Senator Larry Craig convicted of lewd conduct in men's bathroom

[hammerhead johnson]

its about sex in public.

 

Where is the sexual act?

 

Don't talk to me about intent, either. Like I said before, damn near everyone would be locked up if that were the case. Not me, though. I'm a prude.

[Texsox]

With every subject.

 

Kap wants a thousands replies all saying

 

I agree!

 

and

 

You are so right!

 

[hammerhead johnson]

All I'm saying is I'd feel better if there was some verbal exchange where the criminal asks or offers public sex, same as the threshold for prostitutes.

 

The intent to have sex was present. The intent to have public sex? Where is it? How can anyone possibly prove it? You can tell all of that just from footsies? If I play footsies with my sister's friend underneath the dinner table, does that mean we go at it right there and then? Is that my intent? I don't get it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Where is the sexual act?

 

Don't talk to me about intent, either. Like I said before, damn near everyone would be locked up if that were the case. Not me, though. I'm a prude.

LEGAL intent. Not the psychological term intent. Important difference. Legal intent was clearly manifest here.

 

Sting-type operations do not require the illegal act to be successful - the burden of proof is to get enough evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to the next act. You cannot expect cops to actually engage in the illegal act itself.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

The intent to have sex was present. The intent to have public sex? Where is it? How can anyone possibly prove it? You can tell all of that just from footsies? If I play footsies with my sister's friend underneath the dinner table, does that mean we go at it right there and then? Is that my intent? I don't get it.

While he waited for a flight connection? If it wasn't in the stall, it was somewhere else in the airport, and that's public (unless he has a private office in the airport).

 

[Texsox]

LEGAL intent. Not the psychological term intent. Important difference. Legal intent was clearly manifest here.

 

Sting-type operations do not require the illegal act to be successful - the burden of proof is to get enough evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to the next act. You cannot expect cops to actually engage in the illegal act itself.

 

I agree. Cops should not engage in the illegal act. Which of course this cop was by sitting in a known cruising restroom, waiting to be propositioned, exactly like a criminal would. He lingered way longer than what would happen if he was using the restroom for "the intended purpose". Why not have the cop ask, what do you want?

[NorthSideSox72]

I agree. Cops should not engage in the illegal act. Which of course this cop was by sitting in a known cruising restroom, waiting to be propositioned, exactly like a criminal would. He lingered way longer than what would happen if he was using the restroom for "the intended purpose". Why not have the cop ask, what do you want?

Well, for one, that would probably scare him off. The whole thing is apparently meant to be non-verbal until they are in the stall together. and at that point, it might be difficult to not make it clear he is a cop. Second, from a self-defense perspective, as a cop I wouldn't want to try to "sting" someone that I was stuck in that small a space with, if I could avoid it. It greatly increases the danger level.

 

[hammerhead johnson]

LEGAL intent. Not the psychological term intent. Important difference. Legal intent was clearly manifest here.

 

Sting-type operations do not require the illegal act to be successful - the burden of proof is to get enough evidence that there is no reasonable doubt as to the next act. You cannot expect cops to actually engage in the illegal act itself.

 

So it is illegal for one man to hit on another? I get it now.

 

While he waited for a flight connection? If it wasn't in the stall, it was somewhere else in the airport, and that's public (unless he has a private office in the airport).

 

Okay, so I meet some beautiful lady while waiting for a flight connection, and I make arrangements to catch another subsequent flight. This is completely out of the realm of possibility, yeah?

 

Come on. Beyond a reasonable doubt my ass.

[hammerhead johnson]

I agree. Cops should not engage in the illegal act.

 

Well yeah, who said that they should? That's more or less northside putting words into my mouth.

[Texsox]

Well yeah, who said that they should? That's more or less northside putting words into my mouth.

 

Interesting that if Craig and the cop exchanged roles, the cop could have been busted as well. He clearly intended to engage in an illegal sex act. I fall way short in calling this entrapment, but that's part of the game.

 

And, upon further reflection, we are talking about a misdemeanor. I'm not certain if the cops should have more or less leeway in such a minor victimless crime.

[NorthSideSox72]

So it is illegal for one man to hit on another? I get it now.

Okay, so I meet some beautiful lady while waiting for a flight connection, and I make arrangements to catch another subsequent flight. This is completely out of the realm of possibility, yeah?

 

Come on. Beyond a reasonable doubt my ass.

 

There is a difference between reasonable doubt and an outside possibility. Its also possible that Craig has mental issues and was trying to talk to the space alien in the stall next to him - but no reasonable person would believe that. And in this case, knowing the fact that these things occur a certain way, and given the bizarre location and method used, this is not simply a guy hitting on another guy. Bring it to a grand jury of 12 citizens, and most or all would feel it was clear the intent was to participate in sex acts in the bathroom. And that is illegal, just as lewd acts are illegal in most public places.

 

Well yeah, who said that they should? That's more or less northside putting words into my mouth.

You were the one who harped on the fact that no illegal act occurred. If the cop doesn't act, how else would it occur? I simply closed the loophole you were attempting to open.

 

Just curious... is it the law you disagree with? Do you feel people should be allowed to do these things in public? Because I can understand that stance. But if you are looking at the police conduct, they did everything they could reasonably do to establish probable cause without actually engaging in an illegal activity. So as far as I can see, they enforced the law properly.

 

 

[Texsox]

You were the one who harped on the fact that no illegal act occurred. If the cop doesn't act, how else would it occur? I simply closed the loophole you were attempting to open.

 

Here's is the calm question. Comparing this to other busts, why isn't calling a hooker/drug dealer/bookie over to a car enough? It seems to me that is the point where he was busted.

 

And let's take this step by step with Craig.

 

It appears that just intending to commit a crime is enough.

 

Is two people in one stall a crime? No. Parents take their kids all the time.

Is exposing yourself in a restroom illegal? No. You have to at a urinal.

But any of these would be a crime, if the cop *knows* it will lead to a crime?

 

I believe they cops are pinning their prosecutions on guys not wanting to be labeled gay. If this was a straight crime, they would need a lot more because the guy would be saying, yeah, I hit on her. She's gorgeous and I'd do her anywhere. Would I do her in a restroom? Damn yes if she was willing. Do you honestly believe he would have been busted?

 

BTW, stall sitting has to be the worst undercover assignment. Think the guy kept his pants around his ankles?

[jackie hayes]

The only thing wrong with what happened is that the Senator didn't get charged with the correct, more serious charge that he should have been charged with - and that was probably because of his influence as a Senator.

What charge is that?

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's is the calm question. Comparing this to a prostitution bust, why isn't calling a hooker over to a car enough? It seems to me that is the point where he was busted.

 

And let's take this step by step with Craig.

 

It appears that just intending to commit a crime is enough.

 

Is two people in one stall a crime? No. Parents take their kids all the time.

Is exposing yourself in a restroom illegal? No. You have to at a urinal.

But any of these would be a crime, if the cop *knows* it will lead to a crime?

 

I believe they cops are pinning their prosecutions on guys not wanting to be labeled gay. If this was a straight crime, they would need a lot more because the guy would be saying, yeah, I hit on her. She's gorgeous and I'd do her anywhere. Would I do her in a restroom? Damn yes if she was willing. Do you honestly believe he would have been busted?

 

BTW, stall sitting has to be the worst undercover assignment. Think the guy kept his pants around his ankles?

You are again pointing at examples not in the same territory. Look again at the litany of actions Craig undertook. Then take that obvious motive to its end. The last link - the actual act - cannot be established for numerous reasons. So they get as far as they can with it.

 

And they are doing it, I'd bet, because people were complaining about it. If it were a co-ed bathroom and they got complaints, they'd probably do something about that too.

 

Calling a hooker over to a car isn't enough, just as simply waving a hand under a stall isn't enough. Too much doubt. Could be offering the prostitute money and then drives off. Could be the senator was out of TP. But with EVERYTHING Craig did, there simply is no reasonable doubt. Just like if you waved a hooker to your car, flashed money, pointed at your crotch then motioned her to get in.

 

[Texsox]

You are again pointing at examples not in the same territory. Look again at the litany of actions Craig undertook. Then take that obvious motive to its end. The last link - the actual act - cannot be established for numerous reasons. So they get as far as they can with it.

 

And they are doing it, I'd bet, because people were complaining about it. If it were a co-ed bathroom and they got complaints, they'd probably do something about that too.

 

Calling a hooker over to a car isn't enough, just as simply waving a hand under a stall isn't enough. Too much doubt. Could be offering the prostitute money and then drives off. Could be the senator was out of TP. But with EVERYTHING Craig did, there simply is no reasonable doubt. Just like if you waved a hooker to your car, flashed money, pointed at your crotch then motioned her to get in.

 

good point. I'm starting to agree with you. Did Craig motion to his crotch? Did Craig somehow indicate he wanted sex there and not someplace where it would be legal? Or was it the illegal actions of others that determined that he had an illegal act in mind?

[NorthSideSox72]

good point. I'm starting to agree with you. Did Craig motion to his crotch? Did Craig somehow indicate he wanted sex there and not someplace where it would be legal? Or was it the illegal actions of others that determined that he had an illegal act in mind?

He motioned something with his hand, I honestly don't recall what they said the motion was. May have just been a wave. I have no idea.

 

[Texsox]

He motioned something with his hand, I honestly don't recall what they said the motion was. May have just been a wave. I have no idea.

 

Regardless, the cop knew what Craig wanted, based on the illegal acts of others in the same situation, exhibiting the same behaviors. Are you comfortable arresting and convicting one person based on the actions of others?

[jackie hayes]

The cop didn't have to know anything about his intent. He was charged because his actions were considered alarming (also for violating privacy, but that was dropped). It doesn't matter, legally, if the actions mean, "Let's have sex here" or "Let's have sex at my place" or "I was hoping you could give me the name of a good house painter". The actions themselves are the crime.

[Texsox]

The cop didn't have to know anything about his intent. He was charged because his actions were considered alarming (also for violating privacy, but that was dropped). It doesn't matter, legally, if the actions mean, "Let's have sex here" or "Let's have sex at my place" or "I was hoping you could give me the name of a good house painter". The actions themselves are the crime.

 

Tapping your foot and offering a hand shake is alarming and therefor illegal? When did alarming become illegal?

[NorthSideSox72]

Tapping your foot and offering a hand shake is alarming and therefor illegal? When did alarming become illegal?

Staring through the crack, and touching his foot, would be considered pretty alarming. At least to me.

 

I have to say though, I hadn't gotten the impression that those acts themselves were the lewd acts. If they are, that's a different direction than I was going. Jackie, where did you see that?

 

[jackie hayes]

Staring through the crack, and touching his foot, would be considered pretty alarming. At least to me.

 

I have to say though, I hadn't gotten the impression that those acts themselves were the lewd acts. If they are, that's a different direction than I was going. Jackie, where did you see that?

He wasn't charged with lewd conduct, or intent to commit lewd conduct, or anything of the sort. He was charged with disorderly conduct (for the whole ritual of swiping his hand beneath the divider three times, touching the cop's foot, etc -- a misdemeanor) and invasion of privacy (for staring into the stall -- a gross misdemeanor) -- the invasion of privacy was apparently dropped as part of the plea.

[NorthSideSox72]

He wasn't charged with lewd conduct, or intent to commit lewd conduct, or anything of the sort. He was charged with disorderly conduct (for the whole ritual of swiping his hand beneath the divider three times, touching the cop's foot, etc -- a misdemeanor) and invasion of privacy (for staring into the stall -- a gross misdemeanor) -- the invasion of privacy was apparently dropped as part of the plea.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I had thought it was a lewd conduct charge the arrived at. It its just disorderly conduct, the threshold is lower. I think he'd have a very hard time overturning that, not even to mention how unusual it is to try to overturn such a thing after voluntarily entering into a plea agreement.

 

[jackie hayes]

Links to the official court documents are here (at the bottom of the article):

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...rderly-conduct/

[Rex Kickass]

I'm sure if you really want to know why the intent was so clear, there are a number of websites on the internet that illustrate the song and dance that comes with sexual activity in a men's room. And the good Senator, illustrated a by the book come on.

[santo=dorf]

Anybody else read how his daughter was arrested after appearing on national TV to talk about him? yeah, she as a warrant out for her arrest.

 

[Lib NUKE] HAHAHA!!! EAT s*** YOU CRIMINAL!!! [/Lib NUKE]

<----------Criminal

Edited September 6, 2007 by santo=dorf