Texsox

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) 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. I wonder how much expectation of privacy one has in a public restroom? Not specific to this, but basically in some bathrooms the stalls have no doors (thinking the old Stadium). At a trough, all the dicks are hanging out. I would think there could no expectation of privacy?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) My town wouldn't have to hire the 8 spanish to english teachers they have in just the one school to help with all the spanish only or spanish forst students. They wouldn't have to have spanish as a requirement for the police department which would increase their applicant pool and be easier to hire good cops. The taxes we all pay cold go a lttle further towards all the pork our lovely politicians enjoy passing. Will your taxes change? hell, they almost never go down. but they may take a little longer before going up. What town has a requirement to speak Spanish to be a cop? They don't even do that here on the border.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:57 PM) 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?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) 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?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:28 PM) 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?

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:04 PM) Come on...you know you want to. Same Bea photo with her eyes blacked out, right?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 04:14 PM) 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?

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) 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.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:19 PM) Not sure what you mean, but you realize that Thompson served more years in the Senate than either Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, right? Nope, I forgot. Thanks for reminding me.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 03:17 PM) 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?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) With every subject. Kap wants a thousands replies all saying I agree! and You are so right!

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:58 PM) What, you mean this? I don't even have to follow the link

It was a crime because the cops *knew* the mating ritual and signals. They *knew* his intent. Using the hooker in a bar analogy. If he downed a quick shot and bought a condom, should he be arrested for talking to the hooker? If he taps his foot and winks? 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. Although, in this case, I agree there may have been enough.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:49 PM) Exactly. Except its the back seat of HIS car, not a CTA bus. This isn't about sex, its about sex in public. Whoa, sex in a car would also be illegal. Or better yet, talking to a hooker in a bar. Should that get you arrested? I guess I can see the point of a well orchestrated mating dance getting someone arrested, but it's a slippery slope.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) That's why there is the legal concept of intent, and here, the manifestation of intent in his behavior. Its not like the cop guessed at it. Quite the contrary. Let's AGAIN go through what Craig did... stared through the crack for an extended period... did the foot tapping... did the foot tapping again... reached under the stall and waved... waved again... reached over in an awkward and otherwise unnatural position and touched his foot... waved AGAIN... THEN the cop showed his badge. There is zero guesswork there. He followed a long process with numerous steps. I can't see how there would be any reasonable doubt as to intent. Same thing if a guy bought a girl a drink, danced, bought another drink, danced, talked about his car's big back seat . . .

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 02:28 PM) That's why I asked my question "How will it affect you if they were all shipped off?" Will your paycheck be bigger? Will cost of goods decrease? Will our taxes change? I don't understand the overall benefit. Someone enlighten me. Some businesses would suffer when their experienced workers are gone and it takes months to find and train replacements. Some unemployed would find work. Some employers will discover why those people were unemployed. You will see a price increase at businesses who relied on lower wages, restaurants, grocery stores. Your farm good will increase in cost as they struggle to find workers for a three week harvest season. There will be less Spanish spoken. It's a mixed bag. But we do have to stop the flow of illegals and put together a guest worker program that works for American businesses and the workers they need.

People, this is why politicians are so slow in responding to this. These low income jobs result in more benefits being paid than income to the federal budget. Same on down to state and local levels. The only way to avoid the financial drain these low paying jobs create, is to either raise the wages substantially, or hire people off the books. The government looked the other way because it was the cheaper solution. The solution is going to cost us money. No doubt about it. Putting these jobs back on the books will result in more benefits being paid and no increase in tax income. It doesn't matter who is working the job.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:34 PM) They are receiving SOME of those benefits, not all. If there were an amnesty, then they would be receiving all. Again, replacing them with legal workers of any nationality, including American, will have the same result.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:53 PM) You seem to believe that because someone "has" a social security number, that they are paying all their taxes. No way that is always the case. Not at all, I agree with SS that the lowest income jobs, do not pay income tax, in fact, the receive a profit. Plus, not every citizen with a SS number is paying all their taxes. What I am saying, it's the wages that those jobs pay that determines the net effect economically in our tax balance, not the person who is working the job. Anyone "on the books" making less than the poverty threshold, will receive a net surplus in taxes. We will have an increase in the tax burden when these jobs go on the books, again, it doesn't matter who is working the job.

OK, I guess I can understand why a foot tap and a reach along a stall wall could cause a Senator to lose his position. It still bothers me that someone could be busted because a cop *knows* what you are thinking.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) Actually I don't believe that I have ever said that the illegals are receiveing benefits. I have said they are burdening social services such as hospitals and jails, but I don't think I ever said anything about government benefits. You make it sound like every single illegal is here using someone else's social security card, paying taxes, and receiving social services. This is not the truth. If it were the truth, one in twenty five person's social security numbers in the whole country has been stolen. As I have stated in the past, anyone who is here committing that kind of fraud, should be deported instantly, and not allowed to return or become a citizen. So if they obtained a SS number they should be deported, and if they are working off the books, they should be deported *and* the company put out of business. So basically we should deport them all and bring in new. How do we afford that?

BTW Tom Delay would never be caught reaching under a stall. Hammer Time '08

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:14 PM) To paraphrase Obama: Who had more experience than Cheney and Rumsfield and look what they did with the war on terror. Best ever: I do miss Reagan's quotes and smile.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:57 PM) Did you ever see anything so adorable? friend of yours?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 09:09 AM) I actually agree with this statement. Going on Leno to offically launch your campaign is just asinine and describes to a "T" the demeaning manner in which the office of the president has been dragged down to. It drags down my view of Sen. Thompson quite a bit, actually. He's now my "favorite" GOP candidate, but what he did is so cheap and it really bothers me. I'm trying to remember the last time one of these wasn't staged to a "T". At a firehouse, hometown crowds, etc. Since he has even less experience than Obama, I am certain he won't receive much traction from the GOP loyalists who used that as a reason not to support Obama. BTW, before someone gets their panies in a bunch, I agree the lack of experience is troubling for a candidate regardless of party.