Org Mobile Site
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
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.
Jail cell sex video prompts RCMP investigation
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.
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.
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.
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...
If this was guards watching a fight or publicising the spectacle then I'd understand, but it doesn't sound like they did...
Yeah it seems pretty obvious that they should have broken it up rather than stood there gawking.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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?Yeah it seems pretty obvious that they should have broken it up rather than stood there gawking.
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?
So, how long before the vid is available on teh web?
why there is a lwasuit against these generous man? tell me who won't stop at such moment and record them? 
man... if a hot lesbian couple having sex in front of me, of course I'll record it!!!!
and I would gladly share them... to my friends of course....
(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!!!!
(angel mode on
)
man... if a hot lesbian couple having sex in front of me, of course I'll record it!!!!
and I would gladly share them... to my friends of course....
(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!!!!
(angel mode on
)Aren't they supposed to monitor activity, now they were having sex what a load of bull. Of course you watch that.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
Forgive my naivety, if it was consensual, why should they have broken it up?
Because they were drunk? Forgive my naivety, if it was consensual, why should they have broken it up?
Even then, pressing criminal charges against guards who did their job by monitoring the 'drunk tank' is rediculous.
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf:
their families got ridiculed?
Not in the west, perhaps if it happened in Indonesia that would happen.their families got ridiculed?
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
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.
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.
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?Originally Posted by alh_p:
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.Forgive my naivety, if it was consensual, why should they have broken it up?
Originally Posted by :
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.Even then, pressing criminal charges against guards who did their job by monitoring the 'drunk tank' is rediculous.
I'm thinking pepper spray.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
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? 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?You wanna have consenual sex with other adults, inanimate objects or animals don't go to jail.
Originally Posted by :
I'm thinking pepper spray.
Get out the fire hose, easier to clean up.I'm thinking pepper spray.
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. 
From the article, the issue is not the sex, but the issue of consent.
From the article, the issue is not the sex, but the issue of consent.
Originally Posted by CBC:
"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."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.
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
EDIT: HOSA IS GAY TOO HE BREAKS UP HOT LESBIAN SEX
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.Well they didn't do their job.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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! YOU'RE ALL GAY NOBODY HAS YET ASKED HOSA HOW TO GET A JOB IN JAIL
Now for us all to get drunk and stuck in a cell...
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".
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".
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
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...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
Want a job in NYS Corrections? Well by golly urine luck...we're always looking for a few good poofs.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
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...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...
Originally Posted by drone:
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.
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.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.
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.
@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!!!
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!!!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf:
@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!!!
The link is in the article@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!!!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I'd have gone straight to the cell and got between them. You know it makes sense.
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito:
Don't matter if they're stone cold sober...no joy.
I think it's different in Canada:Don't matter if they're stone cold sober...no joy.
Originally Posted by CBC article:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
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.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.
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...
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
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.I'd have gone straight to the cell and got between them. You know it makes sense.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
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.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...
Originally Posted by drone:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
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.How do they have to be lawyers? It's common sense.
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).
Originally Posted by drone:
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)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).
Originally Posted by drone:
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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"? 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).
I mean, jokes aside.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO