Hey, there! Log in / Register
Mike Ross: Cops in Fens going after vandals and slobs, not gays
By adamg on Mon, 09/21/2009 - 2:39pm
City Councilor Mike Ross answers the Bay Windows article alleging harassment of gay cruisers in the reeds:
... I want to be clear that nothing is more important than protecting the rights of a group that, in the past, has been targeted for discrimination. The clearing of the tall reeds, or phragmites, and the increased police patrols around the Fenway Gardens is not so much a civil rights issue as it is an issue that goes to the core of what makes Boston vibrant, attractive, and accessible to all. Community gardens are important gems within a neighborhood, attracting positive outdoor activity within an urban environment and encouraging families -- both gay and straight -- to enjoy our green spaces. Residents feel unsafe in their own gardens. They have found condoms, needles, and garbage, and are afraid to bring their children to the Fens. Residents have a legitimate complaint. ...
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Gay or straight if your
Gay or straight if your having sex in public you should not expect much privacy and that includes visits from the police. They should do what every other self respecting person does when they want to have sex with a stranger without anyone knowing, get yourself to a motel room that charges by the hour.
as stated in the previous thread...
the issue becomes partially a definition of "public", and it directly impacts whether or not you are actually breaking any law.
there are three general laws that relate to public sex.
MGL c. 272, s. 16 Open and Gross Lewdness
MGL c. 272, s. 35 Unnatural Acts
MGL c. 272, s. 53 Indecent Exposure and Lewd and Lascivious Behavior
i can tell you that in all of these, intent, public offense, and whether or not you had a reasonable expectation of privacy, all have a big part in whether or not you have committed the crime.
you may not like it, but sex in a semi-public place is not automagically a crime.
You're trying to argue that
You're trying to argue that sex in a public garden is not a crime?
Or if it was semi-private, isn't that trespassing?
Sorry, but you're not going to get sympathy from 95% of the population on this one.
Do the deed as much as you want to, but do it in private. This isn't even an issue of nudity.
i don't even need to argue it...
... it's actually the law.
in many instances, sex in a public garden, so long as you aren't trespassing, had a reasonably expectation of privacy, etc. is totally legal.
Where are you picking this
Where are you picking this up???
this has been challenged in the courts numerous times...
if you want a list of footnotes, the glad site has a pretty good run down.
in addition, i work for the state and i have many contacts in the police department, which is how i know where that not-so-bright line about privacy is drawn.
fwiw, i think public sex for any gender or combination of genders is dangerous. you make yourself much more likely to be the victim of a crime or in trouble with the law.
but i don't think people should ignore the reality of what's legal and what isn't, just because they don't like it.
Problem is ...
The Boston cops and the former MDC cops had a bad history of going after gays for kissing, usually with excessive force, while ignoring outright shagging by hets. This was a big issue in the mid-90s and the MDC cops were told to knock off the differential enforcement and stick with the laws. These rulings are what is driving the current concerns and the current responses.
Well kissing and things like
Well kissing and things like that are very different from outright sexual encounters.I do believe any law should be equal between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Why not dress up the gays as policemen?
The solution is obviously to have gays who are into uniforms to dress up as cops and do what they wanna do. That way everybody's happy. Increased police presence, increased whoopee.
funniest UHub comment of the week
*golf claps*
Go watch the "Outside" video
Go watch the "Outside" video by George Michael. It seemed to work there!
It's about time
Kudos to Councilor Ross for addressing this. It's been a problem for a while now!
Folk, it is the year 2009...
...if you are gay and want some quick action, go to Crunch fitness for crying out loud. No longer do you need to hide in the bushes "shaking hands with abe lincoln' - you can flock to the more openly gay establishments like health clubs and anywhere the bus boys from Radius hang out.
I never felt unsafe before
In fact, I feel a bit less safe now.
The path through the Victory Gardens is a shorter and much better lit route from the Hynes T stop to my apt. Now I get to worry that a cop will hassle/cite me for not sucking down car exhaust and shouting over the traffic along the Boylston St. sidewalk.
I can understand the desire to make the Fens a safe, usable place for all members of the community, and as a Fenway resident, I never felt it was anything but. Thousands of people run and walk through there, play basketball, ride their bikes, etc, and seem not to have a problem.
Maybe if the police were walking through the Fens and picking up trash, instead of just parking cruisers at the entrances and harassing anyone that they don't like the look of, I might be able to view the effort a little less cynically.
-Cosmo
That's right - it's the job
That's right - it's the job of the police to pick up used condoms in a public park. I'm sure you'll be right there with them volunteering.
sure
I see trash, I generally pick it up and throw it out myself. Occasionally it involves prophylactics. Never come across a needle.
Then again, I live across the street, so maybe my willingness to clean it up is greater than that of the average Bostonian.
-Cosmo
You feel more threatened by
You feel more threatened by a parked police cruiser than some of the guys whom walk around there late at night sporting pink chaps, cowboy hats, and pink velvet handcuffs? Or maybe the crackheads or poor homeless guys off their medications screaming at phantoms are more pleasant?
Until the Army Corps of Engineers starts the flood control project next year, in which the river will be dredged back to proper depth and the evasive reeds permanently eradicated, I doubt anything is really going to get significantly better.
It's just hateful, sex-phobic, anti-Gay diatribe
Some of the comments here are just hateful, sex-phobic, anti-Gay diatribe dressed up as enlightened, 21st century, why-don't-these-trolls-get-a-room civics.
Just on this thread we have:
For the sports fans keeping score at home, here are the hits from the previous thread.
None of these anons cares about property crime and vandalism, trespassing, or the disgusting trash left behind by park users.
These inbred anons are obsessed or terrified that gay men might actually be having sex; the location has got nothing to do with their objections.
Jonas thank you for not
Jonas thank you for not calling me anti-gay, I disagree with the dumb comment but can live with that. I still feel that sex of any kind is more of a private property thing, preferably private property under your control at the time, guess I am just a prude.
I agree
I dont get the need to have sex in public. Don't give me the semantic argument that people are hiding in the reeds, unless you're homeless, you can have sex somewhere else. Thanks.
"Some of the comments here
"Some of the comments here are just hateful, sex-phobic, anti-Gay diatribe dressed up as enlightened, 21st century, why-don't-these-trolls-get-a-room civics."
Some of the comments here are just hateful, sex-phobic, heterosexual diatribe dressed up as enlightened, 21st century, why-can't people fool around anywhere they damn please despite the law civics.
Just on this thread we have:
" * Middle-class myopia about what hotel rooms cost (All right, this isn't hateful, sex-phobic, anti-Gay or a diatribe; it's just dumb. Sorry, Shady)"
Really, people can't get a room like the rest of the public does? Is it discriminatory to ask people to have the same level of common decency ?
" * Some guy who just doesn't understand that privacy laws actual have nuance (from a 3:58pm anon)"
There is no nuance in the law, somehow I doubt you'd like someone fooling around in your garden thanks to some nuance about a right to privacy because your curtains were drawn.
"* gays who are into uniforms to dress up as cops (from his 2:45pm brother)
* shaking hands with abe lincoln and a snarky comment about bus boys from Radius (from his 3:37pm cousin)"
Yeah, I'll give you that one. The poster was over the line.
"* late-night guys sporting pink chaps, cowboy hats, and pink velvet handcuffs,
* crackheads, and
* poor homeless guys off their medications screaming at phantoms, (these last three from the 5:37pm 2nd cousin}"
THOSE WERE FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS OF ACTUAL PEOPLE WHOM HAVE CAUSED TROUBLE IN THE FENS. DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FACTS WHEN THEY DON'T FIT YOUR NARRATIVE?
"For the sports fans keeping score at home, here are the hits from the previous thread."
SNARK!
"None of these anons cares about property crime and vandalism, trespassing, or the disgusting trash left behind by park users."
Really? You know that for a fact? You are a mind reader? Apparently whatever you say must be the trust irregardless of reality. I guess all those people pissed at community meetings must really love cleaning up all the medical waste contrary to their assertions.
"These inbred anons are obsessed or terrified that gay men might actually be having sex; the location has got nothing to do with their objections."
I'm inbred? How civil of an accusation. Yes I'm terrified of the gay living in fear of myself for having the decency to not have sex in pubic park like a bloody squirrel.
You are a giant bigot and the fact you can't see it is disturbing. It is jerks like you that give the community a bad name by defending behavior that you know damn well wouldn't be tolerated if it was between heterosexuals.
No one should be screwing around in a public park, PERIOD.
I don't get the need to have private picnics in public
Set aside property crime and vandalism, trespassing, and the disgusting trash left behind by park users, because I think we can agree those are bad and ought not to be done.
I really don't see the need to have private picnics on public property. I really think that private picnic activities ought to be conducted on private property.
Okay, no, actually I don't think that, but perhaps you can see the point. Both are kinds of quiet enjoyment, but the sex doesn't hog the picnic tables and barbecues.
That quiet enjoyment of the park by having private sex out of view and hearing of other users of the park ought not to evoke these over the top reactions. It's sex-phobic, plain and simple.
You think there is no 'need' to have sex outside, fine. Don't have sex outside. But don't call private sex out of view and hearing of other park users, public, anon-a-mouse, because it's not. It's not a semantic argument: it's a legal argument. Search this page for "MGL" to find bandit's post—then read it.
In an attempt to gather real facts, does anybody here know how much an hour or two of a hotel room actually costs? Are there even places that rent by the hour, within walking distance of the West Fens? See, that is my complaint—not dumbness. Shady, your suggestion isn't really economical or practicable.
You are really going to put
You are really going to put having a picnic on the same level of interaction as sexual intercourse?
"In an attempt to gather real facts, does anybody here know how much an hour or two of a hotel room actually costs?"
Most hotels no longer offer those rates in the interest of avoiding shady activity.
"Are there even places that rent by the hour, within walking distance of the West Fens?"
Likely not, see above. Although in thinking a bit more, there are some B&B's elsewhere in the city that cater to couples with long term needs.
"See, that is my complaint—not dumbness. Shady, your suggestion isn't really economical or practicable"
How about meeting someone that is actually worth spending THE NIGHT WITH, not a few hours, THE NIGHT, and maybe getting the person well enough and liking them enough to either take them home or SPEND THE MONEY TO SPEND THE NIGHT WITH THEM?
Just asking? Or do people really have that great of a desire for physical satisfaction coupled with a phobia of becoming attached, are too scared to bring someone home yet still somehow still willing to be intimate with them, or are simply too bloody cheap to pay for an entire night in a hotel?
It is semantics
is the park privately or publicly owned? Just sayin, the palce is public.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public land. Where in the fens can you go and reasonably expect not to be seen or heard? How can you know that no one will be able to see you or hear you? The only reason that there are areas that most people will not go is because they are afraid of running into people having sex or doing drugs.
So if the cops are able to patrol the park to make it safe for all to enjoy, no one can reasonably expect to be private anywhere in the park because at any time someone could be walking anywhere.
the whole point of the law...
... is that yes, you can possibly have a reasonable expectation of privacy on public land. you don't automatically, and it matters where you choose, who is around you, etc. but it's possible.
again, i don't recommend it. but the fact that a place is "publicly owned" doesn't automatically make it "public" in terms of privacy, if that makes sense.
of course that doesn't make "sense"
but this is the MGL we are talking about...
riggssm does not like this.
riggssm does not like this.
Personal Morality over MGL s. 272 & ignorant Proof By Assertion
Haviland (sincere thanks for giving us a handle, by the way), your assertions of "shady activity" and having sex like a squirrel give the game away. You just don't think that a sexual encounter has value unless its duration (and location) accord with your personal moral code.
(By sexual intercourse do you mean coitus? Or, something 'less'? Or, perhaps something 'more'? Maybe something 'different'. Oh, well. Let's lay that question aside for the moment.)
So, Haviland, you are proposing that the suitable minimum duration of moral sexual activity is "THE NIGHT." Any sexual activity that takes less time than all night conclusively demonstrates that the partners don't value sufficiently nor like each other enough to measure up to your moral code.
Only one night? Well, the Catholic Church wants to have a word with you about your depraved morality. Life-long would be more like it (with a raft of other stipulations, too). One might think it disgusting, really, that you would countenance a one-night stand like that. It really shows how little the partners need value each other.
Fortunately, neither the Catholic Church writes the laws, and neither do you.
The pink cowboy outfits, the homeless, and the mentally ill have naught to do with sex in the park. And, sex in the park is what has you excited, not the "property crime and vandalism, trespassing, or the disgusting trash left behind by park users," for these haven't entered into your argument so far.
"Inbred"? You are right; that was uncivil. It was the multiplication of (related?) anons that was trying my patience.
As far as me being a double-standard jerk, a giant bigot, and blind in the bargain.... I'm really not sure how I earned these. I think heteros and homos should benefit equally from a lawful expectation of privacy. I will admit to bigotry against those who cannot mount a decent argument (see below). And, I think I see quite clearly how Massachusetts law (and not personal sexual morality) ought to be applied.
Keep flailing away with this personal morality and I'll have no choice but to suspect you of being a Good Gay.
anon-a-mouse, there we go again: "There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public land" & "Just sayin."
This is called Proof by Assertion. Repeating something over and over doesn't make it so, especially when the assertion has been resoundingly refuted up-thread, here and here. Keep doing it and it becomes Argumentum ad Nauseam.
Even on the intertubez, it is ignorant and tedious to repeat a falsity when you desperately need it to be true.
Citations?
"the assertion has been resoundingly refuted up-thread, here and here."
I see no refutation here. Can you cite multiple court cases where there were people having sex (gay or straight) in a public park and case got thrown out because the individuals engaged thought they were in a private place?
Oh give it up already. Guess
Oh give it up already.
Guess what - the general public doesn't really give a shit about who's getting laid in the Fens. It's just not on the radar. What the general public DOES care about is the possibility of getting mugged in the Fens.
Not by the same people who are having sex, might I clarify, before you declare me to believe that all gay men are muggers or some other half-assed fallacy.
I prefer my parks to be
I prefer my parks to be clear of litter, muggings, drugs and yes sex. The reason why the sex gets the most attention is because the sex has defenders like yourself that come out and defend the sexual acts that happen on public property. sex
If there are as many muggings as people say there are I would think that having sexual relations in the reeds would be a bad idea anyway. I can't imagine a man can defend himself all that well with his pants down to his ankles.
Sex in the Reeds: Two Variations on Proof by Assertion
A variation on Proof by Assertion by an 8:26am anon:
So this variation on Proof by Assertion occurs when the truculent and ignorant anon blithely ignores the previously stated reasoned argument to the contrary.
Instead, failing to honestly engage the discussion, this anon demands new proof of a type of his own choice, often of an onerous nature to produce.
In this case, the arguments marshaled (two newspaper articles, several citations of MGL, and a link to a legal web site with the desired cites) are deemed not sufficient, nor worthy of discussion.
I'm sure there as a name for this particular kind of asocial internet behavior—probably with a cute cartoon in the bargain—but, it escapes me just now.
And, then we have anon-a-mouse's valedictory post:
When anon-a-mouse can't successfully press its argument on the basis of the MGL, it declares that the MGL don't matter anyway, as they don't "make sense," don't accord with self-evident truths. This is similar to the moving-the-goal-post argument above, but much, much weaker.
False
"previously stated reasoned argument to the contrary."
False. You've proven nothing and it's certainly not reasoned (well, I'm sure you think it's reasoned). You've said it's not illegal to have sex in a public park and you've linked to another person's post who again says it's not illegal to have sex in a public park. You say a lot of things, but that doesn't automatically make them correct (again, we all know you think you absolutely 100% positively correct).
Until you show that the courts have upheld this assumption then it's you that's engaging in a dishonest conversation.
Sex in the Reeds: A Valedictory Post to anon's "lalalalalalala"
I thought long and hard how to charitably paraphrase this most recent post of anon. It is best understood when covering one's ears and closing one's eyes. One probably mastered this argument by first grade:
anon, had you bothered actually to read any of these links provided you, then you would have read of the Superintendent-in-chief of the Boston Police, Daniel Linskey's opinion on the subject.
You would have stumbled across this cite from the GLAD site: Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 384 Mass. 13 (1981). And, this one: Comm. v. Nicholas, 40 Mass. App. Ct. 255, 258 (1996).
anon, I'm sure your family and friends think you are a very nice person, but, in this discussion, you are completely wrong and completely outmatched.
I'll now let this thread gracefully sink from page one.
Wow... you really are a
Wow... you really are a smart one, aren't you?
One, if you had read the quote from the Superintendent you would have noticed that he never said it was legal to have sex in a public park, but said it wasn't a priority for him compared to other crimes.
Two, you cite two cases with circumstances very different than the scenario being discussed.
So, again, you've proved nothing. But if you are so sure of yourself and your belief that this situation is not illegal then go find a friend and a police officer to witness. I'll look for the run down in the police blotter.
BTW, I'm sorry about your ego problem. Good luck with that.
wow,
I'm pretty sure I don't remember ever being this preoccupied with sex. (Or is it just self-absorption?) Like it fine, do it as often as I can, but jeez, give it a rest guys.
interesting case laws on this kind of stuff....
If you have sex in a public place, there are all sorts of factors that go into what you can be charged with and if you will be convicted. There is a lot of case law with various different findings:
How public was it? Were you planning on getting caught? Was it in a place where people could reasonably see you? Did you go out of your way to try to make it discreet? How much did you actually show or could people see? Was someone in fact "shocked or alarmed"? Did kids see? Could kids have seen?
If you in fact desired privacy for a sexual act and took measures to attempt to secure that privacy, then you cannot be charged with many of these sexual crimes. And that includes "solo" acts as well.