Canada Launches Criminal Investigation of Men Who Watched Hot Girl-on-Girl Action [Archive]

Lemur

09-01-2010, 15:23

I'm kinda conflicted about this one. On the one hand, there are very few men in this world who wouldn't stop and take a look if they saw two attractive females going at it. On the other hand, there are issues of privacy, consent and abuse of power. I'll just post the salient bits and listen to what my fellow Orgahs have to say:

Jail cell sex video prompts RCMP investigation (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/08/31/bc-rcmp-sex-in-jail-cell.html)

Four RCMP officers and three civilian employees at a police jail in B.C. are under investigation for allegedly watching a video feed of two female inmates having sex in a cell and doing nothing to stop the sexual activity.

Both women had been arrested for public intoxication and were in a cell commonly referred to as the "drunk tank" at the time, RCMP spokesman Insp. Tim Shields said Tuesday. [...]

[F]or seven minutes on Aug. 18, four RCMP officers, two civilian cell guards and a civilian watch clerk — all of them men — watched the two women engage in what appeared to be consensual sex without intervening.

The women had been arrested in two unrelated incidents for causing a disturbance and being drunk in public and were being held in a cell that is monitored by closed-circuit video, Shields said. [...]

Shields said investigators now have copies of the video taken inside the cell, as well as the video from another camera in the guard room, which he said clearly shows who was watching the monitor and for how long.

"We know with complete clarity and with impartiality when each employee arrived, how long they stayed and when they left and really what they were looking at," said Shields.

rory_20_uk

09-01-2010, 15:36

al Roumi

09-01-2010, 16:11

Who is pressing charges? Surely not the women involved? If you are in a cell, why on earth would you think you had any privacy? Did the guys act of watching inflcit any physical or emotional harm -beyond embarrassment? If it's a question of duty of care, if neither woman was coerced into "performing the act" or harmed by it, how have the guards etc let their charges down?

If this was guards watching a fight or publicising the spectacle then I'd understand, but it doesn't sound like they did...

Sasaki Kojiro

09-01-2010, 16:21

Yeah it seems pretty obvious that they should have broken it up rather than stood there gawking.

al Roumi

09-01-2010, 16:26

Yeah it seems pretty obvious that they should have broken it up rather than stood there gawking.

Forgive my naivety, if it was consensual, why should they have broken it up?

Hosakawa Tito

09-01-2010, 16:32

I'm not sure how the Corrections Law reads in Canada, but Kurando might be able to answer that question. New York State Dept. of Corrections law forbids sex between inmates, consensual or not. The officers in question should have ordered them to stop, and used appropriate physical force to make them comply if necessary. These officers will most certainly face Dept. charges for not doing their jobs.

So, how long before the vid is available on teh web?

Cute Wolf

09-01-2010, 16:35

why there is a lwasuit against these generous man? tell me who won't stop at such moment and record them? :embarassedg:

man... if a hot lesbian couple having sex in front of me, of course I'll record it!!!!:kiss2::oops:

and I would gladly share them... to my friends of course.... :gathering:

(evil porn collector mode on)

...

Hold up... looks at you and shame on you! what if those lesban couples are being ashamed and their families got ridiculed?... you must never done it!!! PERVERT!!!! :oops::sorry2:

(angel mode on :angel:)

Fragony

09-01-2010, 16:36

Aren't they supposed to monitor activity, now they were having sex what a load of bull. Of course you watch that.

Skullheadhq

09-01-2010, 16:36

Forgive my naivety, if it was consensual, why should they have broken it up?

Because they were drunk?
Even then, pressing criminal charges against guards who did their job by monitoring the 'drunk tank' is rediculous.

their families got ridiculed?

Not in the west, perhaps if it happened in Indonesia that would happen.

al Roumi

09-01-2010, 16:39

I'm not sure how the Corrections Law reads in Canada, but ... New York State Dept. of Corrections law forbids sex between inmates, consensual or not. The officers in question should have ordered them to stop, and used appropriate physical force to make them comply if necessary.

:bow: ah, yes, despite the constant media and other stories of sex etc in prison, it's not allowed, probably just as murder (also frequently appearing in prison dramas) is not allowed. What would we do without trashy dramas about women only prisons? Watch more news and social science documentaries?

Sasaki Kojiro

09-01-2010, 16:41

Forgive my naivety, if it was consensual, why should they have broken it up?

They were drunk enough to have been arrested. I doubt people think much about whether someone can see them when they are that drunk either.

Even then, pressing criminal charges against guards who did their job by monitoring the 'drunk tank' is rediculous.

Well they didn't do their job.

Vladimir

09-01-2010, 16:45

I'm thinking pepper spray.

Hosakawa Tito

09-01-2010, 16:49

:bow: ah, yes, despite the constant media and other stories of sex etc in prison, it's not allowed, probably just as murder (also frequently appearing in prison dramas) is not allowed. What would we do without trashy dramas about women only prisons? Watch more news and social science documentaries?

Hehehe, It's j-a-i-l, that means no fun or freedoms allowed. You think they put up all those fences & razor ribbon to keep people out?
You wanna have consenual sex with other adults, inanimate objects or animals don't go to jail.

I'm thinking pepper spray.

Get out the fire hose, easier to clean up.

drone

09-01-2010, 16:52

It's nice to see that the ladies were still able to hook up despite being arrested for public intoxication. No sense in letting the evening go to waste. :yes:

From the article, the issue is not the sex, but the issue of consent.

"What is at issue here is the level of consent that could have been given by one or both of the women in consideration of the fact that they had both been brought into cells for being drunk in public," Shields said in an interview.
Since they were drunk, they couldn't give legal consent. So the guards should have broken them up. But I imagine most guards would do what these guys did, and most of us would do the same as well.

Louis VI the Fat

09-01-2010, 16:56

YOU'RE ALL GAY NOBODY HAS YET ASKED HOSA HOW TO GET A JOB IN JAIL

EDIT: HOSA IS GAY TOO HE BREAKS UP HOT LESBIAN SEX

Fragony

09-01-2010, 16:57

Well they didn't do their job.

Why is that, job just got more interesting. What if one was a sadist black widdow and they missed it, they make out for everyone to see, np here.

al Roumi

09-01-2010, 16:59

YOU'RE ALL GAY NOBODY HAS YET ASKED HOSA HOW TO GET A JOB IN JAIL

Neither did you, so by your own logic you are a poofter too! ahah!

Now for us all to get drunk and stuck in a cell...

Beskar

09-01-2010, 17:19

It is a serious offense for the officers. It comes under criteria for "Abusing a position of authority" (it is was recorded for personal use or spread about) to "Negligence of Care for some one in your Responsibility". I probably got those titles incorrect, but they are along those lines.

For my job, I would and have intervened in cases like this and these officers would have most likely had the same duty.

Also, the title is incorrect, it would most likely not be "Hot Girl-on-Girl action", it would be closer to "Beaver meets Platypus".

Hosakawa Tito

09-01-2010, 17:23

YOU'RE ALL GAY NOBODY HAS YET ASKED HOSA HOW TO GET A JOB IN JAIL

EDIT: HOSA IS GAY TOO HE BREAKS UP HOT LESBIAN SEX
Hehehe, never had the pleasure of breaking up lesbian sex, but one time I did have the guy pitching ask if he could finish...
Want a job in NYS Corrections? Well by golly urine luck (http://www.docs.state.ny.us/Jobs/CO_Exam.html)...we're always looking for a few good poofs.

Neither did you, so by your own logic you are a poofter too! ahah!

Now for us all to get drunk and stuck in a cell...
You do realize that inmates are segregated by gender, but if that's not a problem...

It's nice to see that the ladies were still able to hook up despite being arrested for public intoxication. No sense in letting the evening go to waste. :yes:

From the article, the issue is not the sex, but the issue of consent.

Since they were drunk, they couldn't give legal consent. So the guards should have broken them up. But I imagine most guards would do what these guys did, and most of us would do the same as well.
Don't matter if they're stone cold sober...no joy.

Cute Wolf

09-01-2010, 17:24

@Skull
nice :D... now did anyone had the link to the porn video? me want that! me want that! Those lesbos want their hotness to be exposed for all the world! me want that!!!

Joking of course :clown:

Skullheadhq

09-01-2010, 17:34

@Skull
nice :D... now did anyone had the link to the porn video? me want that! me want that! Those lesbos want their hotness to be exposed for all the world! me want that!!!

Joking of course :clown:

The link is in the article

InsaneApache

09-01-2010, 17:50

I'd have gone straight to the cell and got between them. You know it makes sense.

drone

09-01-2010, 17:52

Don't matter if they're stone cold sober...no joy.
I think it's different in Canada:

Consent, not sex, is the issue

"If one person was severely intoxicated, then it brings into question their ability to consent to that type of activity," he said.

"It is our duty to ensure that they don't come to any type of harm, and that would include being engaged in sexual activity while they're drunk."

Shields said there is no firm policy about what to do when inmates are having sex because, except for the drunk tank, prisoners are not kept in the same cell.

He stressed the issue in this case is about whether two intoxicated prisoners could legally consent, rather than the fact they were having sex in the first place.
There apparently is some confusion with prison policy, requiring the guards to be lawyers with regard to consent, and not just flat out prohibiting getting it on.

Fragony

09-01-2010, 17:55

It is a serious offense for the officers. It comes under criteria for "Abusing a position of authority" (it is was recorded for personal use or spread about) to "Negligence of Care for some one in your Responsibility". I probably got those titles incorrect, but they are along those lines.

What for, press an indecency charge on tops if hot lesbian prison-sex isn't your ting but hey are already under arrest anyway, who's harmed in any of this, things like this are the very reason that I sometimes love humanity.

Devastatin Dave

09-01-2010, 18:00

The only way to judge this is to have the evidence. The video must be shown to the public so we can get a better accurate picture or the events that took place...

Hosakawa Tito

09-01-2010, 18:04

I'd have gone straight to the cell and got between them. You know it makes sense.
Yeah, give 'em half an hour to cut it out.

The only way to judge this is to have the evidence. The video must be shown to the public so we can get a better accurate picture or the events that took place...
Preferably in high definition.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-01-2010, 18:04

I think it's different in Canada:

There apparently is some confusion with prison policy, requiring the guards to be lawyers with regard to consent, and not just flat out prohibiting getting it on.

How do they have to be lawyers? It's common sense.

drone

09-01-2010, 18:24

How do they have to be lawyers? It's common sense.
They have no policy about inmate sex. Assuming consent, which I imagine the guards acertained from the girls' actions, why intervene? The charges indicate that guards are supposed to be well-versed in consent cases in law.

The more I think about this, the more I think that word of this incident went public, some puritan went off and made a couple of calls, and the prison officials had to charge the guards with something other than just being pervs (aka bored guys).

Cute Wolf

09-01-2010, 19:02

The more I think about this, the more I think that word of this incident went public, some puritan went off and made a couple of calls, and the prison officials had to charge the guards with something other than just being pervs (aka bored guys).

Yeah, if anyone of us become that guard, I'll bet we'll do the same thing.... (or worse)

Sasaki Kojiro

09-01-2010, 19:09

They have no policy about inmate sex. Assuming consent, which I imagine the guards acertained from the girls' actions, why intervene? The charges indicate that guards are supposed to be well-versed in consent cases in law.

What laws did they have to know about in order to know that they should have broken it up? The drunk consent issue is obvious, no sex in semi-public place is pretty obvious, and the "they gave up any expectation of privacy" excuse is clearly weak. If your neighbors were drunk and left their blind open, would you stand there and watch? Obviously not.

The more I think about this, the more I think that word of this incident went public, some puritan went off and made a couple of calls, and the prison officials had to charge the guards with something other than just being pervs (aka bored guys).

"perverts aka bored guys"? :dizzy2:

I mean, jokes aside.

drone

09-01-2010, 19:43

What laws did they have to know about in order to know that they should have broken it up? The drunk consent issue is obvious, no sex in semi-public place is pretty obvious, and the "they gave up any expectation of privacy" excuse is clearly weak.
The article is a little weak on the details, so I can't really guess the drunkeness of the inmates. No timeline of custody and processing is given, they could have been stone-cold sober by the time the incident occurred.

If your neighbors were drunk and left their blind open, would you stand there and watch? Obviously not.
If you asked 100 anonymous people that question, I think you would be surprised by the results.
And it would depend on how hot the wife is. ~;)

"perverts aka bored guys"? :dizzy2:
How would you describe the guards?

Strike For The South

09-01-2010, 20:59

Hehehe, never had the pleasure of breaking up lesbian sex, but one time I did have the guy pitching ask if he could finish...
.

2 questions:

1. Did you let him?

2. Was it consenual or a good old down home raping?

Hosakawa Tito

09-01-2010, 22:37

2 questions:

1. Did you let him?

2. Was it consenual or a good old down home raping?

1. You don't ever crack a cell in a max jail without adequate backup. It took the boys a few minutes to get there, so he had time if he didn't dally.

2. It was a "business transaction" and he just wanted to get his money's worth *a carton of cigarettes*.

InsaneApache

09-01-2010, 23:44

some puritan went off and made a couple of calls,.

Ah yes, the bastard offspring of the bansturbators. Sat in a darkened room, worried to distraction that someone, somewhere, somtime, might be having a good time. Perhaps involving women/men, booze and illicit drugs.

Sad really.

Xiahou

09-02-2010, 01:22

From the article, the issue is not the sex, but the issue of consent.

Since they were drunk, they couldn't give legal consent. So the guards should have broken them up. But I imagine most guards would do what these guys did, and most of us would do the same as well.
You know, I've always believed that if you're willfully intoxicated, everything that you do as a result should also be considered willfully done. Unless someone force fed them alchohol or drugged them, they were consenting as far as I'm concerned.

Did the guards and onlookers violate prison policy by not intervening? That sounds a little unclear at this point- but that will be up to their employers to decide.

Lemur

09-02-2010, 04:16

It was a "business transaction" and he just wanted to get his money's worth *a carton of cigarettes*.
Thus confirming that The Onion is the most accurate news network in the world.

Warning: video contains exactly one f-bomb near the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IYIJc1f00

Rhyfelwyr

09-02-2010, 13:34

The common sense thing to do would be to break it up, talk about abusing positions of authority.

rory_20_uk

09-02-2010, 13:37

How exactly were they abusing positions of authority?

~:smoking:

Rhyfelwyr

09-02-2010, 13:51

How exactly were they abusing positions of authority?

~:smoking:

Their job was to remove these girls off the street for their own protection and that of other people, not to get free porn.

It may or may not have technically been an abuse of authority (they seem to be depending on some loophole because this particular prison usually separates inmates and has no policy for these things), but it was at least extremely unprofessional.

rory_20_uk

09-02-2010, 13:57

Unprofessional most likely.

They got them off the streets to clean the streets up of drunken trash. That said trash started rutting like dogs in the pound is their own stupid fault as apparently they, contrary to all available evidence, are able to function on an adult level without supervision.

If this experience humiliates them to reviewing their existence then so much the better.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

09-02-2010, 14:23

The camera wasn't hidden. They are not in a private place. They were willing participants. I guess when anything sexual happens to a woman when she's drunk a man somewhere has to get in trouble...

Personally I think it's a bloody dull job and this is one of the few perks they get. If anything the women should be re-arrested for indecent behaviour. And left with some sponges, a few bottles of whipped cream and chocolate sauce in the cell - just to err on the side of safety.

~:smoking:

i'm with Rory on this, to do otherwise might be:
a) an abuse of their human rights to express the normal range of human emotion without repression
b) dereliction of the states duty of care to ensure that unnecessary harm does not occur to those in custody

Beskar

09-02-2010, 14:36

b) dereliction of the states duty of care to ensure that unnecessary harm does not occur to those in custody

Actually, not stopping them would be that. As they are a danger to those around them and themselves (hence why they are in there in the first place).

Point a) is simply hogwash though, or that could simply be the way you defined it.

Furunculus

09-02-2010, 14:38

Actually, not stopping them would be that. As they are a danger to those around them and themselves (hence why they are in there in the first place).

Point a) is simply hogwash though, or that could simply be the way you defined it.

spoil sport!

Strike For The South

09-02-2010, 16:03

1. You don't ever crack a cell in a max jail without adequate backup. It took the boys a few minutes to get there, so he had time if he didn't dally.

2. It was a "business transaction" and he just wanted to get his money's worth *a carton of cigarettes*.

Well you're still cutting the romance out of it IMO.

Not a bad deal

Ronin

09-03-2010, 10:40

BOW-CHIKA-WOW-WOW.

that is all I have to say.

Kurando

09-08-2010, 22:19

I'm not sure how the Corrections Law reads in Canada, but Kurando might be able to answer that question. New York State Dept. of Corrections law forbids sex between inmates, consensual or not.?

Yeah, up here we are mandated federal legislation as well as by Commissioner's Directives and one of the Directives relates to women being on camera.

CD577 section 17. Only female staff shall monitor offenders under camera surveillance. Monitor screens will be situated in posts in such a way as to ensure the offender's privacy.

First off, women can't be placed on camera in a cell without a supervisors say so. Second, once the camera is turned on, no male officers can be in the control post. Female officers have to observe the cameras. The rules are a real pain in the butt operationally, but they are in place to stop stuff like this from happeneing. I defitnely follow that proceedure on the job, the consiquences are pretty harsh for screwing around with stuff like that, and rightfully so.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-09-2010, 01:56

The officers clearly broke regulations on this and they will pay the administrative penalty for it.

While prisoners can have no reasonable expectation of privacy during incarceration, they should be protected against exploitation. It is now a "virtual" certainty that this video will appear on the internet and compromise their privacy AFTER their incarceration was concluded.

I suspect the attornies are lining up to represent them in the lawsuit -- which should not have to go to trial if the State's representative has 4 brain cells co-located.