Richmond police target, arrest people seeking sexual services online

[westwoody]

So, as a learning thing, you can only be charged if the police can prove you showed up with the irrefutable intent to purchase sex acts and that the burden of proof is quite high requiring first-hand observation / interaction and not hear-say allegations.

In other words, the police standing outside one of the known condo buildings means they can't prove intent. Standing outside one of the SPs units inside the condo building is not good enough to prove intent.

Really what needs to happen is for a police officer to receive a request for a sex act (online, text, email), you go over to the address, enter the residence (condo, house, whatever), you pull out cash and say something incriminating like, "here is the money for that sex act we discussed" or for the undercover police officer to request the money for the sex act you two discussed.

I guess what I am seeking confirmation on is the burden of proof for police is quite high as described above. Also, it sounds like independents could be more suspect at this stage. Established agencies with established SPs should be fine unless they are compromised somehow.

I assume if the police suspect something is going on in a specific condo building AND a specific condo unit / residence, they could get a warrant? Possibly catch people in the act, but they would lack that first-hand proof that the two or more people smashing aren't doing so because they got paid.

Bonus question: I assume if you ask: "are you a cop?" they have to answer truthfully, otherwise it could be entrapment. I think entrapment is a little grey in terms of legal permeability.

I hope nobody takes this free legal advice seriously

 

[MB Mod]

I wonder if this operation had anything to do with the mega Swan Lake thread suddenly going dark?!

You need a better fitting tinfoil hat

 

[Billiam]

Wasn't there a bit of a vigorously posted thread not long ago about a Richmond apartment building where the building Karens were self policing the place? Could that have something to do with this? Some kind of self righteous group of citizens raising shit with the police?

Richmond is full of these groups, which is who Kash panders to.
The 'No Cannabis Here!' groups gloat while the overdose deaths continue.

 

[Bang4thebuck]

"Police said reducing this demand is critical to addressing the harm it can cause"

Lmao RCMP is going to stop the demand for sex work 🤣 an industry that has been around for thousands of years. Yeah, right.

Maybe focus on the TRAFFICKERS and ABUSERS?

 

[Forum mod]

So, as a learning thing, you can only be charged if the police can prove you showed up with the irrefutable intent to purchase sex acts and that the burden of proof is quite high requiring first-hand observation / interaction and not hear-say allegations.

In other words, the police standing outside one of the known condo buildings means they can't prove intent. Standing outside one of the SPs units inside the condo building is not good enough to prove intent.

Really what needs to happen is for a police officer to receive a request for a sex act (online, text, email), you go over to the address, enter the residence (condo, house, whatever), you pull out cash and say something incriminating like, "here is the money for that sex act we discussed" or for the undercover police officer to request the money for the sex act you two discussed.

I guess what I am seeking confirmation on is the burden of proof for police is quite high as described above. Also, it sounds like independents could be more suspect at this stage. Established agencies with established SPs should be fine unless they are compromised somehow.

I assume if the police suspect something is going on in a specific condo building AND a specific condo unit / residence, they could get a warrant? Possibly catch people in the act, but they would lack that first-hand proof that the two or more people smashing aren't doing so because they got paid.

Bonus question: I assume if you ask: "are you a cop?" they have to answer truthfully, otherwise it could be entrapment. I think entrapment is a little grey in terms of legal permeability.

Sorry but most of this is completely wrong. Undercover police do not have to identify themselves if asked. Based on the stings that have happened previously, all you need to do is communicate with them to arrange the meeting and arrive in the incall set up where a female undercover is present and once you start talking about the session it's over and they bust you. Suffice to say, do not get your legal advice on an escort review board, consult a lawyer.

 

[Cock Throppled]

"Police said reducing this demand is critical to addressing the harm it can cause"

Lmao RCMP is going to stop the demand for sex work 🤣 an industry that has been around for thousands of years. Yeah, right.

Maybe focus on the TRAFFICKERS and ABUSERS?

I was about to post the same thing. The police have certainly been successful at curbing the demand for drugs and alcohol.
I think they'd be more useful cracking down on the driving in Richmond.

 

[John Aston]

So, what is the bottom line for pooners? Should they follow their dicks to Burnaby, Downtown Vancouver, and New West? Anyone know of the agencies affected in Richmond? Asking for a friend.

 

[PoorGuy]

So, what is the bottom line for pooners? Should they follow their dicks to Burnaby, Downtown Vancouver, and New West? Anyone know of the agencies affected in Richmond? Asking for a friend.

Riza's is still advertising her ladies in Richmond so wasn't her agency. The usual Asian handlers and Perb advertisers are still offering in Richmond so wasn't them. Hard to tell but 100 clients taken in on one day means that was a lot of "confirmed bookings".

 

[bombs]

Considering how it is the buyers, not the sellers that are at risk, I'm sure it was through various LL ads. Most everyone that's on here is vetted as they're either with an agency or a known entity independent. Just another reason to avoid LL since most of the ads are B&S and just a massive crap shoot.

 

[ChromeGasCap]

It is not only the buyers that are at risk.
There are plenty of non citizens working in this trade and they are all at risk also.

 

[pleasureprinciple]

TOFT now has a new dimension in Richmond

 

[Harmony-bc]

Cops post on leolist posing as escorts all the time. They are generally just looking for people who want to see minors or abusive people. They also will act like clients to try to rescue trafficked women.

I imagine Richmond is a bit different because it’s a very conservative part of the lower mainland. So they’re probably a lot more enthusiastic about enforcing the law.

Stick to the well known and you’ll be fine.

 

[AddictedGreg]

"Police said reducing this demand is critical to addressing the harm it can cause"

Lmao RCMP is going to stop the demand for sex work 🤣 an industry that has been around for thousands of years. Yeah, right.

Maybe focus on the TRAFFICKERS and ABUSERS?

And given the amountof SUPPLY in Vancouver it’s such a jole. AS IF

 

[AddictedGreg]

Just make it LEGAL FFS. It’s the oldest profession in the book. Sheesh. That would be the BEST way to enforce safety standards and drive out traffickers.

 

[Harmony-bc]

Just make it LEGAL FFS. It’s the oldest profession in the book. Sheesh. That would be the BEST way to enforce safety standards and drive out traffickers.

I’m all for decriminalizing but not for legalizing.

Check out all the countries that have legalized prostitution and the quality of life of the sex workers there. No thank you. I want to work out of my home with my rules. I do not want to be regulated or forced into a red light district. Legalizing also makes criminals out of survival sex workers as they might not be able to pay for licensing and all the other things that might be involved in a legal business.

But decriminalizing, yes please. Just take your laws off my body. Period.

There are already laws around abuse and trafficking. Legalizing it, I don’t think would make much of a difference in how shady, manipulative evil people operate.

 

[ChromeGasCap]

Legalizing would cause an influx of new women creating competition.
Competition, usually a good thing, the amount of trashy individuals, both providers and clients, will create a murky situation that you see in places where it is legal.
There will always be the upscale providers, but due to overlap safety goes down for everyone.

 

[sddghkfd]

I’m all for decriminalizing but not for legalizing.

Check out all the countries that have legalized prostitution and the quality of life of the sex workers there. No thank you. I want to work out of my home with my rules. I do not want to be regulated or forced into a red light district. Legalizing also makes criminals out of survival sex workers as they might not be able to pay for licensing and all the other things that might be involved in a legal business.

But decriminalizing, yes please. Just take your laws off my body. Period.

There are already laws around abuse and trafficking. Legalizing it, I don’t think would make much of a difference in how shady, manipulative evil people operate.

Maybe there's a middle ground somewhere between legalizing and regulation. There are personal services industries that are legalized but not heavily regulated and they seem to be doing just fine. The important thing imo is having the ability to get help when needed. Nothing else really needs to be "regulated" or under union.

I'm assuming the definitions here are:
Regulated: laws governing around exactly how the service is provided
Legalizing: no criminal or civil charges (still subject to bylaws)

 

[Once you go black]

I'd rather they focus their efforts in stopping and arresting the black pimps from Ontario and Quebec sending their trafficked girls here.

Huh ?? 😳

 

[david.easton]

Explains why Richmond has been so dead lately. I step away for a couple years and now it’s near impossible to find a good provider in Richmond

 

[SolidSnake]

Richmond has always been a minefield of poor experiences to me， police raid or not.