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

[Middle Buffalo]

 

this is still the MSM top news story. we get it, a GOP Senator is gay.

He could park his shoes under my bed any time.

 

 

 

 

Allegedly.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't think anyone here would call me a GOP apologist, but I agree with much of her blog. Cops in uniform walking in and out of the restroom would have stopped the behavior, did they really need an undercover sting? Shouldn't the cops be detaining anyone with a dark complexion to be certain they aren't terrorists or worse, illegal immigrants?

 

All that does is make another cruisy bathroom somewhere in the airport happen. Arresting people for sex in public will stop sex in public - in general.

[Texsox]

All that does is make another cruisy bathroom somewhere in the airport happen. Arresting people for sex in public will stop sex in public - in general.

 

And if they caught him having sex, I would agree on this case.

 

When the cops start busting people for possible intent, and actions that *may* lead to a certain crime, we are on a slippery slope. Calling a hooker over to a car *may* lead to an illegal act, or it *may* lead to someone trying to help the person with food, clothing, shelter, etc. One is illegal, the other not. I don't like the police being in the position where they are claiming they *know* what another person is thinking and can have him arrested and convicted.

[kapkomet]

I heard on the news last night that he is going to claim he was forced into giving false testimony (duress) in that interview that was released by the police. Fat chance, Mr. Craig. Please go away.

[Rex Kickass]

And if they caught him having sex, I would agree on this case.

 

When the cops start busting people for possible intent, and actions that *may* lead to a certain crime, we are on a slippery slope. Calling a hooker over to a car *may* lead to an illegal act, or it *may* lead to someone trying to help the person with food, clothing, shelter, etc. One is illegal, the other not. I don't like the police being in the position where they are claiming they *know* what another person is thinking and can have him arrested and convicted.

 

You know what? I don't buy this argument. I think there was little else the Senator was insinuating by playing footsie under a bathroom stall wall and passing his hand through the gap and creepily staring at the guy through the gap for several minutes.

 

I like to think I'm as sex-positive as the next guy, but I don't believe that sex in public bathrooms should be legal, and I do think that propositioning someone to join them in the stall for sex is the same thing, especially when using established protocol to do so.

 

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.

[kapkomet]

You know what? I don't buy this argument. I think there was little else the Senator was insinuating by playing footsie under a bathroom stall wall and passing his hand through the gap and creepily staring at the guy through the gap for several minutes.

 

I like to think I'm as sex-positive as the next guy, but I don't believe that sex in public bathrooms should be legal, and I do think that propositioning someone to join them in the stall for sex is the same thing, especially when using established protocol to do so.

 

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.

It sounds like if it were to go to a grand jury, it would have been the more serious charge... but instead he pled guilty to a lesser charge "to make it go away"... which again is bunk.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

Or, they offer lesser charges on these cases in order to not flood the court system with the cases. There is also prosecutorial risk in cases like these for the very reasons brought up here - strong arguments might be made that the charges are not valid if no solicitation occurs. Both are common reasons for plea agreements, regardless of who Craig is.

 

[southsider2k5]

I heard on the news last night that he is going to claim he was forced into giving false testimony (duress) in that interview that was released by the police. Fat chance, Mr. Craig. Please go away.

Give it up. Resign. Go have a happy life with your family.

[Texsox]

You know what? I don't buy this argument. I think there was little else the Senator was insinuating by playing footsie under a bathroom stall wall and passing his hand through the gap and creepily staring at the guy through the gap for several minutes.

 

I like to think I'm as sex-positive as the next guy, but I don't believe that sex in public bathrooms should be legal, and I do think that propositioning someone to join them in the stall for sex is the same thing, especially when using established protocol to do so.

 

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.

 

Do those actions always result in public sex for willing partners, or could it result in "come back to my place"? I guess that is where I am still confused.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Do those actions always result in public sex for willing partners, or could it result in "come back to my place"? I guess that is where I am still confused.

 

why don't you come back to my place and I'll help you figure it out *wink*

[Texsox]

why don't you come back to my place and I'll help you figure it out *wink*

^^^^^^ Avatar

 

Is that a creepy puppet in your lap or are you *ahh never mind*

[sox4lifeinPA]

^^^^^^ Avatar

 

Is that a creepy puppet in your lap or are you *ahh never mind*

 

 

that's not a puppet...that's just what it looks like

 

 

 

your avatar's got a crotch shot of its own.

[Texsox]

that's not a puppet...that's just what it looks like

 

 

 

your avatar's got a crotch shot of its own.

Mine is what God intended, some some godless thing you posted. I guess you have to dress it up to keep it interesting for the missus

[Texsox]

BTW

 

Tom Delay would never be caught reaching under a stall.

 

Hammer Time '08

[Rex Kickass]

Do those actions always result in public sex for willing partners, or could it result in "come back to my place"? I guess that is where I am still confused.

 

Theoretically it could result in come back to my place. It's not likely that's the case in an airport bathroom (and if he was making a connection both physically and in the aviation sense, he'd have been beyond security in the "sterile" area.) But given that the intent is for anonymous sex, why would you take that stranger back somewhere that someone would learn anything about you?

 

 

[Texsox]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

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.

 

[Texsox]

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 . . .

[NorthSideSox72]

Same thing if a guy bought a girl a drink, danced, bought another drink, danced, talked about his car's big back seat . . .

Exactly. Except its the back seat of HIS car, not a CTA bus. This isn't about sex, its about sex in public.

 

[Texsox]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

Huh? TALKING to a hooker in a bar, if sex never comes up, is not illegal and could never be successfully prosecuted. And sex in a car may or may not qualify for lewd acts in public, depending on where the car was, etc.

 

Slippery slope? You seem to just throw everything remotely similar into the lake. There has to be a line somewhere, and Craigs repeated, complex and obvious actions make that clear.

 

[kapkomet]

Huh? TALKING to a hooker in a bar, if sex never comes up, is not illegal and could never be successfully prosecuted. And sex in a car may or may not qualify for lewd acts in public, depending on where the car was, etc.

 

Slippery slope? You seem to just throw everything remotely similar into the lake. There has to be a line somewhere, and Craigs repeated, complex and obvious actions make that clear.

With every subject.

 

[Texsox]

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.

[hammerhead johnson]

I don't believe that sex in public bathrooms should be legal, and I do think that propositioning someone to join them in the stall for sex is the same thing

 

Same thing if a guy bought a girl a drink, danced, bought another drink, danced, talked about his car's big back seat . . .

 

Rex, check out Tex. If propositioning were the equivalent of the sexual act, I wouldn't have any friends; they'd all be locked up.

 

We're talking about public settings here, and a bar is no different.

 

Propositioning in and of itself is harmless.

[southsider2k5]

Huh? TALKING to a hooker in a bar, if sex never comes up, is not illegal and could never be successfully prosecuted. And sex in a car may or may not qualify for lewd acts in public, depending on where the car was, etc.

 

Slippery slope? You seem to just throw everything remotely similar into the lake. There has to be a line somewhere, and Craigs repeated, complex and obvious actions make that clear.

 

Maybe we instead of Texsox, we should call him Minnesotasox... You know, the land of 10,000 Lakes.