Philosophy Now Forum

DNR officers in Ramsey park find blindfolded man tied to trees, allegedly waiting for sex
By Sarah Horner
shorner@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 05/11/2012 12:01:00 AM CDT
Updated: 05/11/2012 11:03:14 PM CDT

Two officers with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources looking for fishing violations in a Ramsey park Thursday, May 10, stumbled upon someone reportedly engaged in a different kind of illegal act.

The officers found a man blindfolded, with his wrists and ankles bound with rope to nearby trees and his genitals exposed, according to Ramsey Police Chief Jim Way.

The man, Alan David Petrusson, 50, of Pillager, Minn., apparently was waiting to engage in "anonymous sex," Way said.

The incident occurred just after 5 p.m. in Dayton Port Roadside Park, in the 9200 block of U.S. 10 in Ramsey.

"It's not uncommon to see that kind of behavior in this park, or in parks across the metro, really. ... It's a hangout for people into that kind of activity," Way said. "They wait for someone to come by and perform sexual acts on them."

Ramsey police officers conduct random sweeps to monitor for the activity, which often takes place on private properties adjacent to the Ramsey park and involves mostly men, Way said. He added that some people use signals to alert others of their interest in engaging in sexual activity, such as leaving their car headlights on or rolling down their car windows to a certain level.

"There is a whole culture to it," Way said. "My biggest concern is that families and children use these parks."

Thursday's incident led to Petrusson's arrest on suspicion of indecent exposure and trespassing, Way said. Petrusson could not be reached
for comment Friday.

Ramsey police reportedly found Petrusson walking on a path in the park shortly after the DNR officers saw him in the compromised position, Way said. Their identification led to Petrusson's arrest.

Police also found ropes nearby that Petrusson admitted to using to tie himself up with slipknots in order to wait for sex, Way said. Petrusson's car also was found with pornographic materials inside.

Though police have found others engaged in sex acts at the park, Way described Thursday's behavior as "unusual."

Sarah Horner can be reached at 651-228-5539.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... d-man-tied
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/tag/dayto ... side-park/

Why must the public, such as visiting parents with young children, risk such an unwanted encounter with illegal sexual activity in a public park or space? Apparently, the present penalty for the crimes of trespassing and indecent exposure is insufficient to deter offenders. Why maintain a penalty that does not deter such unnecessary offensive public conduct?

Why not gradually increase the penalty with the goal of deterence? I submit that the community should adopt a policy of zero tolerance toward such illegal conduct. Accordingly, the penalties should be incrementally increased until such behavior no longer occurs.

I do not think that increasing the deterrent, for example being named in public or prosecuted, would stop such behaviour, as the risk of getting caught is part of the thrill - unless the area was patrolled regularly and penalties applied consistently. I can understand the concern that unrelated users of the park may feel at risk and threatened in this environment.

In the UK, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents, may apply, however he could say although he intended "that someone will see them' there was no intention to cause "alarm or distress", as the intended person knew about his exposure:-
"Part 1 Sexual Offences, Other Offences, 66 Exposure
[F1(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b)he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]

However this is still not always regarded as a deterrent, as this article implies http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12479925 "Cottagers face a charge of gross public indecency if caught by police, but many users of the website claim the risk of getting caught is part of the thrill."

Nor do I think, and from personal experience know, that it would completely deter consenting adults of either persuasion from indulging in the occasional al fresco passion, with their lovers or even their spouses . But hopefully the time and place would be more thoughtfully chosen to avoid, or just narrowly avoid detection, unlike this couple in Edinburgh - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -23779046/. And how would courting teenagers, with raging hormones but no cars or empty houses available to them, cope?

maybe children would not be traumatized by such things if adults were not so horrified

i remember seeing a flasher in a public park when i was 6 i thought it was funny

but when i told my mom there is a man there playing with his pee pee she totally freaked

Kayla wrote:maybe children would not be traumatized by such things if adults were not so horrified

i remember seeing a flasher in a public park when i was 6 i thought it was funny

but when i told my mom there is a man there playing with his pee pee she totally freaked

You see Kayla - you can think like Peter Singer just fine when you try!

Wootah wrote:

Kayla wrote:maybe children would not be traumatized by such things if adults were not so horrified

i remember seeing a flasher in a public park when i was 6 i thought it was funny

but when i told my mom there is a man there playing with his pee pee she totally freaked

You see Kayla - you can think like Peter Singer just fine when you try!

ummmm how

its not like i suggested anyone kill him use him as an involuntary organ donor and then fuck his corpse

Lynn wrote:I do not think that increasing the deterrent, for example being named in public or prosecuted, would stop such behaviour, as the risk of getting caught is part of the thrill - unless the area was patrolled regularly and penalties applied consistently. I can understand the concern that unrelated users of the park may feel at risk and threatened in this environment.

In the UK, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents, may apply, however he could say although he intended "that someone will see them' there was no intention to cause "alarm or distress", as the intended person knew about his exposure:-
"Part 1 Sexual Offences, Other Offences, 66 Exposure
[F1(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b)he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]

However this is still not always regarded as a deterrent, as this article implies http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12479925 "Cottagers face a charge of gross public indecency if caught by police, but many users of the website claim the risk of getting caught is part of the thrill."

Nor do I think, and from personal experience know, that it would completely deter consenting adults of either persuasion from indulging in the occasional al fresco passion, with their lovers or even their spouses . But hopefully the time and place would be more thoughtfully chosen to avoid, or just narrowly avoid detection, unlike this couple in Edinburgh - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -23779046/. And how would courting teenagers, with raging hormones but no cars or empty houses available to them, cope?

"Nor do I think, and from personal experience know, that it would completely deter consenting adults of either persuasion from indulging in the occasional al fresco passion, with their lovers or even their spouses . But hopefully the time and place would be more thoughtfully chosen to avoid, or just narrowly avoid detection, unlike this couple in Edinburgh - http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -23779046/. And how would courting teenagers, with raging hormones but no cars or empty houses available to them, cope?"

After an eight mile bicycle ride to the picnic grounds in Theodore Rossevelt National Park in North Dakota, I pleasured my wife in the grass. She was too tired to resist. Only the buffalo and prairie dogs enjoyed our passion, I hope.

Bloody weirdos. Cut off their dicks.

tbieter wrote:DNR officers in Ramsey park find blindfolded man tied to trees, allegedly waiting for sex
By Sarah Horner
shorner@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 05/11/2012 12:01:00 AM CDT
Updated: 05/11/2012 11:03:14 PM CDT

Two officers with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources looking for fishing violations in a Ramsey park Thursday, May 10, stumbled upon someone reportedly engaged in a different kind of illegal act.

The officers found a man blindfolded, with his wrists and ankles bound with rope to nearby trees and his genitals exposed, according to Ramsey Police Chief Jim Way.

The man, Alan David Petrusson, 50, of Pillager, Minn., apparently was waiting to engage in "anonymous sex," Way said.

The incident occurred just after 5 p.m. in Dayton Port Roadside Park, in the 9200 block of U.S. 10 in Ramsey.

"It's not uncommon to see that kind of behavior in this park, or in parks across the metro, really. ... It's a hangout for people into that kind of activity," Way said. "They wait for someone to come by and perform sexual acts on them."

Ramsey police officers conduct random sweeps to monitor for the activity, which often takes place on private properties adjacent to the Ramsey park and involves mostly men, Way said. He added that some people use signals to alert others of their interest in engaging in sexual activity, such as leaving their car headlights on or rolling down their car windows to a certain level.

"There is a whole culture to it," Way said. "My biggest concern is that families and children use these parks."

Thursday's incident led to Petrusson's arrest on suspicion of indecent exposure and trespassing, Way said. Petrusson could not be reached
for comment Friday.

Ramsey police reportedly found Petrusson walking on a path in the park shortly after the DNR officers saw him in the compromised position, Way said. Their identification led to Petrusson's arrest.

Police also found ropes nearby that Petrusson admitted to using to tie himself up with slipknots in order to wait for sex, Way said. Petrusson's car also was found with pornographic materials inside.

Though police have found others engaged in sex acts at the park, Way described Thursday's behavior as "unusual."

Sarah Horner can be reached at 651-228-5539.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... d-man-tied
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/tag/dayto ... side-park/

Why must the public, such as visiting parents with young children, risk such an unwanted encounter with illegal sexual activity in a public park or space? Apparently, the present penalty for the crimes of trespassing and indecent exposure is insufficient to deter offenders. Why maintain a penalty that does not deter such unnecessary offensive public conduct?

Why not gradually increase the penalty with the goal of deterence? I submit that the community should adopt a policy of zero tolerance toward such illegal conduct. Accordingly, the penalties should be incrementally increased until such behavior no longer occurs.

Why worry about such trivialities, exposure to such 'truth' is just that, TRUTH! It's a good thing for all to be exposed to such behavior, so as to see how the others live, I'd consider it a zoo instead of a park. My family like's to watch the animals do there thing, it reminds us of our own animal type behavior, though quite a bit different. While you and I may think that what they do is stupid and selfish so is a law prohibiting such things, the dichotomy of living a lie, via the sword backing the pen, thus negating the truth that knowledge affords. It's wisdom that viewing the truth of the menagerie affords.

oh no they caught me!

(true story while I was travelling as a homie in southern france... I was part of it)

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

tbieter wrote:DNR officers in Ramsey park find blindfolded man tied to trees, allegedly waiting for sex
By Sarah Horner
shorner@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 05/11/2012 12:01:00 AM CDT
Updated: 05/11/2012 11:03:14 PM CDT

Two officers with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources looking for fishing violations in a Ramsey park Thursday, May 10, stumbled upon someone reportedly engaged in a different kind of illegal act.

The officers found a man blindfolded, with his wrists and ankles bound with rope to nearby trees and his genitals exposed, according to Ramsey Police Chief Jim Way.

The man, Alan David Petrusson, 50, of Pillager, Minn., apparently was waiting to engage in "anonymous sex," Way said.

The incident occurred just after 5 p.m. in Dayton Port Roadside Park, in the 9200 block of U.S. 10 in Ramsey.

"It's not uncommon to see that kind of behavior in this park, or in parks across the metro, really. ... It's a hangout for people into that kind of activity," Way said. "They wait for someone to come by and perform sexual acts on them."

Ramsey police officers conduct random sweeps to monitor for the activity, which often takes place on private properties adjacent to the Ramsey park and involves mostly men, Way said. He added that some people use signals to alert others of their interest in engaging in sexual activity, such as leaving their car headlights on or rolling down their car windows to a certain level.

"There is a whole culture to it," Way said. "My biggest concern is that families and children use these parks."

Thursday's incident led to Petrusson's arrest on suspicion of indecent exposure and trespassing, Way said. Petrusson could not be reached
for comment Friday.

Ramsey police reportedly found Petrusson walking on a path in the park shortly after the DNR officers saw him in the compromised position, Way said. Their identification led to Petrusson's arrest.

Police also found ropes nearby that Petrusson admitted to using to tie himself up with slipknots in order to wait for sex, Way said. Petrusson's car also was found with pornographic materials inside.

Though police have found others engaged in sex acts at the park, Way described Thursday's behavior as "unusual."

Sarah Horner can be reached at 651-228-5539.
http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... d-man-tied
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/tag/dayto ... side-park/

Why must the public, such as visiting parents with young children, risk such an unwanted encounter with illegal sexual activity in a public park or space? Apparently, the present penalty for the crimes of trespassing and indecent exposure is insufficient to deter offenders. Why maintain a penalty that does not deter such unnecessary offensive public conduct?

Why not gradually increase the penalty with the goal of deterence? I submit that the community should adopt a policy of zero tolerance toward such illegal conduct. Accordingly, the penalties should be incrementally increased until such behavior no longer occurs.

Why worry about such trivialities, exposure to such 'truth' is just that, TRUTH! It's a good thing for all to be exposed to such behavior, so as to see how the others live, I'd consider it a zoo instead of a park. My family like's to watch the animals do there thing, it reminds us of our own animal type behavior, though quite a bit different. While you and I may think that what they do is stupid and selfish so is a law prohibiting such things, the dichotomy of living a lie, via the sword backing the pen, thus negating the truth that knowledge affords. It's wisdom that viewing the truth of the menagerie affords.

It's hardly trivial. Let's just expose children to all deviant behaviour then, because it's the 'truth'. The park is a public place, and it's a matter of common decency and consideration not to shove your sexual preferences in others' faces against their will. I've managed to get through quite a big chunk of my life without being aware of every kind of oddball sexual activity that others get up to. One example is feeders and eaters. I wasn't aware until very recently that there are those who get off on feeding women who are morbidly obese and making them fatter and fatter. I really don't feel that I have missed out on anything by not knowing the 'truth' about what every weirdo on the planet gets up to.
As for your zoo comment, I've often heard there are people who go to the zoo for just that reason. I didn't think it was true. I've never seen anything like that at the zoo. The zoo is not exactly a natural environment for other animals.

Kayla wrote:maybe children would not be traumatized by such things if adults were not so horrified

i remember seeing a flasher in a public park when i was 6 i thought it was funny

but when i told my mom there is a man there playing with his pee pee she totally freaked

I'm an adult, and I still don't want to walk into a public park and have to deal with such garbage. And the thing about a child's innocence, once gone, it is gone forever. There is a time and place for everything. If some guys want to engage in such acts on their own private property, then they are free to do so, but I don't want to be looking at their sex acts in public. It's a public park, that does not belong to them. They need to show some civility.

ForgedinHell wrote: And the thing about a child's innocence, once gone, it is gone forever.

Innocent children are dumb children. Innocence is not a virtue, at least not in this use of the word, I would rather consider it a fault about a person. An innocent person, where the focus of the person's life is innocence in some way (either consciously or habitually) the person is simply ignoring or already in ignorance of life's many sides. It is a monotone form of life which carry with it a large tendency for discrimination and intolerance of either of the different forms of life of others (that being, it's rarely to do with traditional gender or race-orientation, but more likely sub-cultures or other people's ways of living).

Never trust an innocent person more than you two reason in common, or else you might find yourself caught in the other person's fundamentalic behaviour, an essential part of the life-styles of innocent folk. I tell you, NO innocent person is free of an excessive amount of fundamentalism, as it is required to maintain the symbol about oneself of being innocent.

About the thing of being simple I'll just have to say that it's a person-thing. I mean, why should your perspective of things have such an unreasonable (meaning: it doesn't affect your life much in the given circumstances here) amount of weight in determining what public spaces are to be used for by individuals? It's a real bias to suppose ones own opinion should matter much when the result is largely indifferent to oneself. Of course, where this to increase excessively in amount we have another situation, but for a few individuals it shouldn't be much reason to care for other folk.

The Voice of Time wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote: And the thing about a child's innocence, once gone, it is gone forever.

Innocent children are dumb children. Innocence is not a virtue, at least not in this use of the word, I would rather consider it a fault about a person. An innocent person, where the focus of the person's life is innocence in some way (either consciously or habitually) the person is simply ignoring or already in ignorance of life's many sides. It is a monotone form of life which carry with it a large tendency for discrimination and intolerance of either of the different forms of life of others (that being, it's rarely to do with traditional gender or race-orientation, but more likely sub-cultures or other people's ways of living).

Never trust an innocent person more than you two reason in common, or else you might find yourself caught in the other person's fundamentalic behaviour, an essential part of the life-styles of innocent folk. I tell you, NO innocent person is free of an excessive amount of fundamentalism, as it is required to maintain the symbol about oneself of being innocent.

About the thing of being simple I'll just have to say that it's a person-thing. I mean, why should your perspective of things have such an unreasonable (meaning: it doesn't affect your life much in the given circumstances here) amount of weight in determining what public spaces are to be used for by individuals? It's a real bias to suppose ones own opinion should matter much when the result is largely indifferent to oneself. Of course, where this to increase excessively in amount we have another situation, but for a few individuals it shouldn't be much reason to care for other folk.

So, we should make sure that 3 year-olds learn about rape, murder, and torture, to dispel them of their innocence? Maybe we should just give them to some pederasts and have them anally raped, so they can grow up without innocence, and thus, virtuous?

The Voice of Time wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote: And the thing about a child's innocence, once gone, it is gone forever.

Innocent children are dumb children. Innocence is not a virtue, at least not in this use of the word, I would rather consider it a fault about a person. An innocent person, where the focus of the person's life is innocence in some way (either consciously or habitually) the person is simply ignoring or already in ignorance of life's many sides. It is a monotone form of life which carry with it a large tendency for discrimination and intolerance of either of the different forms of life of others (that being, it's rarely to do with traditional gender or race-orientation, but more likely sub-cultures or other people's ways of living).

Never trust an innocent person more than you two reason in common, or else you might find yourself caught in the other person's fundamentalic behaviour, an essential part of the life-styles of innocent folk. I tell you, NO innocent person is free of an excessive amount of fundamentalism, as it is required to maintain the symbol about oneself of being innocent.

About the thing of being simple I'll just have to say that it's a person-thing. I mean, why should your perspective of things have such an unreasonable (meaning: it doesn't affect your life much in the given circumstances here) amount of weight in determining what public spaces are to be used for by individuals? It's a real bias to suppose ones own opinion should matter much when the result is largely indifferent to oneself. Of course, where this to increase excessively in amount we have another situation, but for a few individuals it shouldn't be much reason to care for other folk.

That's one of the weirdest things I've ever read. So we should show children porn, including bestiality and child-porn, because being innocent means they are 'dumb'?? What about snuff movies?

ForgedinHell wrote: I'm an adult, and I still don't want to walk into a public park and have to deal with such garbage. And the thing about a child's innocence, once gone, it is gone forever. There is a time and place for everything. If some guys want to engage in such acts on their own private property, then they are free to do so, but I don't want to be looking at their sex acts in public. It's a public park, that does not belong to them. They need to show some civility.

my point was not that people should perform sex acts in public

rather that there is no reason to freak out over it

as i mentioned i saw a flasher in a park when i was 6 and my mom totally freaked and i had no idea why

i knew one should not run around naked in public, i just did not find the site of some fat guy flopping his wiener around scary and it did not affect my innocence at all