Seriously - what crime has Larry Craig committed

[LynneSin]

Ok, mind you I don't agree with Craig because he's another right-wing hypocrite.

But outside of that, I'm still scratching my head to figure out just what crime did Craig commit. From what I've read, Craig never offered money for services to the undercover cop. And I'm not sure if there is some law that you cannot have anonymous sex in a public bathroom. So someone explain what Craig did wrong other then expose the hypocrisy of the republican party.

Now Vitters and Stevens have committed crimes although Vitters confessed to it (prostitution) and Stevens is under investigation. But these 2 deserve moreso to be booted from congress than a hypocritical republican who may or may not be gay/bisexual.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. The crime that he plead guilty to

[jillan]

2. The whole issue is that he pleaded guilty and didn't report it to the

ethics committee.

That is what pisses off the righties.

IMHO if he didn't plead guilty, it would be a different ballgame.

[insanad]

34. Coerced guilty plead and manipulated press

I'm with others in my dislike for hypocritical and narrow minded Repugs or others who cannot see the population of gays in our nation as equal to the rights that the rest of us enjoy. I have always assumed that those who are gay are as naturally driven to their preference as I am to mine. You could easier make me tall than you could make me gay, but that is not the issue here. Whether Sen. Craig is a closet homosexual, a dabbler, curious, or just someone with a "wide stance" that got trapped into a difficult situation, he still did not commit an actual crime. To slander, ruin, and expel him from a lifetime of service, even to the Republican Party is a travesty. I think he's being railroaded and I'm ashamed of those who ridicule and pander to the immature humor that has hurt him and his family so much. I'm ashamed that the media has manipulated this to the extreme that it has and I offer my support in his efforts to try to clear his name and retain his position or reputation. Those Republicans like Mitt Romney and others who are so un loyal are the lowest of the low and deserve the same treatment when their own scandals become public pablum.

I listened to the arrest recording and there is nothing on it that indicates that he did anything illegal. Since when is it illegal for people to tap, to make hand gestures, or even if it's true that he was picking up a piece of paper from the floor, to do any of those things? How does that constitute any kind of misdemeanor or other crime? By being in a bathroom that is frequented by gays is surely not a crime since all of us have probably unwittingly been in the presence of gays or anyone else that may have been cruising for sex. If that's a crime then every horny guy in a bar would be arrested as they cruise for sex from the desperate and willing women who hang out.

I think Senator Craig should be absolved of this and his position restored. If he is not elected in the next election then that's the will of the people, but it should not be due to some coerced confession. Compared to the crimes of Bush or Cheney, or an actual solicitation for paid sex this situation is trivial. I'm sorry that he's been vilified in the media.

[Jeroen]

3. Dirty Tap dancing? n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

107. . . .

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Colobo]

4. I feel the guy was so scared after being caught doing whatever he was doing

that he pleaded guilty to see if the whole thing would go away. Still, consensual sex between two or more adults should not be illegal.

[LynneSin]

5. Exactly - you summed it up best

:woohoo:

[LiberalFighter]

8. As long as it is not in public. Airport restrooms are public.

The public has an expectation of not being exposed to indecency.

[ProudDad]

53. Why?

"The public has an expectation of not being exposed to indecency"

One person's "indecency" is another person's fun... :evilgrin:

You don't like it, don't look!!!

[LiberalFighter]

It is illegal. If your willing to violate the law then you must be willing to pay the consequences.

[cd3dem]

141. is public restrooms where we should teach sex education?

really!!! ProudDad? think about the last time you had sex... do you want your kids listening to it? I would hope not... kids go into public restrooms... young boys go in alone... young girls sometimes go into men's rooms with their dad if they are not with mom...

this is not just a men's room issue... do we want women having oral sex in restrooms? young girls walking in and listening to the noise that goes with oral sex? grannie walks in there and hears two women getting it on?

do we allow people to walk the streets naked because they get a rush from it? do we allow teenagers to attend school with their underwear showing and boobs hanging out because they get a rush out of it?

maybe it is no big deal to you but for some it is very disturbing... I have witnessed public sex in restrooms and believe me... it is not what we want in our airports... not what you want kids exposed to...

No, there is no place in airports or public sex...

ProudMom

[nebenaube]

12. it is in a public restroom....

The state troopers in WI bust people for that at the rest stops here all the time.

[glarius]

14. Agreed that consensual sex between two or more adults should not be illegal. However...

There is a time and place for everything. To me that is the crux of the matter. I would not want my 10 year old son, or anyone else's son, to walk in on such a situation.

[JenniferJuniper]

22. Walk in on what situation?

The toe tapping? It never went much beyond that. The grounds for arrest seem shaky at best. I can't imagine that he would not have prevailed if he had fought it. It probably would have just been dropped.

To me this is a tale of Big Brother meeting Homophobia. (well, that's one of the stories. The other one is about the gay Republican who hated gay people. But that is an old, oft told tale.)

[glarius]

35. It never went beyond that because the toe tapping recipient was a cop!

I'm saying a public rest room is not the place for sexual activity to take place....whether homosexual or heterosexual. I repeat....IMO sexual acts should not be taking place in public rest rooms! If the person in the other stall had not been a cop, but a willing participant, others, including my child, would have been subjected to it. The gay hating Republicans is a separate story.

[JenniferJuniper]

39. But once again,

it did not get past a peek and a tap. There was no indication that sex was going to take place in public. He may have been making advances, hoping to eventually hook up elsewhere. At the stage the cop was at, he had very little, if anything, that would hold up in a court. And we can't legally presume to know where it was going.

Guys, you do realize that men are horny creatures and often make unwanted sexual advances, right? Including little taps and peeks and touches. Can't go around arresting them all now, can we? Boys will be boys after all.

[glarius]

41. Boys will be boys....right....but there is a time and place....not in public rest rooms!

Are you suggesting that men are unable to control themselves in public? I, as a woman do NOT believe this. It is a choice. The men who approach others for sex in a public place go there with that in mind.

[JenniferJuniper]

42. Of course I am not suggesting that.

People should control themselves at all times, especially in public. And most do.

The issue concerns police resources.

For example, I'm pretty sure the guy next to me was trying to peek down my blouse this morning. If he bumps into me in the hall this afternoon should I call 911? Please.

[glarius]

44. Sorry......I think that is just silly!

You said most people do control themselves. Of course they do...but SOME DON'T. If you don't see my point....there's nothing more to be said. :shrug:

[JenniferJuniper]

45. Of course it is silly...

that was my point!

The whole thing is silly and a waste of law enforcement resources.

But just curious, why do you think it is a big deal for a man in a stall to be peeked at and tapped at, but "silly" when it involves a woman being peeked at or bumped against in public?

[glarius]

48. I'm saying it's silly to make a comparison between the two.

My problem is not with the tapping and peeking...it's what sometimes results from these actions which can be observed by innocent children. Call me old fashioned....but I'm glad there are police monitoring public places where children can be.

[JenniferJuniper]

49. You've changed the subject

please go back and read the part of this very thread that starts "But once again".

He wasn't having sex in the bathroom. He was likely making advances. We do not know whether his advances would have been spurned, and if they were not, we cannot say he was going to have sex with anyone in the bathroom or if he hoped to take someone back to a hotel room at the airport.

It is insane for law enforcement to be deployed to deal with people making sexual advances. In public. In private. Straight or *gasp* gay. Hire a bathroom attendant with a walkie talkie to keep people from tapping if you must, but hiding cops in toilets all day is crazy.

[glarius]

77. I have been unable to get on my computer....hence the delay in replying.

I'm not changing the subject. My point from the beginning is that I want public places safe for children. If cops are used...so what? If you are doing nothing wrong, there is no reason to worry about their presence. I am not talking about the fools who hate gay people. That is a different subject. All I'm saying is....make it safe for children. Not just physically safe, but safe for their sensibilities also. I have no more to say on the subject.

[JenniferJuniper]

80. "If you are doing nothing wrong, there is no reason to worry about their presence"

Yes, I guess you are right. A police state. So long as it is for the children, that's all that matters.

[glarius]

82. Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z

To make such a jump is ridiculous!:boring:

[JenniferJuniper]

85. I fear you

are most dreadfully short-sighted, But I didn't mean to disturb your slumbers.

[glarius]

91. I think it is rather sad that you believe police monitoring sexual action in

public rest rooms will lead to a police state. Sheeesh!

[JenniferJuniper]

93. Uh, no, actually

I was referring specifically to your statement that I quoted. That sort of thinking can and does lead to fascist states.

[glarius]

94. Simply because it is your opinion......does NOT make it so!

This conversation is really boring me now. Bye-bye.

[JenniferJuniper]

97. Orwell is spinning.....

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/36646/?comments=view&cID=126049&pID=126041

(sorry you are bored. liberty is such a tedious thing, after all. Have you ever been to freerepublic.com? you might like it there.)

[glarius]

98. Actually....my head is spinning...I can't be bothered reading your links....

This is my final word.

[JenniferJuniper]

101. Why then

do you keep responding?

Of course you can't be bothered to read the link. It might give you something to think about, and who wants to do that?

Sleep well.

[ProudDad]

137. "If you are doing nothing wrong, there is no reason to worry about their presence."

jay-sus keeerist...

You didn't really TYPE that bullshit line, did you????

Dog Damn!!!

It must have been a slip of the fingers, right???


"Well, if you aren't a terrorist, you shouldn't be worried about our shredding the Bill of Rights"...

Wow.... :nuke:

[glarius]

138. Get a grip!

The statement I made was referring to one type of incident only! The point I'm making is I want public places safe for children! How did you get from policing public places to stop sexual acting out around children to shredding the constitution?....I see you wrote this at 4 in the morning. Perhaps that has something to do with such unreasonableness?...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Have a good day.

[ProudDad]

143. Be careful with your rhetoric then...

The statement "If you are doing nothing wrong, there is no reason to worry about their presence." is total bullshit in ANY context... It's a red flag and you should know that if you didn't already...

Especially when the Theocracy is using their myths and prejudices to determine what's "wrong" and what's not.

Could we agree that loud sex in a public restroom is not a good idea? Yup!

Craig didn't do that. He made some gestures to someone sitting overlong in a stall in a place known for making assignations (just like someone who would be receptive to such a suggestion) and was entrapped. How do you know they were going to have sex in a stall? How do you know they wouldn't be somewhat discrete about it?


If we didn't live in such a sexually repressed, busy body, racist, homophobic society...this kind of thing would almost NEVER be an issue.


My point is that "sin" laws are on the face of it are anti-democratic, unreasonable bullshit...especially when my tax dollars are used for this crap...

[glarius]

148. To each his own........

All I know is I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO A PUBLIC RESTROOM AND HAVE TO BE SUBJECTED TO ANYONE'S SEXUAL PROBINGS!!.......If that's all right with you....fine....It's not all right with me. I go there to use the facilities. I don't care what the theocracy determines about right and wrong. That has nothing to do with this. You don't have to be a sexually repressed, busy body, racist, homophobe to feel as I do. A public washroom is NOT A PLACE FOR SEX OF ANY KIND. Silent or discreet or whatever. And you should know that!

[DURHAM D]

6. He did not have sex in the bathroom.

He was looking for a sexual partner. He plead guilty on "disorderly conduct". That's the crime.

You ask a good question. It needs to be discussed.

[Jim__]

7. Staring through the stall door is a crime.

The arresting officer said that Craig stared at him through the stall door. That is a misdemeanor.

Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct. I'm not sure how you define disorderly conduct, but the definition may be broad enough to include Craig's actions - the context may be enough.

[lojasmo]

90. Agreed. Staring through the door is a crime. EOM

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Nothing more than a morality crime, malem prohibitum.

Just bad behavior in public. Nobody got hurt. Nobody's sensibilities were harmed. Just poor judgment.

[Major Hogwash]

10. He committed disorderly conduct by trolling for sex in an airport restroom.

Disorderly conduct was the lesser charge he pleaded guilty to and then paid the fine for.
The case is closed.

Craig has about as much chance of overturning his plea bargain as I have of being hit by lightning.*



*It has only rained here 1 time in the last 90 days and I was working inside when the last rainstorm occurred, which only lasted 20 minutes.

[lynnertic]

11. Lying and coverup

[Bitwit1234]

13. DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Which was mild for peering into the multiple full compartments of a bathroom stall. It is a wonder he did not get charged with as a sexual peeping tom and his name put on a register of sexual perverts. It has happened.

[DinahMoeHum]

15. The police were receiving complaints from the public

that they were being harassed and solicited for sex in the airport bathrooms. Hence the undercover operation.
This was NOT a "get-Larry-Craig" set-up - they just happened to land a big catch while they were trolling for solicitors.

:evilfrown:

[ProudDad]

54. How do you know?

"they were being harassed and solicited for sex"

There are so many nosy, busy-bodies who are willing to complain at anything that "offends" their tender sensibilities that you can't make this assumption...

[DinahMoeHum]

110. If the police get too many of these complaints, they're gonna ignore it?

You cannot assume people were NOT being solicited.

"Tender sensibilities" my ass.

Would you tell anybody who believes they've been sexually harrassed verbally or otherwise to just shut up and enjoy it???? That they are just "nosy busy-bodies" ???

Grow up.

[ProudDad]

130. WHO THE HELL SAID THAT

Dog Damn I get tired of getting answered by overblown hypotheticals that don't have SHIT to do with the argument...

NO BODY SAID A DOG DAMN THING ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR VERBAL ABUSE...

Where the HELL did that come from????

[bullimiami]

16. soliciting sex in a public restroom. it is a crime, thats why the task force.

personally i think the cop could have let him dig himself a little deeper before springing the trap.
i think the stakeout was more about discouraging the behavior than the prosecution of the crime.
im guessing most everyone pleads guilty to the misdemeanor and takes their lumps if their family, friends and associates hear about it.

[onenote]

19. he was not charged with soliciting sex

He was charged with disorderly conduct and interference with privacy. The "offensive conduct" that he engaged in, leading to the disorderly conduct charge was the same as the conduct underlying the interference with privacy charge -- peeping into the bathroom stall where the cop was sitting.

[bullimiami]

31. right he pled guilty to the lesser charge because he didnt want to fight the other.

[ProudDad]

55. Uh, he wasn't charged with

"the other", was he? :shrug:

[bullimiami]

96. no but I believe its because he pled out. not unusual.

[ProudDad]

131. And no one ever peeps through the crack of a stall to see if it's unoccupied?

Is that against the law now if a fucking under-cover cop happens to be there???

Geez folks, don't you recognize Police State bullshit when you see it.

I don't care if Craig is a repuke, Democrat or Martian.

He was entrapped by the damn cop!!!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Disorderly conduct.

Craig's guilty.

Get over it.

[onenote]

18. see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1691835

The cop alleged that Craig peeped through the crack in the stall. That led to charges of disorderly conduct (609.72(3))and interference with privacy. He plead guilty to the disorderly conduct charge.

Here's the disorderly conduct provision:
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place,
including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will
tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of
disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages 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.

And here's the interference with privacy provision:

c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping
room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place
where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to
expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering
the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.

[ProudDad]

57. What a chicken-shit, cowardly, police state we live in!!!! (n/t)

[JenniferJuniper]

20. It's a stretch

Admittedly, I don't know much about men who cruise men's rooms, but there is no indication he planned on having sex in the toilet. He appeared to be looking for and sending signals he was interested in a hook-up. I can't see what the big deal is. He wasn't after a kid. Granted, the guy deserves to be outed now after the fact, but can't we find better things for cops in airports to do?.

Try being a woman, Officer Karsnia! They get hit on all the time and in the strangest of places and circumstances. My sister swears a male nurse hit on her while she was in the hospital in labor. He left when she threatened to rip his eyeballs out.

[theredpen]

23. It's CREEPY

I can't see what the big deal is.

If I'm sitting on the toilet, I really don't want the guy in the stall next to me to touch my foot with his or reach under the divider into my stall. That's a violation of my (very) personal space and it can cause disruptions. People shouldn't do that.

There's been a question as to whether or not the MPD should have been spending its time addressing this, and I'll bet that they don't want to be doing this duty either. From what I've heard, they were patrolling the mens' rooms due to complaints. Frankly, if some guy tried to play footsie with me from the other stall and then reached into my stall, I'd be freaked out and complain to the police, too.

This isn't about being gay, it's about being creepy and DISTURBING THE PEACE, which is the crime that Craig plead guilty to. Regardless of what Craig's intentions were, I have a problem with someone who has that little regard for other people's personal boundaries being in a position of public trust.

[JenniferJuniper]

27. I agree it is creepy

but we really can't run around and arrest all of the creepy people in the world.

He was peeking at me officer! Lord. Where would it end?

[theredpen]

28. It wasn't the peeking...

It was the touching.

If I came into the women's room, maybe you'd be OK with it. If I tried to play footsie with you from my stall and reached into yours, you'd probably dig your pepper spray out of your purse.

[JenniferJuniper]

29. Yup.

Purses and pepper spray are great things. You should invest in them if you are afraid of being touched inappropriately. It's a tough world out there.

[LanternWaste]

30. Next thing we know, it'll be a crime to peek into someone's bedroom window

Really! Next thing we know, it'll be a crime to peek into someone's bedroom window without their consent...

Oh, wait... never mind.

[JenniferJuniper]

32. Yes. And should we station cops outside everyone's

houses to make sure it isn't happening?

It's an issue of resources. And having cops hang out in toilets hoping some guy tries to peek at them or tap their foot is insane.

[LanternWaste]

36. Or, if it is happening repeatedly

Or, if it is happening repeatedly and people are complaining, the cops could manage a task-foce to deal with the problem and...

Oh, wait. Never mind.

[sandnsea]

102. Yes - we do!!!

If there's a peeping tom in a neighborhood - YES, we have cops patrol more frequently or set up a sting.

YOU would be the first to demand it if someone were peeping at you night after night.

Would you think - THINK.

[jzodda]

37. I also agree its CREEPY

and the cops were running a sting to boot, so that just adds insult to injury.

[ProudDad]

59. Real people (not cops but real people)

Would have said something like "Excuse me" or some such after the first foot incursion and Craig would have desisted. That's what I would do.

Of course, in the course of my thousands of public rest room visits, it's never happened to me... And I'm rather cute (although quite hetero), so that's kinda' surprising... :)

Craig was ENTRAPPED. The set of signals, the meaning of which were known by the spider and the fly, were allowed by the cop to escalate so he could "make a case" against Craig.

That's entrapment and it's bullshit to extrapolate police entrapment into a "violation of <your> (very) personal space".

He didn't disturb anyone's peace, the cop enticed him into a bogus criminal charge.

[theredpen]

65. I been the the public bathroom, too

And never once has anyone stuck an appendage (foot, hand, whatever) from their stall into the other.

Craig wasn't entrapped. Craig moved his foot to touch the officers. Craig stuck his hand into the officer's stall. The officer waited until Craig went over the line. The officer also made some signals to establish that Craig knew the drill and was not accidentally moving his foot or whatever.

Then Craig lied about what happened in the interrogation, which doesn't exactly speak well for him.

If Craig had been in the stall next to me and had done what he did, he most certainly would have disturbed my peace.

[ProudDad]

69. As I said

if someone did it to me I would have said something on the first foot contact and I'm sure it would have ENDED there.

I would have been marginally uncomfortable for a few seconds and then would shrug it off. I'm an adult, that's what adults do. Of course, I'm not homophobic (beyond the bullshit training being brought up in the repressive 50s and early 60s forces on one) so I tend to live and let live...

For those of you who are fond of Red Herrings and other exaggerations -- I seriously doubt that he would have initiated this ritual with a kid and a father in the next stall, or in the aisle of the 7-11 or in a day care center, etc, etc, etc.

[JenniferJuniper]

66. Yes, clearly the cop

was not just sitting and minding his business. He was there to catch "solicitors"; it only makes sense that he used some enticements to get reactions.

Which raises a question - one which I shall not answer - what exactly was Craig watching while he peered into the stall for up to 2 minutes?

The whole thing is sordid all around.

[sampsonblk]

21. Agreed

Bumping a guy's foot, and putting your hand under a stall are not crimes. I am glad he's going down, but this isn't the way to do it. At least if the cop had waited until he said something sexual, or did something illegal, I'd go for it. As it is, this is a sham.

[FredScuttle]

51. Yeah, he should have had the Senator whip his dick out while there was a kid in there

Sheesh...

and "bumping" a guy's foot and putting your hand under a stall actually are crimes if it's part of a choreographed act of soliciting an undercover cop for sex in a bathroom.

[sampsonblk]

56. ...but you don't know for sure if its part of a solicited act...

unless there is something more overt to expose the guy's intentions to go through with something illegal. Had he never pleaded guilty, I am sure he could have won in court.

[FredScuttle]

58. Uh , actually we do know for sure that it's part of a solicitation

because, in his arrest report, the undercover officer stated the series of acts Sen. Craig demonstrated that the officer recognized as soliciting for sex in the bathroom.

He didn't have to shout "Can I please give you a blowjob" over the divider to make his intentions known. He got caught and, to compound his situation, he pled guilty without (according to him) consulting a lawyer. A pervert and an idiot, that's what I think of him.

[ProudDad]

60. Entrapment...

- First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

- Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

- And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

-----------

Craig probably had the intent of "hooking up"... That's not really a crime...

The government agent let the signals continue thus making Craig think that the other person was a willing participant. Real people would say something like "Excuse me" after the first foot action and it would probably have ended there.

Craig was after an assignation not necessarily to "commit a crime"...

IMHO, Entrapment...

He should'a fought it. Any decent lawyer would have had this thrown right out of court.

--------------------

Of course, Craig may be a self-hating gay person but that's an entirely different discussion...

[FredScuttle]

61. This. Was. Not. Entrapment.

How can someone be entrapped into soliciting sex in a public restroom when that person is the one initiating all the signals?

According to you, this officer would have to be Kreskin, SuperCop of the Mind, because he "entrapped" Craig without uttering a single word.

Of course, a good defense lawyer would have mounted an aggressive defense, but we don't know because HE PLED GUILTY. Or, he pled guilty before he pled not guilty.

[ProudDad]

62. It's entrapment because he

didn't "utter a single word".

Any real person who was not receptive to Craig's advances would have "uttered a word" or two or three...

[FredScuttle]

67. That's not entrapment, that's doing your job as an undercover officer

Let me ask you this: when a police officer is involved in an undercover drug sting and the suspect offers him drugs, is he or she supposed to say "Whoa! Hey...not for me! I'm clean, man! Although I would like to observe you selling that cocaine to that gentleman there."

[ProudDad]

70. That's why all of the bullshit "crimes"

such as the phony "war on drugs", the "war on sex", etc. etc. should be abolished.

These are matters that don't belong in the criminal-injustice system...

As long as they remain in the legal system, they will NOT be adequately or successfully addressed.

Cops are the wrong hammer to apply...especially entrapping "undercover" cops...

Let 'em go undercover at Halliburton and put those fucks in jail where they belong...

[FredScuttle]

72. I have no argument with busting the real crooks at Halliburton

but I have absolutely no objection to rounding up guys cruising public bathrooms for sex.

[sampsonblk]

104. Its legal to 'signal' to a female prostitute

But its illegal to ask her for sex and offer money. But I can wave her over to my car. I can tell her I sure would like to fool around with her. But I can't make an arrangement with her for money.

There is no money involved here. So the issue is whether he was going to have sex in a public place. His gestures were only lewd because of the officer's interpretation. Had he bumped someone else's foot, they would have told him to get lost and that would be the end of it.

Had he been fishing for consensual sex, that's legal also. The issue is whether he was fishing to have sex in that restroom with that officer. I think he almost certainly was. But there is no way to prove in court that he was. Case dismissed.

[FredScuttle]

118. Please explain to me how waving over a pro on the street = soliciting sex in a men's room

the officer made clear in his report that Senator Widestance exhibited overt and explicit signals that he wanted to get it on, right then and there. Craig didn't do this in front of any average Joe...he did it in front of an undercover cop. Idiotic and quite risky behavior, if you ask me.

Could the arrest have been challenged in court and defeated? Sure...a competent defense lawyer could have run circles around the charge.

However, he pled GUILTY, so we'll never know if it was provable in court or not. Unless this quixotic attempt to withdraw the guilty plea succeeds.

[JVS]

119. Are you sure? I have a hunch that if you try this, you'll be busted as hell

[sampsonblk]

126. Well, I don't plan to try it

And I suspect I would be busted as hell also. Then I'd go to court and win. :)

[ProudDad]

129. You know it's appaling

that some folks at DU are have their panties in a twist over Guantanamo and loss of Habeus Corpus, complain about their loss of rights...

and can't seem to get the concept of signals vs. overt acts and think it's cool for undercover cops to waste their time over this shit.

What a world :eyes:


I guess if it had been a Dem...

[Major Hogwash]

121. It wasn't entrapment because the police officer didn't entice Craig to do anything.

I've talked to several lawyers over the last week and they all said Craig was guilty.
That's why Craig pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

For your information, they have been arresting men in the restrooms in Boise, Idaho this same way for several years now.

[ProudDad]

134. So that only proves that Boise, Idaho is a fucked up Police State too (n/t)

[Major Hogwash]

140. We live in a police state.

Didn't you take civics in high school?

[ProudDad]

144. Yep, I am of the generation that still was taught Civics

in High School.

I used to believe that it was all true back then.

I've been disabused of that fallacious opinion since then after having witnessed how things ACTUALLY work.


We now live in a Police State. Our every move, every purchase, every communication is subject to perusal and interpretation by the worst elements of our government and used against us. There are enough f*cked up laws on the books to throw damn near anyone into the pokie, or into Guantanamo...

Soon our DNA will be used against us.

[sampsonblk]

103. ...but the series of acts are not illegal

Its the solicitation that's illegal. The officer has a huge burden of proof because no actual sex or offer of sex or conversation of sex ever took place. So its all about the officer's interpretation of how other people have behaved in the past. That won't fly.

[FredScuttle]

120. "that won't fly"??

It did fly because he pled GUILTY. His ridiculous 11th hour attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, notwithstanding, Senator Widestance felt the charge was serious enough and had enough merit that he pled out.

[sampsonblk]

125. Sen Widestance will win in court.

Just my opinion.

[closeupready]

74. I agree with you.

n/t

[groovedaddy]

24. If he "did nothing" then why did he cop a plea?

Really, shouldn't he have fought this if it was over nothing?

[ProudDad]

63. To try to avoid publicity -- Didn't work (n/t)

[Hepburn]

25. As far as the Pubbies are concerned, the crime Craig committed is ...

...that he is something other than a totally, 100% straight American male. I guess it is OK to shit in adult diapers, get your butt spanked and pay hookers for sex if done between members of the opposite sex like Vitter did...but gawd forbid if anything maybe could be construed as gay. That is grounds to be crucified.

Sheesh!

[sandnsea]

26. How about fucking at the 7-11?

Do you know what the crime would be if people were fucking in the aisles of your local grocery store?

Has everybody collectively lost their minds around here. Just because it involves homosexuality, it does not mean the entirety of the crimes on the books are immediately suspended.

Good lord.

He was charged with a number of crimes, an invasion of privacy "peeping tom" law among them, - he pleaded guilty to a lesser crime to make the more serious crimes go away.

[slor]

47. Thank you...

I do not get why anyone here is even trying to defend this jackass. Believe me, I am no prude, and I even like to get my freak on, but this guy was cruising for sex in a public restroom and involving people that did not ask to be involved. He invaded the privacy of others while cruising, and was rightfully arrested. I had a guy peering in on me when I was a student, in a campus restroom. It was disgusting and I was mortified, and guess what...I would have been just as disgusted and mortified if it had been a woman. This is not a sexual issue, it is a privacy issue. And craig got off pretty damn easy, if you ask me.

Oh, and that large open space at the bottom of the stall walls is neither there to encourage playing footsies with your stall neighbor, nor is it to accommodate those with a "wide stance". It simply makes it easier to mop.

[sandnsea]

50. "Phyllis Shafley of bathroom sex"

That's the *nicest* thing I've been called in the last few days. The thing is, I know if the bathroom of each of these people's grocery store or favorite restaurant became a 'tearoom', every single one of these people would want it to stop. That's another definition of hypocrite that tends to get overlooked.

[ProudDad]

64. C'mon get real...

"fucking in the aisles of your local grocery store"

Logical fallacy...

[closeupready]

75. Please stop using such vulgar language. This topic is already sordid enough.

n/t

[ProudDad]

132. You forgot this

:sarcasm: or is it irony?

[Redbear]

33. You raise a great question

If he fought it, there's a good chance he would have not been convicted of anything.

[Forkboy]

38. Operating While Republican.

;)

[BootinUp]

40. I ain't never seen a strangers hand wave at me under a stall b4

Or his foot intentionally pushed 5 ft over to touch me. Do some here think that is normal behavior? He plead guilty. Whats all the fuss, let him go find a regular job for pete's sake.

[Perry Logan]

43. I think he should be arrested for being a Republican. America is not safe till they're put away.

[goodhue]

46. Disoderly conduct was the crime he plead guilty to

http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/17/Plea_Petition.source.prod_affiliate.36.pdf

[ProudDad]

52. He should have fought it (n/t)

[Prince Paul]

68. lude conduct

[ProudDad]

71. As in Quaalude? (n/t)

[sabbat hunter]

73. apparently

there is a set of signals used in that bathroom (or maybe many bathrooms) when someone is soliciting sex. He doesnt have to offer money. It could have been two gay men looking for a tryst in a public bathroom. It is that he was apparently cruising for sex in a public bathroom that is the crime.

And there are laws about not having sex in public.

[JenniferJuniper]

76. But are there laws about the intent to have sex

in a public bathroom?

I'm not so sure. He wasn't charged with that. And I could be wrong, but I don't think it is a crime to solicit sex in MN. I think it was the peeking in the stall that lead to the (weak, at best, but the fool did admit to it) charge of disorderly conduct.

He was not having sex in the bathroom. And unless psychics are allowed to testify in a court of law, no one can prove that was his intent. He may have just wanted to meet a new friend to take to the Marriott on the other side of the moving sidewalk.

When they start successfully prosecuting people for thinking about doing bad things, then we'll know for sure that we are in a fully fascist state.

I find it scary that so many people think it is okay for a cop to spend his day hiding in bathroom stall hunting for peepers and toe tappers. Wouldn't a 10 dollar an hour bathroom attendant work as a better deterrent? Oh, but wait, we probably can't find an able bodied American man to hang around a bathroom all day for such low pay. Can't hire an illegal....hmmm, I know let's hit the tax payers up with the cost through the police salaries!

I have no use for the guy either, but let's not let the fact that he's a wingnut cloud our judgment.

[sandnsea]

78. How many bathrooms in your town?

Hmmm?

The city, county, state and federal in my area - oh, probably 50. Gas stations? 10. Quick marts? 5. Laundromats? 3. Restaurants with outside bathrooms? Another 5.

:shrug:

And I live in a town of less than 10,000.

Bathroom attendants?? Are you kidding me?

Would you people please find your common sense before you spout this stuff.

[JenniferJuniper]

81. No, hiring cops make more sense,

of course. You are spewing tons of common sense.

Police states rock!

[sandnsea]

83. Fucking in the street rocks!!

Either there's a lot of sick twisted people at DU - or a lot of hypocrtical liars who would be the FIRST at city hall if this actually happened at the bathroom at their local Starbucks. I'm betting on the liars.

[JenniferJuniper]

84. He was not having sex here

He was not having sex here
He was not having sex there.
He was not having sex in a house.
He was not having sex with a mouse.

Or in a box or with a fox.

As a matter of fact, he was NOT HAVING SEX AT ALL!

Please stick to the facts before you start calling people hypocrites and liars.

[sandnsea]

86. forty-one other people WERE

You give me the address of your favorite coffee shop - I'll look up the police records in Minneapolis and send them all an invitation to fuck in that bathroom. How about that? Better yet, just put a porta-john out in your front yard for tapping and hand waving - since it's no big deal and nothing else is going on.

[JenniferJuniper]

88. Link?

To the info about the 41 people who were having sex, that is. I haven't seen it. I know this cop had been tapping for a little while, but I must have missed the grim details.

[goodhue]

95. It was all over the news last Thursday . . .

Many reports of Minnesota airport arrests cite foot-tapping rituals

By Steve Karnowski - The Associated Press
Edition Date: 08/30/07

MINNEAPOLIS — A foot-tapping ritual was a common thread in many of the 41 arrests reported during a four-month airport bathroom sting that snared Sen. Larry Craig.

An undercover officer would take a seat in a stall. Soon another man would sit in the stall next door and start tapping his foot, perhaps moving it closer to the officer's. The officer would move his foot up and down slowly. The suspect might then extend his hand under the divider between the stalls, sometimes repeatedly.

That would be enough to get the man busted.

Airport police reports obtained by The Associated Press gave strikingly similar accounts of the events that led to the 41 arrests officers made for alleged lewd conduct in public restrooms in the main terminal of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport during the May-August sting.

* * *

http://www.idahostatesman.com/larrycraig/story/145531.html

Also, why not read the arrest report (http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/14/craig_police_report.source.prod_affiliate.36.pdf )and plea (http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2007/08/28/17/Plea_Petition.source.prod_affiliate.36.pdf ). You might learn some facts.

[JenniferJuniper]

100. I saw that. Where does it say

they were having sex? That was my question. I see a lot about tapping....

[goodhue]

105. they were not yet having sex

who said they were?
the arrests occurred before the imminent hand and blow jobs

[arewenotdemo]

135. bwahahah

[ProudDad]

133. ...

:yourock: JenniferJuniper



(I've never used that one before...it's so refreshing that you "GET IT")

[closeupready]

79. Like a lot of people, he may have WANTED to have sex but would have only exchanged phone numbers.

People shouldn't just assume that everyone is having sex in a place where there are complaints that this behavior is happening. The burden is on the arresting law enforcement authorities.

[sandnsea]

87. Put a porta-john in your front yard

If nothing is going on, welcome the foot tappers and hand waves to your home, okay??

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[plusfiftyfive]

92. Is THAT what THOSE GUYS do?

Exchange phone numbers?

Hello? There's America ON-Line and Instant Messages for THAT!

In the bathroom? They just tap and touch feet, look at each other through the stall slits, and put hands down to trade each other's business cards?


I don't think so! I have to admit, I went into one of these restrooms in a bus station once, they were'nt trading JUST business cards!

[closeupready]

114. I kind of think it's likely he didn't have his computer with him in the bathroom?

You think?

And if exchanging phone numbers is a shock to you, you really should get out more.

[barack4prez]

117. Who give a shit

if he actually WAS soliciting sex in the bathroom? What is wrong with you people???

[goodhue]

89. But there is no Marriot on the other side of the moving sidewalk

And Craig had a flight to catch, so he could go to Washington and cast important pro-gonzalez vote later that afternoon. He was looking for quickie in a restroom he frequented every week. The restroom is in the center of main airport mall concourse and is extremely well attended. It is also renowned as the cruisiest restroom in the state of Minnesota. Folks had complained about sexual activity in bathroom and so the MSP police conducted a sting that resulted in 41 arrests.

Minnesota Monitor explains . . .

http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2309

Karsnia was in the restroom as part of a sting operation to clamp down on lewd behavior. The restroom where Craig was arrested is well known among men who seek sex in public places.

Squirt.org is a site that runs a bulletin board for such men. "If you enter from the terminal, turn left and go past wash basins, urinals to the back where the stalls are. This place is THE most cruisy public place I have been," wrote one poster. "Just passed thru here the other day. This place is so hot. This place has a constant flow and variety of hot guys," wrote another. Even another poster wrote, "This is the best spot for anonymous action I've ever seen." Of all the postings in Minnesota, the airport restroom was ranked the top by that website.

The site, Squirt.org, lists how to get there: "Across from Food Court. Go through security to main Mezzanine where main shopping is located. Look for Starbucks Coffee stand and Men's Room is across from there," what to expect: "Very cruisy, no security cameras or guards. Most of the time, men will show themselves to you at the urinals and invite into stalls or nearby hotels. Plenty of dark stall action, too!Update: No one is permitted beyond the security checkpoints without an airline ticket now," and some of the biggest pet peeves: "Stall hoggers! Get off and get out! Cleaning crews may be overly curious, but won't interfere."

The details of Craig's arrest are not unique. According to a post in June at cruisingforsex.com, another public sex site, "Twenty people were arrested within the past week. Plainclothes officers wait in the stalls and tap their feet and even put their foot on yours and then arrest you when you look under the stall wall."

[sandnsea]

99. Across from Starbucks, lol

I hadn't even read that when I suggested people turn the bathrooms of their own Starbuck's into sex parlors.

I have got to start blocking these threads.

:crazy:

[goodhue]

106. well I'm sure a number of starbuck's bathrooms already are cruising hot spots

This kind of activity is hardly unique and occurs everywhere

[DemBones DemBones]

108. Yes, I'm not believing anyone wants

to see somebody else having sex in a public place (unless they are voyeurs), or that they think kids ought to see such things. They are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

As the guy said up above, the toe tapping ritual wasn't so they could exchange business cards.

It's no more entrapment than when female decoys are flirtatious with johns trying to pick them up. The men aren't arrested unless they say what they want and how much they want to pay. They go to a certain street because they knew hookers hang out there. Their plan is to go somewhere and have sex in their car, which is more private than a public restroom, but they're busted, anyway, without "doing anything."

Craig went to that bathroom because of its reputation, and he made signals, after peeping into the guy's stall. If he decides to fight the charge, they can probably supoena his computer and find out all the gay cruising sites he visited. Of course he probably just surfed in the wrong place at the wrong time. :eyes:

[barack4prez]

109. Where do you get

that he was "peeping into the guy's stall"?
And why is his "gay crusing sites he visited" relevant at all? By the way, it's not a crime to visit "gay crusing sites." What is the evidence that he ever visited these sites, anyway?
For your information, it's not even criminal to seek gay sex in a bathroom in Minnesota.
The "crime" was giving some ambiguous foot signals to some cop who was in the next stall. What was that cop's job? To find foot signals!!!! Where's the crime??
Crawl out of your cave.

[closeupready]

115. It is a crime if it leads to wrong thoughts, like of sex.

Or so I learned here on DU. (because sex is bad. :crazy: )

[ProudDad]

136. That's fucked up too!

"female decoys are flirtatious with johns trying to pick them up"

The government has NO freakin' business legislating "morality". That's the bottom line...

This is a Thocratic Police State...That's what's really fucked up...

[sabbat hunter]

111. anyone

who is cruising for sex in a bathroom, is a bit of a deviant IMHO.

But the police can also show what has happened in the bathroom in the past, what it was used for. Bathhouses in NYC were closed for similar reasons.

[barack4prez]

112. No they can't

Where did you go to law school? The Iwog School of Transmission Repair and Law?

[ProudDad]

142. Damn

if deviance should be illegal then nearly everyone belongs in jail... :evilgrin:

[BootinUp]

116. The reason the cops are doing it

is because the public was complaining about sex acts in that particular bathroom. As I understand it, there are web pages touting it as the place to go for such activities. You don't think it makes sense to clamp down on that activity, forcefully, in an airport restroom?

[ProudDad]

146. Fine then stop the bullshit entrapment

and station a uniformed cop to cruise the restrooms until the activity ceases, as it DOUBTLESS would as the word got around...

Costs less, more effective...

I don't mind the idea of public restrooms being safe for children (and homophobes) but I DO object to undercover entrapment being the policy.

They do it because it makes it appear that the cops are doing a good job 'cause they make a lot of arrests (and ruin a lot of lives and reputations)...

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of "cure"...

[sampsonblk]

127. Yep, what you said

[rasputin1952]

122. Craig destroyed his own career. He plead guilty to a

misdemeanor, avoiding further prosecution, in the hope that this would all, "go away".

Here is how stupid this man is:

He tries to avoid a charge by claiming he is a US Senator.

He pleds guilty, then says he was guilty of nothing.

He states he is going to resign from the senate, then does a 180 saying he is going to fight his own guilty plea.

He leaves a phone message at the wrong # sounding like he is essentially desperate.

Fellow GOP'ers say he should resign, he does not heed advice.

Bush says resignation is "the right thing to do".

he finds 1 Senator that says he was possibly "railroaded", (Spector) and tries to regain his "dignity".

He not only shot himself in the foot, he amputated it and placed it in his mouth as well.



If this wasn't really happening, it might make for a humorous skit!

I think the whole thing is reaching the point of extreme absurdity; he should have pead not guilty and taken his chances in court. But he is an idiot.

[TheCowsCameHome]

123. Wearing snowshoes in an airport bathroom is certainly suspicious behavior

[thegreatcause2]

124. DUMB

A repuke hypocrite is bad but his real crime is being dumb. This guy is a Senator and has handled this situation so bad, he should step down for being a dumb-ass.

[ohbeehave]

128. humorous ebay listing

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=300148326565&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=020

[NaturalHigh]

139. "I'm not sure if there is some law...

that you cannot have anonymous sex in a public bathroom."

I'm pretty sure there is.

I personally don't care if Craig is a closet (or open) homosexual. I just don't want to take my son into a public restroom where two guys are having their "anonymous" coupling.

[CGowen]

145. Bush referred to Craig as “a goddamned traitor”, that's enough

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1713886

[Dr. Strange]

147. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the crime was...

he refused to show his receipt to the bathroom attendant.

Wait...this doesn't look like the lounge...

:yoiks: