The problem with female Boston cops doing sex-for-hire stings

I agree, if she is the one that starts the exchange she is still the aggressor and that makes him a victim. If he waves her over and asks to "sample the goods" then it would seem a little different but she is still stealing his wallet. The blogger doesnt know how drunk someone is, some people play it off really well but are still impaired. They also fail to think that some of these people , even if not drunk, are confused by the exchange because they presumably came to the bar to have some drinks not get felt up by a hooker. Ive never had such an altercation and am not sure how I would react, especially if Im even a little tipsy, although if they are anything like my local hookers I would recoil from them very quickly lol.

From the description posted here, the pseudo-prostitute initiated these contacts and then committed a theft. All the victim did was to exit a bar.

I was reading this paramedic/EMT guy since before the blog on hiatus, and I haven't seen him as a glory hound.

I think it's good for people to understand more about what EMS does. We should also appreciate the value of it more than we do (at least, more than we do outside the rare moment when we or a loved one needs EMS), and make sure that EMS is properly funded.

I can see controversy over this anecdote of not always intervening in street crime, but "donut break" doesn't sound very nice when EMS is already underappreciated.

But you'd probably be a bit rankled too when you only get enough time in your job to have one doughnut break a month and the heroin addict was just looking for a free ride to the ER to score some more methadone for free.

Id rather it just be legal so we can set up certain places where it can happen and then at least the health and safety of all parties involved can be protected... Also we could tax it

"The idea of police going undercover to stop transactions based upon mutual agreement rankles me."

It's not really that mutual. Oh sure, she may concent, but most women aren't particularly happy to be selling their bodies for a living. Some are forced into it by pimps that they owe money to thanks to drug addiction, etc. Johns are taking advantage of their vulnerable and exploited status.

As for arresting johns vs. prostitutes, I've heard that some cities are trying hard to crack down on the pimps themselves. It's a lot harder since they can be on the sidelines, so it's harder to prove they are involved. They can also intimidate their hookers into not testifying against them. Unfortunately, I haven't heard how effective this tactic has been long-term.

You have to look at it from both sides of the coin. Sure by going after Johns you are creating an atmosphere where people are not sure if the hooker is real or not, and that can lead to less of it down the road. The problem is that all depends on publicity and if people are not aware that it is happening they will not avoid the local points of interest. It seems to me like this route may be popular with many jurisdictions because as a group the Johns are more capable and willing to pay any fines you toss at them, and by taking their car you now have leverage over them.

On the other hand by going after the girls your going after the root of the problem which is the person offering themselves. You take a girl off the street you affect many more meetings then by taking a John off the street. If she is not there she will not be selling sex, its physics really, she can not be in two places at once. The pool of hookers is much smaller then the pool of Johns so I would think that it would be easier to create a "stir" in the hooker ranks then the ranks of the Johns, but once again in these economic times which one is going to help pay the bills?