Idaho Senator (R) Arrested in Airport

Damocles said:
The officer at least should have ensured he meant for the activity to take place in the restroom. Making a pass in the restroom isn't the same thing as actually working to have sex in the same.
Click to expand...

this goes beyond making a pass.

this was lecherous and bizzare behaviour. He stood outside the dudes stall for two minutes and peaked through the crack. He played footsy with him. He stuck his hand under, and gave code signals soliciting sex.
 
Cypress said:
this goes beyond making a pass.

this was lecherous and bizzare behaviour. He stood outside the dudes stall for two minutes and peaked through the crack. He played footsy with him. He stuck his hand under, and gave code signals soliciting sex.
Click to expand...
But did that mean it would have happened there? As I said, an inept pass isn't illegal. At least as far as I know it isn't.
 
uscitizen said:
It might well turn out to be an assault charge on me....

I would consider it an extremely serious violation of my space.

A bar or someplace now is another matter butt in a secure airport restroom...
Click to expand...



same here.

Peeking at a dude for two minutes through the crack in the stall, and playing non-consensual footsy with him, is not equivalent of "making a pass".

We all know what making a pass is. It doesn't involve lechery and non-consensual touching.
 
Cypress said:
this goes beyond making a pass.

this was lecherous and bizzare behaviour. He stood outside the dudes stall for two minutes and peaked through the crack. He played footsy with him. He stuck his hand under, and gave code signals soliciting sex.
Click to expand...

About the only part of that that maybe should an arrestable offense is the peering into the stall.

At what point did the cop tell him, no thanks or buzz off ? Or rather did the cop invite the attention as officers attemtpting to entrap often do?
 
RStringfield said:
About the only part of that that maybe should an arrestable offense is the peering into the stall.

At what point did the cop tell him, no thanks or buzz off ? Or rather did the cop invite the attention as officers attemtpting to entrap often do?
Click to expand...

Its obvious from the arrest report that the cop had probable cause to know that this guy was soliciting for sex in a public bathroom.

That is not the same thing as a flirty pass. Not any "pass" I'm aware of. You DON"T have sex in a public bathroom. If you want to make a pass, you ask the other person to join you at a hotel or something. If that was my 19-year old step son the senator was peeking at through the crack for two minutes, I might be tempted to kick his skull in.
 
Damocles said:
Why? Do you fear he might be successful if you don't punch him?
Click to expand...

Nope, you can't turn this around on me Damo.
I did make refernece to either sex hitting on me while taking a crap. Although I don't hit ladies I would let her know in no uncertain terms.....
 
Cypress said:
same here.

Peeking at a dude for two minutes through the crack in the stall, and playing non-consensual footsy with him, is not equivalent of "making a pass".

We all know what making a pass is. It doesn't involve lechery and non-consensual touching.
Click to expand...

Non-consensual (more like, not preapproved) touching is often part of a pass. Unless the cop had told him to get lost and then he touched him, there is no violation here. As I said, the cop likely made it appear he wanted the attention. That's how these sort of arrest are made. The cops lure or bait the person into some sort of action.
 
Damocles said:
Secure? It is a public restroom. As I said, it isn't the place you'd expect, but what harm would come of it?
Click to expand...

Umm he might get beat up ?

Did you kmiss the part where the officer was investigating repoorts of this type of activity in this restroom. apparently it was a gathering spot for bathroom gays.
 
RStringfield said:
Non-consensual (more like, not preapproved) touching is often part of a pass. Unless the cop had told him to get lost and then he touched him, there is no violation here. As I said, the cop likely made it appear he wanted the attention. That's how these sort of arrest are made. The cops lure or bait the person into some sort of action.
Click to expand...

Everything in that arrest report, indicates that Craig was intending to solicit and have sex IN a public bathroom. Granted, this in not the worst crime in the world, but I don't want lecherous wierdos having sex in public bathrooms that me and my stepsons may use.
 
RStringfield said:
Non-consensual (more like, not preapproved) touching is often part of a pass. Unless the cop had told him to get lost and then he touched him, there is no violation here. As I said, the cop likely made it appear he wanted the attention. That's how these sort of arrest are made. The cops lure or bait the person into some sort of action.
Click to expand...

I guess you will just have to quit this type of activity until paul is elected then :)
 
RStringfield said:
Nothing I have yet seen proves that he intended to have sex IN the bathroom.
Click to expand...


Yes, he did. Its in the police report. There were several indications, that he intended to have sex in the bathroom, per the police report, giving the cop probable cause. And he plead guilty. End of story.
 
If he had just waited till the cop got out of the stall, and said: "I find you attractive, would you want to give me your phone number, or hook up later", he would not have been arrested.
 
Yes, he did. Its in the police report. There were several indications, that he intended to have sex in the bathroom, per the police report. And he plead guilty. End of story.
Click to expand...

Like what? Hand signals and foot tapping? Sorry, that don't cut it.

Whether he plead guilty is irrelevant. I can't see why he should have been arrested, well, the peering into the stall, but that was not part of the orignal post.
 
RStringfield said:
Like what? Hand signals and foot tapping? Sorry, that don't cut it.

Whether he plead guilty is irrelevant. I can't see why he should have been arrested, well, the peering into the stall, but that was not part of the orignal post.
Click to expand...

I posted a link to the arresting officers report a while back in the thread. Keep up.
 
RStringfield said:
Like what? Hand signals and foot tapping? Sorry, that don't cut it.

Whether he plead guilty is irrelevant. I can't see why he should have been arrested, well, the peering into the stall, but that was not part of the orignal post.
Click to expand...

Placing his suitcase, such that it blocked people from outside the stall seeing under the door, and potentially seeing the act take place.

Look, I'm not an expert in gay bathroom sex. I don't think you are either. There is evidently a certain protocol and code that is used, and that the cops are aware of.

And Craig plead guilty. He's a smart man: if he was just making a flirty pass, he wouldn't have plead guilty. He's not a dummy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top