Idaho Senator (R) Arrested in Airport

Superfreak said:
Um... 0
Click to expand...

Folks, look at how the not a lefty lefty SuperFreak, actually hesitated before he felt confident enough to solve the puzzle the lefty Darla put up? A puzzle so simple, RJS would not stoop to answer it, butt, SuperFreak is not sure, umm, 0? Do you want RJS to correct your paper SF, you got a hundred, congratulations, it is a kindergarten test?
 
Cypress said:
I know as a libertarians, you're desparately trying to find a way to paint this as some egregious violation of civil rights. However, I believe even your fellow libertarians Socretease, who is a lawyer, said this wasn't entrapment.

Did the cops patrol the bathrooms, and maybe even went on a stake out occassionally? Sounds like it. I don't do their job, and I don't know how they operate.

I do know that public nuisances and lewd behavior in airport bathrooms, is most certainly a responsibility of the Airport Police Department. Several people tried to spin this like these cops should have been out in the city tracking the mob, and rapists. These are Airport Cops - the airport is their job. No one was pulled off a case against the mob, to stake out this bathroom.
Click to expand...

I'll defer to him on whether it meets the legal definition. Never said it was. I said it stinks of entrapment, borders on entrapment, etc.

I don't see much need for these types of police practices whatsoever. They are mainly aimed at consensual acts. This one is not completely consensual as it involves the property owner against his will. Still, why not just prevent the acts in the first place by creating a presence in the bathroom. Instead, the cops are going out of their to target a specific group.
 
RJS said:
Folks, look at how the not a lefty lefty SuperFreak, actually hesitated before he felt confident enough to solve the puzzle the lefty Darla put up? A puzzle so simple, RJS would not stoop to answer it, butt, SuperFreak is not sure, umm, 0? Do you want RJS to correct your paper SF, you got a hundred, congratulations, it is a kindergarten test?
Click to expand...

nah... it is below the ever awesome power of a mensa to grade such a simplistic exam. Your time would be better spent "skewering" all us crazy lefties.
 
RStringfield said:
I'll defer to him on whether it meets the legal definition. Never said it was. I said it stinks of entrapment, borders on entrapment, etc.

I don't see much need for these types of police practices whatsoever. They are mainly aimed at consensual acts. This one is not completely consensual as it involves the property owner against his will. Still, why not just prevent the acts in the first place by creating a presence in the bathroom. Instead, the cops are going out of their to target a specific group.
Click to expand...

You want a police state where a cop supervises you taking a pee ? Boy is that Libertarian for ya :D
 
LOL.........

uscitizen said:
You want a police state where a cop supervises you taking a pee ? Boy is that Libertarian for ya :D
Click to expand...


Thats what I was thinking...not forgetting to mention all the complaining about waisted budgets for more officers...there is a hell of alot of public restrooms out there!:cof1:
 
uscitizen said:
You want a police state where a cop supervises you taking a pee ? Boy is that Libertarian for ya :D
Click to expand...

Retard, your strawman is far more applicable to the current situation and this case.

I see no problem with the cops walking through the bathrooms every so often.
 
Battleborne said:
Thats what I was thinking...not forgetting to mention all the complaining about waisted budgets for more officers...there is a hell of alot of public restrooms out there!:cof1:
Click to expand...

How is it going to cost more to have the cop occassionally check the br than to have some cop sitting in the br all day trying to ensnare people? That's a ridiculous comment.
 
RStringfield said:
I'll defer to him on whether it meets the legal definition. Never said it was. I said it stinks of entrapment, borders on entrapment, etc.

I don't see much need for these types of police practices whatsoever. They are mainly aimed at consensual acts. This one is not completely consensual as it involves the property owner against his will. Still, why not just prevent the acts in the first place by creating a presence in the bathroom. Instead, the cops are going out of their to target a specific group.
Click to expand...


I have no idea how an Airport Police Department does its job effectively. I'm sure they have protocols.

A walk-through may be appropriate in general cases. In cases of continous and routine report of public nuisances and lewdness, an occassional stake out may be appropriate. I just don't pretend to know how to do their job, in every circumstance.
 
HUH..........

RStringfield said:
How is it going to cost more to have the cop occassionally check the br than to have some cop sitting in the br all day trying to ensnare people? That's a ridiculous comment.
Click to expand...


who is being rediculous now...the cop was taking a dump all :cof1: day in the BR...maybe he should be put on medical disability....
 
Cypress said:
I have no idea how an Airport Police Department does its job effectively. I'm sure they have protocols.

A walk-through may be appropriate in general cases. In cases of continous and routine report of public nuisances and lewdness, an occassional stake out may be appropriate. I just don't pretend to know how to do their job, in every circumstance.
Click to expand...
I am not taking my stake out under any circumstances while performing such duties.
 
I have no problem with police cracking down on sex in public. I don't want my kids walking into a public restroom where 2 of ANYONE are having sex. I do have a problem with cops sitting in a public toilet waiting for someone to either purposely or accidentally touch their foot to his and then beginning the process of determining if the person needs toilet paper or to blow him. There are more important things for police to do, even in an airport.
 
uscitizen said:
Me thinks strings modus operundi has been threatened....
Click to expand...

Methinks usc should stfu instead of belittling his side of the argument with homophobic potshots tha only make him appaer as hypocritical as the senator.

I would not have bathroom sex with a female stranger. However, clumsy passes are often my mo.
 
RStringfield said:
Methinks usc should stfu instead of belittling his side of the argument with homophobic potshots tha only make him appaer as hypocritical as the senator.

I would not have bathroom sex with a female stranger. However, clumsy passes are often my mo.
Click to expand...

So that means you would with a male stranger ?
 
Yeah, yeah, more unsubstantiated assertions. You should learn to make an argument. Nah, on second thought, you are better off waiting for cypress or some other poster and then adding your "me too."
 
You know I liked RP a lot better before I got aquaninted with his supporters....

I appreciate having my eyes opened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top