Larry Craig question. I dont get it.

[Damocles]

yeah and the tape also said he peeked for no more than one or two minutes tops

No, it said that he was there for two minutes and during that time he would peek, then fiddle with his fingers, then look again.

It wasn't like he held his gaze unblinking for two minutes from such a distance. It would be far easier for the guy sitting to see him than for Craig to see the guy sitting.

 

[Damocles]

If you have listened to that audio tape yet, from the Airport Police, its obvious Craig is squirming and lying his ass off. He KNOWS he was doing something either wrong, or at a minimum, very bizarre.

I did listen to it. However, there is no conclusive, beyond a reasonable doubt information.

I believe he was doing it, could there be a reasonable doubt? I think there could.

I'm talking solely convitability. I don't think he would have been convicted if he took it to trial. Of course he wouldn't because he wanted to keep it secret, but I don't think they could have convicted him.

I think if he forced it to the DA, they'd have tossed it for lack of evidence.

 

[uscitizen]

No, it said that he was there for two minutes and during that time he would peek, then fiddle with his fingers, then look again.

It wasn't like he held his gaze unblinking for two minutes from such a distance. It would be far easier for the guy sitting to see him than for Craig to see the guy sitting.

There seemed to also be dispute why he had to have the stall next to the cop. seemed to me like the cop thought there were other stalls open.

 

[Damocles]

There seemed to also be dispute why he had to have the stall next to the cop. seemed to me like the cop thought there were other stalls open.

That would also have been difficult to prove. He might think they were open but he wouldn't have been able to see it within the stall unless he was looking under stall walls which would have drawn attention to him as acting 'very oddly'. I doubt it would say, "Hit on me, I'm not a cop!"

 

[Cancel7]

Ok, but everybody is off point!

Are hetero men arrested, or, are there even special units designed to set up, hetero men for making passes in public places? If every single one of you guys on here, could be a woman for a week, you might get it. I guess it's hopeless otherwise though.

The laws and enforcement of them are bigoted in my opinion.

 

[Damocles]

Ok, but everybody is off point!

Are hetero men arrested, or, are there even special units designed to set up, hetero men for making passes in public places? If every single one of you guys on here, could be a woman for a week, you might get it. I guess it's hopeless otherwise though.

The laws and enforcement of them are bigoted in my opinion.

I made that point long ago. Socrtease tells me they lose in court when they bring it up.

 

[uscitizen]

and I asked if any women had ever been arrested for similar actions...
Of course I have no idea what their signals would be....

 

[Cypress]

Ok, but everybody is off point!

Are hetero men arrested, or, are there even special units designed to set up, hetero men for making passes in public places? If every single one of you guys on here, could be a woman for a week, you might get it. I guess it's hopeless otherwise though.

The laws and enforcement of them are bigoted in my opinion.

You're right about whether or not the laws are applied equally.

However, in general, sex in public places is considered a lewd act, and against most city ordinances I'm aware off. I'm pretty sure heterosexual couples have gotten detained and fined for committing a lewd act in public. Heck, I has sex with a girlfriend in a bathroom once, and I was fully aware that if a cop walked in, I'd probably be detained. I would have stuck my hands out for the cuffs, and said "Damn, you caught us!". I wouldn't have tried to argue with the cop that I wasn't doing anything wrong.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ok, but everybody is off point!

Are hetero men arrested, or, are there even special units designed to set up, hetero men for making passes in public places? If every single one of you guys on here, could be a woman for a week, you might get it. I guess it's hopeless otherwise though.

The laws and enforcement of them are bigoted in my opinion.

This is why I pointed out that he was not arrested for solicitation of a lewd act in a public place. It's not a crime to do that. Craig could have walked straight up to the cop and said "Want to have sex in the bathroom" and he could not have been charged with a crime because it is not illegal.

Now it is illegal to have sex in public (although I understand that there is case law in Minnesota that says that once the door on the bathroom stall is closed, it is no longer a public place, it's private) and you can be arrested for having sex in public, and will be if caught. However, in order to prevent the sex act from ever happening cops use other statutes like disorderly conduct and the peeping tom statute to arrest people since they can't arrest them for solicitation.

 

[uscitizen]

Thanks for tha DH, It explains a lot.
also why gays like the bathrooms up there

 

[doniston]

Regrding this situation, I see it this way.

1. he had a guilty conscience or he wouldn't have pleaded Guily
2. Had he fought it, he likeely would have been found not guilty or had the charges dropped. However, obviously he didn't want it known so-----
3. he did plead guilty, so he has no reasonable recourse..
4. so he's had it Frankly I don't care of he is gay, any more than I cared that Bill got a blow Job. in both cases, their continued approach created the serious problems.

 

[Damocles]

This is why I pointed out that he was not arrested for solicitation of a lewd act in a public place. It's not a crime to do that. Craig could have walked straight up to the cop and said "Want to have sex in the bathroom" and he could not have been charged with a crime because it is not illegal.

Now it is illegal to have sex in public (although I understand that there is case law in Minnesota that says that once the door on the bathroom stall is closed, it is no longer a public place, it's private) and you can be arrested for having sex in public, and will be if caught. However, in order to prevent the sex act from ever happening cops use other statutes like disorderly conduct and the peeping tom statute to arrest people since they can't arrest them for solicitation.

Actually, according to the law, walking up to him and asking that would have been illegal if it could reasonably cause "offense".

 

[Cypress]

This is why I pointed out that he was not arrested for solicitation of a lewd act in a public place. It's not a crime to do that. Craig could have walked straight up to the cop and said "Want to have sex in the bathroom" and he could not have been charged with a crime because it is not illegal.

Now it is illegal to have sex in public (although I understand that there is case law in Minnesota that says that once the door on the bathroom stall is closed, it is no longer a public place, it's private) and you can be arrested for having sex in public, and will be if caught. However, in order to prevent the sex act from ever happening cops use other statutes like disorderly conduct and the peeping tom statute to arrest people since they can't arrest them for solicitation.

Right, I mean what are the cops supposed to do?

Lets say there's a public park, where heterosexual couples are routinely copulating in public. A park where children go. If the cops stake it out, to crack down on the prevalence of lewd acts, are they supposed to wait until a suspect starts performing sex on them, before they can do anything? lol

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually, according to the law, walking up to him and asking that would have been illegal if it could reasonably cause "offense".

But not because solicitation per se is a crime. It would be illegal under the disorderly conduct statute which prohibits "[e]ngag[ing] in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others”

 

[Cancel7]

But not because solicitation per se is a crime. It would be illegal under the disorderly conduct statute which prohibits "[e]ngag[ing] in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others”

Wow, well that covers everything doesn't it? So basically, I could be arrested for disorderly conduct everytime I leave my home, and that's not even counting the times I'm protesting the war, because that causes resentment and anger in plenty of people.

But...I've never been arrested. Well, not for that anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

This aspect is why I was asking alex if he was certified to practice law up there. Not that I doubted Alex as a lawyer.
States are different.

 

[Bonestorm]

This aspect is why I was asking alex if he was certified to practice law up there. Not that I doubted Alex as a lawyer.
States are different.

Who's alex?

 

[Damocles]

Who's alex?

Jarod.

 

[uscitizen]

Who's alex?

Jarod

 

[Battleborne]

Ok, but everybody is off point!

Are hetero men arrested, or, are there even special units designed to set up, hetero men for making passes in public places? If every single one of you guys on here, could be a woman for a week, you might get it. I guess it's hopeless otherwise though.

The laws and enforcement of them are bigoted in my opinion.

This is so lame even for the flirtatious darla of the board...if hetro men stopped hitting on women in public places y'all would have dreary Friday and Saturday nights...good for the pillow business and dildo business I suspect...lotsa sleepovers with your girl friends...