th, 2013 | LINK

@ Lucrece Agree 100% on the sex offender registries.

I hope these guys appeal but I don’t know what the odds are.

If a cop asks to see your junk on a dark and empty street then why should it be illegal to show it to him if no one else is there to see it? He got what he asked for and he wasn’t harmed nor was anyone else.

customartist
January 19th, 2013 | LINK

Who are these Judges?

What are their names?

They seem to be incapable of understanding the Constitutional clause “Equal Protection”.

There exists a State Department of Justice (Judicial Conduct) to whom this might be addressed.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

Support AFER
http://www.afer.org/

Mark F.
January 19th, 2013 | LINK

customartist:

Judges who merely make bad decisions are not subject to punishment.

Reed
January 19th, 2013 | LINK

“Boycott Palm Springs,” anyone?

DN
January 20th, 2013 | LINK

“But the vile truth is that it is perfectly legal to target gay people for discrimination in law enforcement. Laws directed at gay people, and only at gay people, are legal. We are not a protected class, there is no presumption of unconstitutionality in the behavior of federal, state, or municipal officers, and if the courts protect the police from the people (instead of the other way around), we have little recourse.”

100% true. And it’s a disgrace that religious belief *is* a protected class. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice – being an adherent to a religion is.

I’ve long said that we should create a church of gay so that we could enjoy the same protections 80%+ of the population enjoys.

David C.
January 21st, 2013 | LINK

@David Foreman—your observation is not a new one:

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither —Benjamin Franklin

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.