SHOES, SEX, WHATEVER: HENTON ARREST EXPLAINED OR NOT
This is the internet, meaning that this is the place for rumor, hearsay, and spurious stories of dubious sourcing, all sponsored by possibly fraudulent products. So to combine the twin pillars of this glorious virtual universe, we promise that if you read the following explanation of Ohio State 3rd string qb Antonio Henton's arrest for soliciting a prostitute, your penis/boobs/both, if applicable will grow to twice their normal size when you finish.
One sexual attribute-enhancing rumor, coming right up:
He was driving through that area (a few blocks south of campus) on his way to buy some shoes. While driving along, he was flagged down by a woman who approached his car and asked if he wanted to have sex. Then the uniforms came and arrested him. It should be dismissed as entrapment, and they apparently arrested 10 other people that night in that location. Henton really is a good guy...God damn man trying to keep a dude just gettin' some shoes down. Fight the power!
What is omitted is Henton's response to the solicitation, which seems important. We turn this over to the EDSBS legal department, since half of our readership seems to squeeze in visits in between billable hours, while the other half reads this from white-collar prison while trying to get in some consult time with the half reading this from their law offices: is this entrapment? And if so, can we say it with a Sean Connery accent while making eyes at Catherine Zeta-Jones in a catsuit?
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
“ruff….just like your mother likes it trebek!”
by gerry dorsey on Sep 27, 2007 12:33 PM EDT reply actions
I’ll take FSU cheating scandal for $1000.
by Allahver Fist on Sep 27, 2007 12:36 PM EDT reply actions
Well, this would be almost completely based on his omitted response… so maybe.
But probably not
by CabanVOL on Sep 27, 2007 12:37 PM EDT reply actions
Entrapment is an affirmative defense. I believe, however, the burden of proof will be on the government to prove Henton had a predisposition to commit such an act. So, is a college kid predisposed to have sex with a woman when solicited? I’d say he’s screwed (no pun intended).
by Middle America on Sep 27, 2007 12:42 PM EDT reply actions
It’s entrapment – because if anyone approaches your car and says “Want some sex?”, the automatic response of any 18-19 year old kid (hell, any single guy) would be “Hell to da yeah!!!”
I bet the poor little guy didn’t even get a chance to discuss price…
by Eric on Sep 27, 2007 12:42 PM EDT reply actions
Shoes? Hookers? Art Schlichter bets you 10-1 he walks.
Right on, #2. If this were in Tallahassee, it never would’ve happened. Because he’d have no need to buy shoes.
by yoyofutbawl on Sep 27, 2007 12:43 PM EDT reply actions
This all assumes he responded affirmatively to the solicitation, of course.
by Middle America on Sep 27, 2007 12:43 PM EDT reply actions
Setting aside Henton’s actions—curiously omitted from this version of events—yeah, you could make a good case for entrapment.
The officer cannot propose the illegal act; the offender has to be the one to take the initiative (thus showing that he went into the situation with criminal intent). The sting officer could easily have just said to Henton—“Hey honey, what can I do for you?” or even the age-old “Looking for a good time?” If Henton was looking to pick up some pussy-by-the-hour, then he’d interpret and act upon the woman’s words very differently than if his motives were pure as fresh snow. Asking right off the bat if Henton wanted to fuck, on the other hand…well, that would be entrapment.
by Mr. Flibble on Sep 27, 2007 12:43 PM EDT reply actions
threadjack…
Just noticed the new “Orson Swindle FAQs” link on the right side — is that humor/irony that the page says “What you’re looking for cannot be found” or should there actually be something there?
/threadjack
by Beatuofa on Sep 27, 2007 12:51 PM EDT reply actions
What D1 athlete has to go looking for paid poon. Thats just ridiculous. Duke, tOSU, those kids are gettin all the ass they can handle, im sure.
by Brian on Sep 27, 2007 12:51 PM EDT reply actions
4
Wouldn’t his predisposition need to be toward paying for sex, as opposed to accepting an offer of sex for an entrapment defense not to work?
by PW on Sep 27, 2007 12:51 PM EDT reply actions
“This is the sounds a dog makes”
“Mooo”
“I’m sorry, that’s the wrong answer”
“That’s not what you mother said last night Trebek!!!!! AHAFHAFHAHAHAFHAGHAHHAFGH”
by LSUJoshua on Sep 27, 2007 12:54 PM EDT reply actions
Was she hot or are we talking Barney Fife in drag? Being Columbus, I’d bet on the latter.
by Paco on Sep 27, 2007 12:55 PM EDT reply actions
The real question is, did they impound his Escalade?
by Southern Papa on Sep 27, 2007 12:58 PM EDT reply actions
Although, the fact that he intended to pay might be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. For instance, was this an area known for prostitution? And was Henton aware of this?
by PW on Sep 27, 2007 12:59 PM EDT reply actions
Wouldn’t his predisposition need to be toward paying for sex, as opposed to accepting an offer of sex for an entrapment defense not to work?
IANAL, but I think given the context in which all this occurred the fact there would be a surcharge for the festivities would be self-evident. Unless the dude was really naive or egotistical.
I mean, this isn’t like the UW game where a random chick sitting next to you asks you to do her, you wouldn’t expect to have to pay for that, but a solicitation on a street corner somewhere on the way to a shoe store seems a different matter.
by Mr. Flibble on Sep 27, 2007 1:03 PM EDT reply actions
Entrapment, shmapment… How many shoe stores are open at 8:30 on a Monday night? Even Al Bundy would draw the line at missing MNF.
by PJ from NU in SF on Sep 27, 2007 1:08 PM EDT reply actions
#5: It’s entrapment – because if anyone approaches your car and says "Want some sex?", the automatic response of any 18-19 year old kid (hell, any single guy) would be "Hell to da yeah!!!"
Not necessarily. I’m sure you’ve all heard the joke about the Georgia Tech student who, when asked by the prostitute if he’d like “some super sex,” asks what kind of soup it is.
by Doug on Sep 27, 2007 1:09 PM EDT reply actions
PW – That’s a very interesting section of town. 1 block east and it’s Da Hood (Compton Columbus), 1 block west and it’s a whole neighborhood of renovated Victorian Homes (Victorian Village – home to lots of gay couples with the disposable incomes to renovate said houses), 1 block south is the beginning of some pricey urban condo/lofts, and 1 block north is the South Campus Gateway (very sterile bar/retail area). So there may be some “action” there, but it’s not like it’s the red light district.
by tOSU_radar on Sep 27, 2007 1:15 PM EDT reply actions
Nothing about this makes sense.
1. He’s already getting as much as he wants
2. When pulled over, he had no Grey Goose, no automatic weapons and was not on the phone with the Israeli mafia
3. tOSU qbs are snared in gambling rings, not sex stings
4. We all know this kind of thing doesn’t happen under Coach Tressel, it just doesn’t
by OhioDawg on Sep 27, 2007 1:20 PM EDT reply actions
I think that when she stuck her head in the window, she saw a fuck lion, and just called in the cops.
Only the Chewbacca defense can save him now.
by NewAZTiger on Sep 27, 2007 1:30 PM EDT reply actions
Under that fact pattern, it’s not entrapment. If a woman asks a guy if he wants to have sex, and the guy says yes, no crime has been committed. “Solicitation” only occurs when one person proposes to another person that they engage in illegal activity (i.e. exchange sex for money). If the narc first proposed the sex-4-money xchange, it could be entrapment. If the perp did, then it’s solicitation.
“Predisposition” does not enter into the analysis. “Intent” does. But you cannot commit a crime by intent alone. You also must act. In other words, to be guilty of solicitation you must have both the intent to solicit, and engage in conduct constituting solicitation.
Who do I bill this to?
by Tony on Sep 27, 2007 1:37 PM EDT reply actions
Citing Berry v. United States:
if he immediately declared “the bitch set me up” on video tape at the time of arrest, it may stand as a nolo contendere yet result in enhanced endearment from his constituency.
In this case, he would be fined and made starting QB next season which was his plan all along.
by blazin on Sep 27, 2007 1:42 PM EDT reply actions
If he was looking for shoes, he shoulda went to Free Shoe University. Also, the only place to buy shoes at that spot in town is at Kroger (do they sell shoes?) or at the dollar store. Unless he was headed way downtown. There are still some of my old shoes hanging on the powerlines in front of 2002 Summit from February of 2003. Size 13. He can have them if he wants.
by bhors on Sep 27, 2007 1:47 PM EDT reply actions
Actually, at GT, the pick up line was: “Baby, i’d like to parse your algorithm, if you know what I mean”
by Techie on Sep 27, 2007 1:48 PM EDT reply actions
If I were to give an opinion regarding said case, whom shall I bill?
(said like Mr. Howel from Giligans Island)
by shovel pass on Sep 27, 2007 1:52 PM EDT reply actions
It just so happens that there’s a shoe store in the South Campus district (3 blocks away). Is this a plausible defense? Sure. Does it look shady even if he was set up? Absolutely. Is it as big a deal as C-bus media is making it out to be? i’m not sure (prostitution is the world’s oldest profession for a reason)
by WingRg on Sep 27, 2007 1:53 PM EDT reply actions
Entrapment is an affirmative defense. Whether it is available depends on the jurisdiction; where I practice, the defendant has to show (a) inducement and (b) that he wasn’t predisposed to committing the crime. There is case law that a solicitation plus an acceptance is legally sufficient to overcome the affirmative defense. Legal sufficiency is simply a statement of the minimal proof required, though — it doesn’t mean that in every case, the defense won’t or shouldn’t work. That’s for the factfinder to decide. In this case, any defense lawyer worth a damn would demand a jury trial and argue police misconduct/overreaching. I’ve seen it before, and I’ve seen it work (i.e. a dude found not guilty for almost exactly the same thing).
by Brad on Sep 27, 2007 1:57 PM EDT reply actions
We can pretty much guarantee those were the most important shoes of his life. You know, disregarding any and all magic shoes granted to him by fairy/pixie/warlock or any other entity.
by chris on Sep 27, 2007 2:01 PM EDT reply actions
This case should be settled thus:
Have a jury of his peers (12 OSU male students) take a look at said hooker. If more than half say they would have sex with her if offered, then he walks.
Done and done.
by GamecockTony on Sep 27, 2007 2:08 PM EDT reply actions
OK Brad, law student or lawyer? Either way, you know more than me on the subject.
by R.D. Baker - Retired Blogger on Sep 27, 2007 2:08 PM EDT reply actions
- - NewAZTiger
Wins the Thread, far and away.
(not a lawyer here)
by That 5.0 Guy @ Work! on Sep 27, 2007 2:12 PM EDT reply actions
@#31:
That may the hardest I have laughed at a comment on here. Ever.
asimperson,
GT CS ’06
by asimperson on Sep 27, 2007 2:16 PM EDT reply actions
The bottom line is: it’s entrapment so long as he did not initiate the conversation about paying for sex with the woman.
Just as if a plain clothes police officer were to approach someone and initiate a conversation in which, with no prior prompting, the officer offered drugs, the person approached is not liable for their response.
If what has been stated in the post is true, the Prosecutor doesn’t have a pot to piss in.
by Jack on Sep 27, 2007 2:37 PM EDT reply actions
“Six men and five women were arrested in the sting.”
That was from an article in the Columbus Dispatch; however, a local TV station says 45 people were nabbed.
What are accurate numbers anyway, really?
by bnb614 on Sep 27, 2007 2:38 PM EDT reply actions
@#37 (asimperson),
Thank you … i’ll be here all week … don’t forget to tip you wait staff.
WingRG
OSU CS’03
by WingRG on Sep 27, 2007 2:47 PM EDT reply actions
We need the advise of Chuck Schick. You know he’s clerking for me while he passes the bar.
by shovel pass on Sep 27, 2007 3:00 PM EDT reply actions
In my one and only criminal trial, I got a not guilty verdict when the facts were:
1. defendant arrested on warrants for unpaid traffic tickets, other car passengers arrested for various violations
2. pot found in defendant’s glove box
3. when asked by cop “whose pot is this”, defendant forgets “right to remain silent” thing and says “mine”
4. defendant testified he was trying to cover for cousin with legal problems, whose pot he thought it must be
5. now thinks pot not cousin’s, but was property of bitch (not what he called her on stand) with whom he was on a blind date — family is one thing, but not going to cover for that hobag
If I can get a not guilty in Texas on that evidence, then some enterprising Ohio lawyer can successfully argue the entrapment defense.
by DiamondM on Sep 27, 2007 5:02 PM EDT reply actions
And by “my” only criminal trial, I mean I was the pro bono defense lawyer, not the aforementioned defendant who claimed ownership of the marijuana. Just wanted to clarify.
by DiamondM on Sep 27, 2007 5:13 PM EDT reply actions
#2, I like this from the Tallahassee Democrat article (covering up for the football team)
No football players who have competed in games this season are involved.
So what you are telling us is that there are football players involved, but would rather play down that part of the story.
by Brian O'Blivion on Sep 27, 2007 6:14 PM EDT reply actions
I think his case is weak. The facts came out that when he was accosted by “said” female and propositioned for alleged sex, his response was “Nice pants… you got room for me in them?” followed up by—
“On tha’ trunk? On tha’trunk!!!
So thats what they call it—”going to buy some shoes" eh? Yo dude, I’m going to" buy some shoes"….in a secluded wooded area by the interstate…..
by Baby-faced Genius on Sep 27, 2007 8:22 PM EDT reply actions
#43
No, St. Copius of Northern……………..
(Mitch Cumstein…classic! )
by shovel pass on Sep 28, 2007 1:49 AM EDT reply actions

by 















