Why Do We Have Police In Restrooms Looking To Catch Senators?.....

[global1]

Well - we're living under *Co and Repug rule. What do you expect? This is the same group that is urging Americans to turn in Americans. Craig got what he supported and voted for. He got caught in his own hypocrisy.

[nashville_brook]

1. stings follow repeated reports of criminal behavior -- public restrooms should be safe for children

[valerief]

2. It's a public bathroom, not your bedroom. What's the problem?

[Democrats_win]

3. Of course they could have hired more bridge inspectors.

At one point people begin to realize that there are life and death matters that get pushed aside when you police morality.

[BattyDem]

4. From what I understand, the police had several complaints about the restroom

That's why they set up the sting. They weren't specifically going after Craig.

[Bitwit1234]

8. This bathroom was supposed to be a "meeting place"

and people were complaining about the constant traffic. So they set up the sting.

[parasim]

9. I wonder if those complaints were...

"Somebody tried to molest me in the restroom" or more like "a couple of dudes are having sex in the restroom"...

Obviously, neither one is socially acceptable, but the molestation one is a serious crime and the second one, not so much. I mean, of course I wouldn't want my kids to witness somebody having sex in a public bathroom, but this is America, strange things do happen.

If my own kids thought somebody was having sex in the bathroom (within the stall), my guess is that they would be going "Did you hear those too dudes in the bathroom? Ewww..." but that's about it.

[ruggerson]

10. Or if they existed at all

Police set up stings all the time, saying there are "complaints" and then refuse to divulge what those "complaints" were.

[parasim]

13. Good point. That's very true.

It's their way of legitimizing their fascist, police-state policies without anybody questioning their motives. Kinda like the terror threat color system thing.

Another example of how governmental secrets give birth to conspiracy theories. I mean, maybe Craig was about to expose something and this is their way of "teaching him a lesson", "keeping him quiet"... :tinfoilhat:

Transparency, man, we need total transparency.

[parasim]

5. Good question.

And I hope that Craig retracts his plea, challenges the arrest and in the process exposes the Rightwing's follies in trying to turn Americans against one another.

I mean, was it really a sincere effort to "protect the children" against predators? or simply a manifestation of the Right's absurd zero-tolerance approach to force the public to conform to their idea of morality?

As a father myself, I certainly don't relish the idea of some asshole hitting on my kids in the bathroom, but after reading about this case and hearing the audio of the arrest, I just don't think this guy was a threat to anyone and the cop was covering his ass after jumping to conlusions.

Sure, Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. Well, yeah, he was kind of belligerent with the cop, so I can understand the charge, but he didn't plead guilty to any sort of sexual predatory action. At least I didn't get that after reading the police report. Seemed to me that the cop was either a bit over-zealous in trying to get his collar, or was just trying to cover his own ass.

I just hope Craig realizes that he was caught in his own party's trap and changes his ways and exposes the idiocy of it all.

[illinoisprogressive]

6. there were alot of complaints so the police set up a sting op.

[ruggerson]

7. Who were these supposed "complaints" from?

There are also reports that the cops in this sting WENT ONLINE and made "sex dates" with guys, told the guys what they would be wearing, and after having lured them into reciprocating an advance, busted them.

If there were indeed "complaints" why would the cops need to the lengths of luring people to come to the restroom and then bust them?

[ProudDad]

12. Hmmm, cops practicing "entrapment"...

never heard of that happening before :sarcasm:

Too bad the cops are so busy entrapping and busting gays and fucking around with the phony "war on drugs" that they can't catch the folks who are actually committing the most violent crimes against society...The white collar criminals in the executive suites and board rooms...

[ruggerson]

14. Agreed

If they really wanted to stop the behaviour, just station an airport security guard in the restroom.

It ain't rocket science.

[parasim]

15. Nah, that's makes too much sense.

What you need to do is bring in that guy from MSNBC's To Catch a Predator and film the whole thing. Endless entertainment for us all!

[ProudDad]

11. A civilized response would be

to build alternative restrooms exclusively for (legalized) outdoor sex. Then mom and little Suzie could go to the public restroom marked for that purpose and those who enjoy the thrill of outdoors sex in "public" restrooms could use the special ones designated for that purpose...

But we don't live in a civilized society. Just a highly repressed theocracy...

Alas...

[sandnsea]

21. They're called motels

:shrug:

Can't afford that?

Back seat of your car.

No car?

A blanket in the bushes.

I mean come on people.

We have to subsidize sex with our taxes too???

[ProudDad]

23. You obviously don't understand

it's not about the sex.

It's about the adventure.

And it's about the anonymity...

And it would be cheaper than cops, courts and jails...


On edit: and the fucking cops are beating the bushes too...

[sandnsea]

24. I obviously don't care

Open your own sex parlor with wall to wall stalls, and charge admission. Whatever. Just stay out of public bathrooms.

And the only time cops beat the bushes is if a location becomes a nuisance. Use some imagination and go somewhere else. Sounds more "adventurous" than a one minute spurt in a toilet anyway.

[htuttle]

16. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, "Because that's where the Senators are."

[ProudDad]

26. Good One!

:rofl:

[rasputin1952]

17. There were previous complaints about that particular ...

rest room.

No one went to get Craig or any other specific individual, the proper response for the police is to respond to complaints that have been made.

The overwhelming part of the situation is that Craig plead guilty, and only after there was publicity, did he proclaim his innocence. Virtually every American, and I would hope a US Senator, would realize that pleading not guilty to a charge that one feels they are innocent of, is not merely a Right, but a responsibility as well. If Craig were as innocent as the freshly driven snow, he made a gave error by pleading guilty to a "crime" he did not commit. Only through court proceedings can someone attempt to right being wrongfully accused.

What Craig did was try to keep what he was arrested for under wraps, so he plead guilty to a lesser charge, hoping the whole thing would go away...it didn't and he looks like a serious hypocrite at best.

The unwritten Men's Room etiquette is that you keep your eyes, your hands, your feet to yourself...unless you are either looking for a butt kicking, or something somewhat less violent.

As for my take on the whole BR sex stuff, I can think of few lower places to have a sexual encounter than in a public bathroom. Some do not feel this way, and that is their right; but to me, a public restroom is for very few things, and sex is not one of them.

[parasim]

19. Questions...

1) What were the specific complaints? Do you know? I haven't seen them.

2) What charge did Craig plead guilty to?

I don't know the answer to number one, but for number two, it was disorderly conduct. Yes, it was pleading guilty to a lesser charge. Does that automatically mean he is guilty of the worse charge? Which, if I read the police report correctly, was "invading privacy" or some such. Was there a charge of a sexual predatory nature?

Why the guy pleaded guilty to the one charge is beyond me, but even the other charge really doesn't have much to do with having sex in a public bathroom, does it? I mean, there was no charge of "soliciting sex" or anything like that, was there? I sure didn't see it the police report.

So, yeah, he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge and now wants to retract his plea. Yes, hypocrisy, no doubt. Does that mean he was guilty of some sort of sexual deviancy? No. He's guilty of being an idiot, that's for sure.

So, now he wants to retract and fight it. Good. Hopefully, the trial will expose the idiocy of these "stings" in the first place. Do I care if he "clears his good name"? Not in the least. Besides, doesn't matter, he's tainted forever anyway. He'll always be known as "the bathroom sex guy".

As for the whole BR sex thing, I agree with you, a public restroom is no place for that kind of stuff. However, reality is, it does happen. And, frankly, I am not fond of the idea that our police force is spending tax dollars enticing people to do something they can bust them for, when there are some much more serious crimes going on.

[rasputin1952]

27. A complaint(s) could have been made by anyone, just seeing

a lewd act, or suspecting one, could be cause for a complaint. If this was an ongoing situation in that particular BR, or a single occurrence, is really irrelevant, it had been noted that "people complained" about a situation(s), for some time.

For the record, I am not a supporter Of "sting" operations, I feel they are entrapment. However, even if the "foot tapping was some sort of "signal", Craig could have avoided the situation by ignoring whatever came after the "foot tapping". For anyone to peer into another stall, make gestures, etc, that could be construed as a form of "come on", he broke the unwritten cardinal rule of BR etiquette, mind your own business, and do what BR's were designed for. Striking up any kind of "friendly banter" in a Men's Room, (other than w/a known friend acquaintance is taboo to the extent that you have opened yourself to possible unwanted advances.

I have no idea if Craig is gay or not, and I could care less to be honest. The point is, he tried to cover up an incident to avoid embarrassment, and it, like so many others, created the very thing he sought to to avoid. There were two charges, the other being something to the effect of "lewd behavior", he chose to plead guilty to the lesser charge, a dumb move if he was innocent. The fault lies entirely w/Craig in the simple fact he could have ignored the "come on", and he would truly have made a point if he would have then gone out, found a cop and reported the conduct of the person in the stall next to him.

But he is as dumb as a rock, so he pays for his stupidity.

[Clintonista2]

18. I would normally agree with you, but

Didnt they have specific complains about that particular restroom in the past, and that was the reason they had a cop there?

[parasim]

20. Apparently, there were complaints...

... do you know what those specific complaints were?

[snowbear]

22. Only wimpy Republican men in ugly shiney loafers wizz in bathroom stalls..

Democratic men are tough enough to piss in the woods!



~~~~

[ProudDad]

25. 'Cause we live in a fascist police state?

with that, good night all!