Questions about the legality of Sen Craig's arrest.. Entrapment??

[Ghost in the Machine]

From the arrest report:

"“At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot. I moved my foot up and down slowly."

Ok, the officer 'recognized this as a signal"... but... did he signal back?? Did he give some kind of sign or signal that he was interested? Nowhere does it say money was offered or exchanged. Hell, WORDS weren't even exchanged.

If the officer signaled back, wouldn't that mean he was accepting an invitation from a "known signal by someone wishing to engage in lewd conduct"?

Next thing you know, they're gonna have female under covers hanging out in bars just waiting for a guy to buy her a drink and wink at her, then they'll bust HIM for soliciting prositution.

I hate a hypocrite, but something just stinks about this. What's NOT being told? Did the good Senator maybe have some cash in his hand when he waved it under the stall??? That certainly would explain a little bit more... that's the only thing I can see that even makes sense about him being arrested, otherwise he was just seeking an encounter with another man in the only way he knew how.

Am I out of the ball park on this one?

[uppityperson]

1. why did he take up a toilet stall for 13 minutes?

[Ghost in the Machine]

5. Is there a time limit on toilet stalls??

:shrug:

Like I said, maybe he *was* seeking sex.. from a consenting partner. He made a signal.. someone signaled back... he proceeded in a manner consistent with the "norm"?? I have no idea about gay bathroom sex, I'm straight myself.. but something just doesn't sound right with this story. Something is missing somewhere.

On the other hand, if you mean why did the COP take up a stall for 13 mins... he was doing his job....

[uppityperson]

7. Yeah, "he nudged me so I nudged back" seems odd.

The whole thing seems odd. Even reading the police report, not jumping to any further conclusions, it seems odd. I am in no way defending a anti-gay repub hypocrite, but the story is odd.

Poor cop, having to sit there for 13 minutes. Wonder if he had a book.

[hlthe2b]

2. well, I admit to being a bit puzzled, but he wasn't charged with

solicitation, but with lewd behavior-related charges, so entrapment probably doesn't apply...:shrug:

[Beausoir]

3. Don't you mean "EnTAPment"?

[sandnsea]

4. Craig pleaded guilty

So it really doesn't matter.

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. I realize he pleaded guilty, I'm just trying to figure out of *what*

What was the underlying crime? Tapping his foot in a bathroom?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. You're Ignoring The Part

Where Craig gazed at him for two minutes while he sat on the crapper, rubbed his foot against his, and stuck his hand on his side of the stall...

[DURHAM D]

17. There is no crime. He is just a gay man.

This crap happens everyday. He was looking for a sex partner. End of story. He was not having sex - he just wanted to have sex. Just like the guys who hit on women at the gym, at the grocery store, in a bar.

[zanne]

88. I have to agree with you.

It does seem like a bit of a stretch to say he did something unlawful.

[mondo joe]

91. The gym, grocery and bar are all completely public areas. Bathroom stalls are not,

and watching someone use one, or reaching into it, is not acceptable.

[sandnsea]

67. Craig supports anti-gay laws

I'm sure he knows what they are.

And puhleeze, sticking his foot under the stall and reaching under the stall is a little more than tapping his foot. I don't know why people are pretending this is normal bathroom behavior.

[FredScuttle]

6. Are you out of the ball park on this one?

Yes.

That has been simple answers to simple questions.

[Guaranteed]

8. No, because Craig initiated the whole thing.

And it was only a "signal"- what the officer did, that is- because Craig interpreted it that way.

[ComerPerro]

9. honestly, I couldn't care. This is the kind of society Repigs want, let them get burned by it

[alcibiades_mystery]

24. ding ding ding

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I Think You're Ignoring The Part Where Craig Peeked At Him On The Crapper For Two Minutes...

eom

[Guaranteed]

12. And the part where he kept tapping his foot.

And the part where Craig decided that the person in the next stall moving their leg up and down meant that they wanted to fool around.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. Two Minutes Is A Long Time

He's pretty brazen...

[Ghost in the Machine]

77. Brazen only because he wasn't told to go away.. like a straight guy would

have told him.

Recall the arrest report.. the officer said "I could see his blue eyes".. that means he made and held eye contact with Craig for a lot of those two minutes, and the officer didn't protest being watched.

I'm going to try to find the link to the scan of the complete arrest report, it's on here somewhere, I read it earlier.

[mondo joe]

78. The officer doesn't HAVE to protest - you're not supposed to be looking into

other people's stalls, or reaching your body parts into them either.

Occupants shouldn't have to tell people to GO AWAY because they're not supposed to be doing it to begin with.

[lvx35]

15. Yeah, that's the illegal part I caught.

The rest just established sexual intent of the original looking, meaning he wasn't confused or whatever.

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. Yeah, that's kind of creepy, but the cop could have spoken up and told him

to buzz off, too. I know if it was me, I would say something to someone staring at me through the crack of a stall door. I'd probably cuss him out, honestly.

Go back to the report where the officer stated he "saw Craig's blue eyes".. that means they made eye contact, and the officer didn't PROTEST being watched through the door... The officer encouraged him, it seems to me. He had every opportunity to discourage Craig, but he didn't.

Next question: did the officer have HIS pants down around his ankles, or was he sitting on the toilet with them pulled up. That could have been another sign to Craig that there was a possible willing partner...

I personally think these are some important questions to help clarify the law. Where is the line drawn?

[mondo joe]

40. It's not the cop's job to discourage people from doing what they're doing if he

is there undercover.

Not stopping Craig is not "encouraging" him.

[Ghost in the Machine]

63. What crime was he committing?

I must be dense, as I'm just not seeing the underlying crime. Ok, the guy stared in the crack of the door. As a straight guy, if I saw someone peeking in, I'd first say "someone in here!" ... now, if I then saw the guy continuing to stare, then I'd be a little less civil, something along the lines of "Hey! GET the fuck away dude!"

This officer did none of that, he stared back, actually holding Craig's gaze enough to "see his blue eyes". In other words, he acted like a gay man interested in sex who had done this before also. No words or money were ever exchanged, so this officer couldn't know 100% that anything illegal would have occured. Craig *could* have asked him if he wanted to go back to his place, or to a motel, or to his car. Can you understand what I'm trying to say?

I still liken it to a guy buying a woman a few drinks, then asking if she wants to go back to his place. Is he soliciting prostitution?

[mondo joe]

66. The officer being neutral is not entrapping Craig.

Craig was charged with - if I recall correctly - disorderly conduct.

IMO he was soliciting the cop for sex.

The cop just sitting there isn't enticing him, or offering anything.

If he approached him in the bar and invited him out for sex there'd be no issue. Soliciting someone for sex in the restroom - particularly a restroom where there have been complaints of sex - is a different matter.

[liberalmuse]

14. That was a rather odd police report...

It made me laugh like hell, but I was wondering what Sen. Craig did that would constitute 'lewd behavior'. Is there more to the story than the two pages posted at TPM? The playing footsies was a little weird, but not necessarily lewd, in my book. 'Lewd' to me would be someone getting it on in one of the stalls or waving their d*ck around asking people to blow them. I mean, if someone were sliding their hand back and forth under my stall, I'd assume they needed some TP, so I'd oblige, or I'd say, 'Excuse me, is there something I can help you with?' The person could be having a stroke and that could be their only way of signaling for help. Not being a gay male, I have no idea what the signals are, and really didn't see where any line was crossed (other than by a tapping foot?). IMO, this seems like entrapment. You can get busted for a signal? No words were spoken? Sure, he was supposedly peaking through the crack in the stall, but he could have had poor vision. Sometimes it's hard to tell if a stall is occupied. And is a public restroom really a good place to go to get laid, especially if you are a prominent politician? I do agree that Sen. Craig should not have plead guilty. Sheesh!

[Guaranteed]

18. This isn't even CLOSE to being entrapment.

That cop did nothing whatsoever of any significance that on its own, without Craig's intention and interpretation, could be considered entrapment.

[DURHAM D]

20. You absolutely could not possibly know that.

Who wrote the report? Oh, the guy that was setting him up. Hello.

[Guaranteed]

25. On the facts we know, it's not even close. nt

[DURHAM D]

33. Again, you have no way to know that.

Seems like prejudice is over-riding common sense.

[Guaranteed]

37. What the hell are you talking about?

On what we are being TOLD- you see the qualifier, there?- it's not even close to entrapment. Period.

[DURHAM D]

47. Why don't you re-read your post #18.

The one where you knew so much.

[Guaranteed]

59. So you're saying you want to just start making things up. Fine.

While I suppose it's not always the case, cops pretty typically don't just make things up about sitting US Senators, to which said Senator goes ahead and pleads guilty.

[DURHAM D]

71. So at that time he was setting him up you think he

knew it was a Senator?

[Guaranteed]

72. No, at the time he was writing the report, he knew he was a Senator. nt

[liberalmuse]

21. Really?

But what exactly was the lewd behavior> I was absolutely delighted when I found out yet another sanctimonious Republican hypocrite was busted for being a perv, but am puzzled by the police report. Nothing lewd happened, IMO, just a mild invasion of space.

[Guaranteed]

26. I think it's that invasion of space, but of someone who is in a bathroom

stall.

That qualifies as lewd.

[liberalmuse]

34. But it isn't lewd for men to stand next to each other and pee?

I dunno. I'm still not getting the lewdness. Perhaps it's just a man thing. I mean, if a woman did the same thing, I'd just think she was a bit obnoxious and annoying, but that is all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Would It Bother You If A Woman Gazed At You Through The Crack In The Stall For Two Minutes While You

Did Your Business?

[TorchTheWitch]

85. It's expectation of privacy being invaded that's lewd

When guys stand next to each other at urinals and pee there is no expectation of privacy as they were willing to pee where they could be seen. When you close yourself into a stall to use the toilet there is a clear expectation of privacy. Peering at someone in a closed stall through the crack is a Peeping Tom activity that invades the privacy of the person who shut themselves into the stall, and therefore is considered lewd behavior.

It's the same with womens' dressing rooms. Some dressing rooms are open and the attendant or another customer wishing to undress to try on clothes may walk in at any time. In that type of dressing room there is no expectation of privacy as it is an open style... you surrender your expectation of privacy in there by being willing to undress in the open where you know you may be seen by others. But if it is a style of dressing room where there are individual stalls with doors that you can close yourself into in order to undress, the attendant or another customer peeking through the crack in the door at you while you undress would be considered lewd behavior as shutting yourself into the enclosed dressing room stall (just like the enclosed bathroom stall) is indicative of a valid expectation of privacy on the part of the person shutting themselves into that stall.

As I understand the situation with Craig, he first stared at the undercover cop in the stall through the crack for about 2 minutes before any footsie stuff took place. The lewd behavior FIRST occurred when Craig peeped through the crack. Whether or not the cop said anything at all is immaterial as the privacy was breeched by the peeping itself. The cop is not obligated to tell the person to stop invading his privacy anymore than if a Peeping Tom watched you through your window as the peeping act itself is lewd behavior.

I'm having a really hard time figuring out why so many people just don't get why this behavior is lewd. A closed door is an obvious signal of expected privacy, which is why when confronted with a closed door we knock or call out first to see if it is permissable to open the door. Anyone who has gone into a bathroom stall and closed the door is very obviously expecting privacy, and anyone who breeches that privacy by peeping through the crack for 2 minutes is an obvious pervert committing a lewd act.

[rpannier]

16. If Craig went first it's not entrapment

If Craig walks up to a police officer and offers him coke then it's a crime.

It says 'Craig tapped my foot.'

[DURHAM D]

19. And if a man taps a woman's foot in a public place -

what is the crime?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. It Was A Restroom Not Yankee Stadium

eom

[DURHAM D]

31. The only difference is geography - unless of course you

have a problem with gay men.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Gay Americans Should Have The Same Right As Straight Americans

When straight men can have sex with women in public restrooms then I will argue that society extend that right to gay men and women.

And I have relatives, friends, and business partners that are gay, transgendered, and bisexual...They would be appalled at the suggestion that toilet sex is part of their culture...

[DURHAM D]

50. This should be pretty obvious but let me point it out anyway.

Craig was not having sex. He was looking for a sexual partner.

You keep acting like he was actually having sex - I know if fits better into your whatever.

[mondo joe]

55. Heteros don't get to legally nudge into public spaces set aside for private use either.

Men don't get to stick their legs into women's dressing rooms. Women don't get to check into the men's room to see if anyone wants a blow job.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. People Were Complaining About Sex In That Specific Restroom

That's why the sting was there in the first place...

Where was Craig going to take him for his liaison ?

On the plane...


They were going to have sex right there...

[AZBlue]

68. That's not a known, predetermined signal for sex.

Between two men in a men's restroom it is. There's a big difference between the two situations.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Two totally different things.. the coke is a crime in and of itself..

there's no crime in asking someone if they want to have sex, unless they're underage or if you offer money. He tapped his damned foot... should I be arrested for lewd behavior for asking a woman if she wants to come back to my place?

[alcibiades_mystery]

22. Has this place gone crazy?

You'd think Senator Craig was the Democratic Nominee for President.

:rofl:

[Ghost in the Machine]

28. So you think it's alright for someone to be arrested just for asking another adult

if they would like to have sex? That's gonna play havoc on us single people..

Hey, even republikkkan scum has a right to follow the rule of law..

[mondo joe]

32. I think people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public restrooms.

:shrug:

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. True enough... I agree with that 100% but as I stated in post #36, the cop

had ample opportunity to tell him to buzz off.. like most straight guys would do, or at least I would do. Look up and see someone staring at me? "Hey! Someone in here!" .... see how easy that is? Craig stared at him for 2 minutes and he didn't protest... sounds like he might have been a willing partner in any other circumstance...

[mondo joe]

52. But the cop was there in response to complaints - to catch offenders.

If undercover officers told everyone they were interacting with to stop doing that illegal thing, they'd never get anyone.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. And when, praytell, was Craig going to have sex with this man, hypothetically

Were they going to exchange numbers and meet up next time Craig happened to be in Minneapolis? Maybe a nice dinner first?

:rofl:

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. No, but he *could* have said "wanna go back to my place"?

Like I said, I don't know anything about gay bathroom sex, what I'm trying to get at is the legal aspect of this particular case. None others, just this one. No words were exchanged until after the officer showed his badge. *He* can't say for 100% certainty that Craig would have had sex with him *in the bathroom*.

Now, had he waited a little longer, until Craig propositioned him and asked for sex *in the bathroom*, or tried to come into the stall, then this whole issue would be dead to me, I wouldn't have any questions at all. Right now, I'm not seeing the underlying crime, unless looking for a sex partner is a crime, in which that's gonna make a lot of single people nervous...

[mondo joe]

76. He COULD have done a lot of things - but he invaded the personal space of another

person by peering in for 2 minutes, and entering the other stall space.

[Ghost in the Machine]

79. Ok, so then he should have been arrested right then & there since he had

already committed a crime. If a cop sees you weaving down the road driving, does he wait to see if you crash into someone before he pulls you over?

Let me try to boil it down to my way of thinking here:

Me {sitting on a toilet and noticing someone looking in at me}: "Hey! Someone in here!" Now, if he continued to stare, then he gets cussed out. I f he goes in the next stall and tries to play footsie with me, he gets kicked in the ankle or stomped on top of the foot, whichever is easiest at the time. Now, if the guy sticks his hand under the stall, he's probably gonna get it burnt with the cigarette lighter I usually have in my pocket.

Now compare that to this:

Cop {notices someone staring} Sits in silence, staring back. (Doesn't protest like a straight or uninterested guy would)

Craig : goes into stall, taps foot in signal known by other gay men who frequent public restrooms

Cop: {doesn't say if he responded or not}

Craig : Moves foot closer to cop's foot

Cop : Moves foot up and down slowly, in a stroking manner, encouraging contact

Ok... now, if the officer had waited a few more minutes, to see if craig offered money for sex, sex for money, or just sex right there *in the bathroom*, then I wouldn't have a problem with this one bit. As it stands right now, there is no evidence that Craig wanted to have sex *in the bathroom*, either for free or for money.

Does that clear my posistion up a little?

[mondo joe]

81. False analogy.

When a cop sees you weaving, you are already posing a real danger.

When a cop is undercover they are waiting for people with criminal intent to carry out enough to press charges.

If a cop was undercover getting propositioned by Mr Jones to kill Mrs Jones for 10 grand, he needs to let Mr Jones make enough of an offer to press charges. It's not his job to say "Mr Jones, I should let you know I am a police officer not a hit man" before the offer is made.

In this case, he was there because there were complaints about sex in the bathroom.

Craig invaded the space of his stall, and was charged with disorderly conduct. He was not charged with having sex.

[Ghost in the Machine]

82. Ok, that makes sense and I can see that point...

I was just thinking along a different avenue I guess, but I can see this point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

80. He was on a layover in the fucking airport!

Come back to my place?

:rofl:

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. The last airport I had a layover at had a hotel in it...

am I missing something?

[Richard Steele]

89. He COULD have said, "Not guilty, your Honor". But he didn't, so it's too late to start defending him

He plead "guilty"- end of story.

[liberalmuse]

30. Fucking liberals, always trying to be fair.

I had to read that damn report, and now I can't be so happy the guy was busted because he didn't do anything lewd. I wanted to read that he was whispering through the crack from the next stall in a really creepy voice, 'Pssssst. Blow me.' Now it seems as if I have to feel some sympathy for a 'pub, and that is so wrong.

[Tyo]

27. Please. The guy was cruising for a BJ in a public restroom

Now if you think that shouldn't be illegal, that's fine. I kinda think it should be, but then I'm one of those gay guys who has never quite figured out the attraction of restroom sex. But for better or worse it's illegal at the moment and I don't think there is any question about what Sen Craig was up to. When you're peeking into occupied stalls, and playing footsie with the guy next door with your foot on his side of the partition you're looking for the kind of relief that most straight guys don't associate with airport restsooms. He was busted fair and square as far as I can tell.

Also, I think your sympathy is somewhat misplaced. A 60-something gay man with money has options when it comes to sex, some legal some not. He might choose to have sex in bathroom stalls, but but he's not forced to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. What's Appalling Is There Are Folks Here Arguing Toilet Sex Is Part And Parcel Of Gay Culture...

My gay friends would be appalled...

[WillyT]

42. I Didn't Even Know Public Restroom Sex Was An Attratction

There must be some REALLY NICE public restrooms out there!

:shrug:

[liberalmuse]

46. I'm arguing that no toilet sex ever happened...

That is why I am a little uncomfortable with the guy being busted based on the two pages posted at TPM. The police officer didn't have dick squat, so to speak.

[DURHAM D]

54. That's the part they would not share with you.

I can understand why.

[liberalmuse]

39. But that is not what the report says...

and that is what I have a problem with. I'm betting he was looking for sex, but I thought you had to get caught with dick in hand/mouth, so to speak, before they could bust you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. They Arrest The John Before He Has Sex With The Decoy

Did you want the cop to let Craig blow him and then put the handcuffs on him?

[Ghost in the Machine]

75. Before the sex.... but *after* a proposition that includes mentioning or

making an exchange of money. There is still no underlying crime, because no money changed hands or was mentioned, and there was no offer of performing sex *in the public place*. Craig *could* have asked him if he wanted to go to a motel or back to his place... In this particular case, no words were spoken, no money was exchanged and all we had was a guy playing peek a boo and footsies with someone else he perceived to be another gay man.

[DURHAM D]

45. You think that the double standard for gay men is ok?????

I don't get you.

Straight men can cruise for blow jobs everywhere in the world and no law can bust them. Meanwhile its okay with you that gay men can be busted anywhere while trying to get a blow job.

The total unfairness of the situation really doesn't bother you?

[mondo joe]

49. Gay men can cruise in all those same places. The public restroom isn't one of them.

That's not a double standard.

I've managed to be a gay man for a few decades without ever once cruising a bathroom.

[DURHAM D]

56. I have noticed how proud you are of your

distaste for casual sex. Congratulations.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. You're Conflating Casual With Illegal

eom

[DURHAM D]

73. You are conflating seeking a sexual partner with

having actually having sex in a public bathroom.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

74. First Of All

You don't have the right to come in a restroom and gaze it me through a crack in the stall for two minutes while I do my business... That's an invasion of my privacy...

Second of all you don't have a right to rub your foot against mine when I am in another stall...That's an invasion of my space....


Thirdly , if you want to solicit in public restrooms that is your right but you can do it without invading another person's privacy and space...


Fourthly, I have seen folks have sex in public restrooms on more than one occasion...To suggest that would not have been the culmination of Mr. Craig's activities strains credulity...Everything was leading up to Senator Craig fellating the person right there...The fly in the ointment was the man was a cop...

[mondo joe]

61. I don't have distaste for casual sex. Your psychic powers are less than impressive.

Bathroom cruising isn't necessary for casual sex.

[Tyo]

86. They can?

If that's the case i stand corrected. A little documentation wouldn't hurt though. But wow, if straights are able to solicit other straights for public sex everywhere in the world then we should have parallel rights.

My only defense in this case is that when I have to go I don't appreciate stalls being taken up by guys having sex in them. We have handicapped stalls, maybe men's rooms should also be equipped with a little closet or two for consensual not-for-profit sex. That way cases like Craig would be able to get off in their natural environment without bothering the rest of us.

[blogslut]

43. The entire report is in this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1676117

Q: Are gay men singled out and harassed for public displays of affection/and or merely being gay?

A: Yes.

Q: Is it wrong that gay men are so fearful of public harassment and ostracism that some resort to hooking up on the sly?

A: Yes.

Q: Was this a case of entrapment and/or harassment of a person as part of some concerted effort to make gay sex illegal?

A: I don't think so. I think that if someone wants to know if a stall is occupied, they knock or ask. They don't peek through at me for two solid minutes. I think if the person in the stall next to me needs toilet paper, they ask, they don't wave their hand at me without expecting a response like "Are you trying to tell me something?" And if someone rubbed their foot against mine in between stalls in a public restroom I would raise holy hell.

There are people that troll for sex in public restrooms, highway rest stops and public parks. While I am sure some of these folks go off to private locations to do the deed, many more do the deed right there, in a public setting. According to the report, people complained about that very behavior to police and the police were conducting a sting to curtail it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. That's The Part That Troubles Me

"According to the report, people complained about that very behavior to police and the police were conducting a sting to curtail it."

It demonstrates a blatant disregard for the rights of others...What if a kid comes in while the Senator is getting busy?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

53. Or perhaps they were tired of people peeking in on them while they used the restroom?

I know I wouldn't like it. As a matter of fact it would freak me clean out and I'd likely report it.

[blogslut]

58. Exactly!

Having sex in a public restroom is wrong. Period. No matter what a person's sexual orientation is. These scenarios aren't about pickup lines that are fulfilled in hotel rooms and apartments. This form of tricking is about doing the stuff right there and I have known too many folks that have been beaten to within an inch of their lives after engaging in this risky behavior. It's dangerous.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. Some People Here Are Being Disingenuous

If people were setting up assignations elsewhere from public restrooms I and most folks wouldn't be nearly as troubled by it but that's often not the case... You have to be a total "cherry" to not know that most of those scenarios play themselves out right in the restroom...

[Hamlette]

64. Not entrapment

I was a criminal defense attorney for 10 years. This is not entrapment under the law. The cop did nothing to induce Craig to do something he otherwise would not have done.

All things being equal, I'm not sure they could prove he did anything illegal or lewd. Odd, but maybe not lewd. Problem is, if you are a nobody, the cops come in and swear the foot tap and touch and and hand swipe are come ons. Like "Want a date?" "How much" can be made into a prostitution case. With Craig he might have gotten out of it if he'd kept his mouth shut. Once he said "What do you think of that?" when he handed over his card and said he was picking up some paper off the floor and had a wide stance, he was toast.

Oh, yeah, and he pled guilty. I'm shocked he didn't even consult an attorney!

Idiot. Thought it wouldn't make the news?

[Sanctified]

84. Entrapment?

Entrapment indicates he was lured into his actions, sorry but he initiated the contact and pleaded guilty, stop trying defend the opposition.

[zanne]

87. I'm not a fan of Sen. Craig but...

I don't see where the crime is here. He didn't actually do anything. It seems to me that, with the foot tapping, etc., he was asking permission.

[mondo joe]

90. Peering into stalls and reaching into them violates the reasonable assumption of

privacy in the stall. The crime he was charged with was disorderly conduct.

[zanne]

92. Voyeurism?

I think that's the term for peeping. Kind of hard to prove, though. I'm not saying the guy is innocent, but my tinfoil hat tells me there's more to it and nothing's been proven.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

93. He Watched The Guy For Two Minutes On The Crapper

Then got in the stall next to him and rubbed his foot against his and then put his hand under his stall as well...

That's disorderly conduct in any jurisdiction in the U S if it happens in a public restroom on public property...

[mondo joe]

94. Not very. He was observed looking into the stall for a sustained period, and then physically

entering the stall space.