"Clearly, whatever Mr. Craig’s intentions, the police entrapped him."

[Cruzan]

...various signals — the foot tapping, the hand waving and the body positioning — are all parts of a delicate ritual of call and answer, an elaborate series of codes that require the proper response for the initiator to continue. Put simply, a straight man would be left alone after that first tap or cough or look went unanswered.

[...]

His findings would seem to suggest the implausibility not only of Senator Craig’s denial — that it was all a misunderstanding — but also of the policeman’s assertion that he was a passive participant. If the code was being followed, it is likely that both men would have to have been acting consciously for the signals to continue.

Mr. Humphreys broke down these transactions into phases, which are remarkably similar to the description of Senator Craig’s behavior given by the police. First is the approach: Mr. Craig allegedly peeks into the stall. Then comes positioning: he takes the stall next to the policeman. Signaling: Senator Craig allegedly taps his foot and touches it to the officer’s shoe, which was positioned close to the divider, then slides his hand along the bottom of the stall. There are more phases in Mr. Humphreys’s full lexicon — maneuvering, contracting, foreplay and payoff — but Mr. Craig was arrested after the officer presumed he had “signaled.”

Clearly, whatever Mr. Craig’s intentions, the police entrapped him. If the police officer hadn’t met his stare, answered that tap or done something overt, there would be no news story. On this point, Mr. Humphreys was adamant and explicit: “On the basis of extensive and systematic observation, I doubt the veracity of any person (detective or otherwise) who claims to have been ‘molested’ in such a setting without first having ‘given his consent.’ ”

More

[L. Coyote]

1. Police entrap law brreakers all the time. What else is not new?

How do you suggest that police stop people from using our public restrooms for sexual conduct.

[Rageneau]

26. In NYC, the cops MURDERED a guy they couldn't entrap.

In Rudy's New York, it became customary for undercover cops to approach passers-by, offering to sell them dope. <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/nyc-a02.shtml>

A guy named Patrick Desmond was minding his own business when two undercover cops stopped him and asked him if he wanted to buy pot. Desmond reacted the way the authorities tell us we should ALL react -- by angrilly rebuffing the "dope peddlers." But he reacted a bit too strongly: he (supposedly) shoved one of the cops, which led to a fracas, which led to Desmond being shot to death by a third undercover cop.

This was clearly entrapment. The victim was not looking for pot and didn't want to buy any. He would have had zero interaction with the poklice had they not approached him, waved it in front of his face, and encouraged him to buy it. Desmond's angry response to this entrapment cost him his life.

And were the cops found guilty of anything?

RUDY'S cops?

Har de har.

[Rageneau]

29. Correction: the victim's name was Dorismund, not Desmond.

[DrDan]

2. no . . . . I don't think so

for it to be entrapment, an otherwise "unwilling" person would have been induced to commit a crime.

I don't see how you could argue that Craig was unwilling.

[Liberal In Texas]

39. Right, the cop didn't approach him and solicit anything.

He approached the cop. Hence, no entrapment.

[Warpy]

3. A thug holds up a convenience market

just as a cop drives up outside.

"Clearly, whatever Mr. Thug's intentions, the police entrapped him."

Craig was soliciting sex in a men's room. I have absolutely no sympathy for that.

[EV_Ares]

9. Myself included, agree with you. It appears from the other guy that

outed him, Craig was in a mens room at Union Station there. So, it appears to me he was living life on the edge to get caught playing around in mens room which is despicable itself.

Also, I have a hard time finding any sympathy for this man who was living a life he legislated against and he got caught up in his own anti-gay legislation it appears.

[HughMoran]

18. None

Creeps like him deserve NO sympathy. The continued defense of this creeps actions is making me sick :puke:

[mitchum]

50. And that cash register full of money was just there to entrap that thug!

I agree with you; the entrapment argument is nonsense

[rocktivity]

4. Craig stared AND tapped FIRST.

When YOU make the first move, it's not entrapment.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Laughing Mirror]

10. Didn't Craig say on the tape with Sgt Karsnia that it was the Karsnia who moved his foot first?

Also, we learn that the cops were luring guys into the rest room via internet hook-up sites and then busting them. 41 busts, 7 of them were Northwest Airlines employees.

When they started the entrapment operation, this warning was placed on cruisingforsex website:

Warning FYI: Men on other sites have reported entrapment by police officers at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul airport using CL (Craigslist) M4M (Men 4 Men), posing as online cruisers to arrange sex meets/hook-ups and then arresting the dude(s) who show up, typically at the shoe-shine T-room (men's room) in the main terminal.

Be very careful about hooking up with people who run ads for layovers or "fun at the airport." Not every man who posts on here looking for MSP action is a cop, but familiarize yourselves with your rights if arrested, and use common sense. Google "Lambda Black Book" for legal info on cruising and arrest.

The social consequences are increasingly severe. Men arrested for cruising are sometimes now charged, amazingly, with "sexual assault" and/or have to report, if convicted, as sexual predators for the rest of their lives. Ridiculous, reactionary, anti-sex, and homophobic, yes. But also now more and more a reality, even with the best attorneys (and even in a "progressive" state like MN)...

The following testimonials, on the same site cruisingforsex, are from guys who were arrested in June at the same T-room, around the time of Craig. Notice that in two of these examples it was the cops making the first move and not the other way around.

Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport

New comments added June, 2007

Just a heads up. I exchanged some messages on Craigslist about meeting a guy here, actually pretty tame exchanges. He told me what he was wearing and I sat in the stall next to him. When I showed him my cock, I got busted. I wont be doing that again, obviously.

...

I just got busted here. Young white guy sitting in the stall, waiting for you to show cock and then he flashes his badge. I think he and his partner tag team. They cruise lots of sex sites looking for guys to set up.
...

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. This is a very homophobic group.

You are free to draw your own conclusions about what might have actually taken place between the sergeant and the senator.

[Richard Steele]

21. The Senators guilty plea kinda removes any doubt about what happened, IMO. nm

[Laughing Mirror]

37. He would have pled guilty to anything to hush it up, keep it from going farther

But, anybody who's ever been arrested and charged with something knows that what you ultimately plead guilty to is not necessarily what you, in fact, did.

[rocktivity]

110. He pled guilty cover up his track record of similar behavior

that he knew could come out at a trial and end his political career whether he was acquitted or not.

:headbang:
rocknation

[0007]

69. Do we know who tapped who's foot first? I don't think so!

Craig said to the police officer, 'you solicited me' ... Do we indeed know what he meant? No! It could have been a look that the police officer gave Craig before following him into the restroom, and which Craig followed. Maybe that's why Craig peeped into the stall. To see if it was his honey.

The rest is history.

[Honeycombe8]

131. This is correctomundo. Some people don't understand that.

It's not entrapment if the subject makes the first move.

It's like a police decoy pretending to be a prostitute. She's standing there, scantily clad, when a man approaches. A conversation ensues. The man makes the first "come-on" for money. He doesn't actually say, "I'd like to hire you for illicit sex...how much do you charge?" But he lets it be known that that is what he wants. She responds, "Twenty dollars." He made the first overture. It's not entrapment. Even though without her assistance in responding, he wouldn't have agreed.

I'm ashamed to say that I have a relative (by marriage) who went to the pokey as the result of a sting operation. His defense was entrapment, also. That is a common defense, when the perpetrator is caught red handed. All you can do when the evidence is overwhelming that you are guilty is to claim entrapment or that, in the case of drugs, the police planted the stuff.

[SidDithers]

5. As long as Craig made the initial overture...

it doesn't matter what the officer did. He was replying to the signals that were coming from Craig. If the positions had been reversed, with Craig in the stall, and the officer peering, then positioning, then signaling, then entrapment could maybe be argued. However, that wasn't the case.

Sid

[Richard Steele]

6. Nope. That's not what entrapment is. nm

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. And if Craig and his party hadn't made homosexuality seem wrong,

he wouldn't have been in a bathroom looking for sex. He could be openly gay and still serve in Congress. Too bad he doesn't seem to get that.

[pnwmom]

20. He couldn't be openly gay and serve as an Senator from Idaho.

Homophobia in Idaho is much bigger than the Rethug party.

[melody]

28. The Rethug party runs Idaho

Whatever homophobia is there has been nurtured by them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. My point is that if his party hadn't spent years demonizing homosexuality,

perhaps Idaho wouldn't be so homophobic.

[Cha]

108. Then he should have found

another line of work..maybe one where he didn't have to project his hypocricy on our country.

[The Count]

118. Wasn't a gay marriage amandment rejected in Idaho this past election?

They also have an open lesbian - democrat serving as state senator. So that argument is a load of BS - although existing homophobia has a lot to do with Graig's POLITICAL actions

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. Where's the outrage when cops bust prostitutes?

I'm offended by this article.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. I'm outraged when cops bust prostitutes.

Leave them alone or legalize and regulate the sex trade. The vice squad is generally engaged in tempting people to have sex and then busting them for doing or acting as if they want to do just that.

So are you opposed to the routine busting of prostitutes?

[Fredda Weinberg]

67. I want vice laws abolished

But I can't imagine any parent who wants to make public solicitation legal. That's the proper offending factor in this case.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Public solicitation of minors?

Indeed what parent, or most any person, would want to legalize that? Now what precisely is wrong with public solicitation between consenting adults? And how exactly does your professed desire to decriminalize prostitution square with your opposition to solicitation? How exactly are prostitutes supposed to find their customers? Only high class whores get to do it legally?

[The Count]

122. Public solicitation between adults would be fine - just not in public bathrooms

I believe this would be to protect people (minors as well as adults) who want to use the bathroom in the way it was intended.
The short of this would be:
"GET A ROOM!"

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

11. why can't some just say senator craig is a freak and that he doesn't represent your community?

I mean really, look at what the dirty old pervert was busted for!

What reasonable person of any orientation would defend that?

[Toasterlad]

104. Because, Like It or Not, He's Gay.

And MANY gay men indulge in the same behavior as Craig.

Craig does NOT represent our community in that he is one gay man caught at one crime. He is no more representative of our community than Bush or Vitter are representative of the straight community. However, the line "he's not gay, he's a pervert!" won't work. You would not say "Vitter's not straight, he's a perver!". Quite frankly, the only people who would use such a line are those fundamentally uncomfortable with homosexuality; mostly well-meaning straight people who want to be open-minded but still have some prejudices rattling around upstairs.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

106. pervert is not a sexual orientation,

Vitter likes to shit himself for prostitutes - that is perverted.
Craig likes to fornicate in public washrooms - that is perverted.

Ones orientation does not make them a pervert - the behavior they engage in makes them a pervert.

But defending those who are sick fucks, be it Vitter, Craig or even Michael Vick does nothing to help the group they represent. At the end of the day the only thing that happened at the MSP airport is a dirty old man was arrested for propositioning an undercover cop.

I don't think that line represents a prejudice - only the evaluation of an individual and not projecting that evaluation on an entire group.

[The Count]

119. It is however the GOP-ers who find his being gay the only relevant part of the story

They never talk about his cheating on his wife, or "it's the lie" (like they did with Clinton) or breaking the law. It's all about his being gay.
Which is why, for me, it's all about all the rest plus the hypocrisy.
The only part where his being gay is relevant to me is when I look at his votes.

[Mist]

12. Craig pled guilty. I thought the story was more about another hypocritical Rethug gay. nt

[Me.]

13. Seriously?

The guy plead down o a misdemeanor, which means there had to be at least an asst. D.A., involved. They cut him a break and now he's going to yell entrapment? Next it will be police brutality or that the cop came onto him first. Please remember who we're dealing with here, when was the last time a republicon told the truth? Spin and propaganda are their forte.

[WinkyDink]

14. This does not constitute the legal definition of "entrapment", which pertains ONLY

to those NOT heretofore otherwise inclined to commit said offense.

GOOGLE:

"ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Are shoplifters "entrapped", because merchants openly display their wares, deliberately to entice? Seems to me some are claiming "entrapment" when what they really are saying is, "I have no Free Will, and neither did Craig have any!" AKA, "The Devil made me do it!" (tm Geraldine)

[Laughing Mirror]

40. You're obviously not going to cruise somebody you think is an undercover cop

Paul Cates, public education director of the ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project in New York, said entrapment is not a clear-cut issue, especially when sex is involved.

“If a man was touching the genitals of the police officer and it was unsolicited, it’s a crime,” he said. “If the officer was kissing or caressing the person and they touch him, it’s a gray area. If a person responds in kind, it might not be a criminal act.”

He said that if the officer gave any of the men encouragement to touch him, it might be considered entrapment, especially if the men did not know he was a police officer, and would not have touched him if he had known.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2007/8-17/news/localnews/11073.cfm

[WinkyDink]

57. So THAT'S why Craig had to keep peering into the cop's stall: to DETERMINE if he was undercover!

Sounds like a stupid argument: He would not have touched the policeman "if he had known." NS, Sherlock.

He. Pled. Guilty.

[mondo joe]

58. No one would commit any crime if they knew there was an undercover cop present.

They wouldn't offer money for sex, break the speed limit, try to hire someone to murder their spouse, or try to get a hand job in a public bathroom.

But having a cop present is not entrapment.

[Laughing Mirror]

112. So then it's arresting somebody under false pretenses

pretending to be somebody you aren't. How these shabby law enforcement tricks hold up in court is something that needs to be examined.

I am amazed at all the support for police entrapment on DU. And it is entrapment, although you might like to hear it called what it is.

Of course, everybody is ignoring the larger issue: what effect this kind of behavior on the part of police has on society.

[mondo joe]

113. You still don't get entrapment do you?

It doesn't rally matter who the cop is if the other person breaks the law.

It's illegal to offer money for sex, no matter who you offer it to.

It's illegal to try to get someone to kill someone else, no matter who.

[Laughing Mirror]

115. OH yes

One must never question dehumanizing police tactics against same sexers. Police overreach is never to be questioned. The Gestapo is always right.

[mondo joe]

117. Get off the cross.

He broke the law. He said he was guilty.

[Laughing Mirror]

125. That's how they get you, part of the scam

They know that most people, especially if they're a closet case and in the public eye, will just pay the fine and waive their right to counsel in order to keep their horrible crime a secret and avoid the fallout and publicity of a trial. It's quicker and probably cheaper just to say you're guilty, however wrong and phony and demeaning it is.

Hard to believe in this day and age that entrapment is still used and that they still use strapping young straight cops instead of putting some old officer that looks like Dennis Hastert in the stall or on the internet as bait. But then they wouldn't nab anybody.

[mondo joe]

126. That mght be how they get YOU. It's not how they get someone who isn't

breaking the law.

How good looking would the undercover cop have to be to MAKE someone act contrary to their own self?

[Laughing Mirror]

127. I admit to having been arrested several times when I was young and bad

But I was never arrested for looking for sex. I still defend those who are, and I always will. So if you ever get in trouble Brother, you'll know who to call.

If you get arrested for cruising somebody who turns out to be a cop, then you ARE acting contrary to yourself. Unless, of course, your goal is to get arrested.

[mondo joe]

128. Get back to me when you learn what "entrapment" really means. NT

[Laughing Mirror]

129. Tell that to the ACLU

And to the old grey lady, the New York Times.

[LisaL]

15. I am having a difficult time understanding this.

Foot tapping is not illegal.
Even peeping into the stall can be argued as seeing if the stall was empty. Why don't police wait until they are actually solicited for sex before making an arrest?

[Akoto]

16. Well ...

As I understanding it, he didn't just peep into the stall and tap his foot. He stared into the stall for a good minute or two, and his toe tapping was accompanied by a hand gesture.

Correct me if I'm wrong. This whole thing has gotten so tangled for me. :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

23. It's one thing to glance through the crack or under the partition to ascertain occupancy.

It's ENTIRELY something else to peep to a degree that one can determine physical attributes such as age, weight, 'attractiveness,' and certain anatomical 'features.'

Good grief. This isn't rocket science. It's one thing to bump into a person and quite another to grab their crotch. It's one thing to say you like someone's appearance and quite another to say "Nice rack. Let's fuck!" Life (and law) is FULL of such distinctions - it's the ol' right to swing one's arm UNTIL it meets another person's jaw!

Subsequent to peeping in violation of privacy rights, his actions served to CONFIRM the intentionally violative nature of the peeping.

If his peeping had merely been intended to ascertain occupancy then he wouldn't follow it up with the other behavior ... and he would NOT have been busted!

It has NOTHING to do with his sexual orientation and no act stands on it's own without a context that confirms or contradicts mens rea: the intent.

[pnwmom]

22. He poked his foot into the next stall, bumping against the officer's

shoe. If it was an accident, why didn't he immediately withdraw his foot and apologize? Why did he -- instead -- stick his hand under the edges of the stall divider, swiping it repeatedly back and forth?

If you had someone sticking a foot and fingers into your stall, wouldn't you feel that your privacy was being invaded?

Why did he show the officer his business card? Had that ploy ever worked before? Why didn't he ask for a lawyer, if he felt wronged? Why did he plead guilty?

[kestrel91316]

43. My guess is that Craig HAD been caught before, in ID. And so when

he flashed his Senate business card it always worked to get him off the hook before. But MN is not ID.

[pnwmom]

47. That's what I suspect, too. n/t

[Boojatta]

17. "met his stare"!!!

Clearly, whatever Mr. Craig’s intentions, the police entrapped him. If the police officer hadn’t met his stare (...)

What's the world coming to when a person stares at a stranger who may or may not be a police officer and there is no longer an understanding that the stranger must look away? Maybe Mr. Craig should have taped his Senator ID card to his forehead just above the eyes to give notice that he has the right to stare and that the stare is not to be met.

:rofl:

[havocmom]

52. Gotta put those dreamboat cops in burkas so they don't incite such passions

that US Senators go completely stupid in their presence. Clearly, an attractive cop not wearing a burka is entrapping any cruisers who come on to him... ;)

[noamnety]

114. It was explained to me in another thread

That glaring at a person staring into your stall equals giving consent to be watched in the bathroom.

Apparently ignoring the fact that someone is watching you on the toilet means you want them to stop.

(How the hell that makes sense is beyond me, but that's apparently how some people justify peeping toms as "having consent."

[Toasterlad]

120. It's the Opposite, Iwfern.

Either you misundertood, or someone explained it to you incorrectly. If the cop had not been a cop, but just a regular guy, he would have frowned or said something, and Craig would have moved on. The cop, who was trying to nab him, remember, said nothing, met Craig's stare, and things progressed from there.

Please note that I am NOT saying it was alright for Craig to be peering through the crack in the first place, or that he didn't deserve to be arrested. He was engaged in illegal activity.

[noamnety]

133. The thing is, "regular" guys

(meaning the ones that aren't clued into the world of anonymous gay sex in public restroom code language) are likely to react in any number of ways. They aren't part of that code system, and that's why no reaction (short of "yes, I want you now") should be interpreted as consent.

A normal reaction might be fight or flight - but a person sitting on the toilet isn't in a position to do either. Some people might look away to avoid eye contact out of embarrassment. Some people might look back, in a "wtf, you know I can see you spying on me" reaction. Some people might speak up; others might be silent. Not everyone wants to engage in a conversation of any sort with someone who's checking them out in the john.

This is kind of like airport security deciding that people who don't respond to their questions in a particular way, or people who don't make eye contact, are potential terrorists. They've made a blanket decision about how "regular" people react to things, as if we all have one personality. Well, some of us have aspergers and avoid contact. Some of us are deaf, and aren't going to "say something." Some are just going to look back in disbelief, and that look can be interpreted in all different ways - as should be evident by the way minorities with a neutral expression are often interpreted by white folks to be looking angry.

I don't think it's reasonable to decide for the rest of the world what they would do to signal nonconsent - or even to put the burden on them to HAVE to respond to signal nonconsent. That's something that should be assumed from the start, unless otherwise stated up front, before engaging in any sort of voyeurism.

I actually never had a problem with the foot tapping itself, because that IS a nonintrusive signal that doesn't invade anyone's privacy. Being someone who isn't in the anonymous restroom sex world, it's not a signal I would have picked up on. If their foot had slid under the partition to play footsie with me, though, not having a clue what that was about, I would have stomped the hell out of their foot, regardless of gender. A hand under or over the stall door would be interpreted as a theft attempt, as I grew up with warnings not to hang a purse on the door hook, because there was a rash of thieves in airports reaching over and grabbing the strap and running off with it, while the person in the toilet was not in a position to chase after them.

[Toasterlad]

142. Yes, It's True That Not Everyone Is "In" on the Code.

However, the men who engage in this behavior are quite adept at telling willing from non-willing. The peering is wrong under any circumstance, but it's unlikely that a man who is not interested in sex will continue to stare into the eyes of a would be bathroom lothario. It's very unlikely that things would have progressed far beyond the initial stare if the man in the stall weren't interested in sex (or hadn't been an undercover cop). Gay men who make a practice of restroom sex "screen" people very carefully; they have to, given the very risky behavior that they're indulging in.

BTW, I wanted to thank you for the very interesting debate last night. I hope you read my final post. You really did offer me my some welcome insight on the situation. Thanks again.

[Rex]

19. Cops entrap lawbreakers all the time and ya know what

for all the argument over this issue, Craig BROKE THE LAW the moment he started making an attempt at courtship with the cop. Argue until your face is blue, so what, you can't debate the fact that his intentions were to flirt with a complete stranger.

Now is that really a crime? Way above my pay grade to decide.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. There is a law against courtship?

I didn't know that. Interesting.

[mondo joe]

56. There is when it involves violating private spaces. NT

[TahitiNut]

62. voyeurism/peeping = courtship?

wow :wow:

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Ask the fellow who wrote the following up above me.

"Craig BROKE THE LAW the moment he started making an attempt at courtship with the cop."

First I heard that courtship was criminal behavior.

[roseBudd]

34. I don't think you can characterize it as flirting if the expected culmibnation is stall sex rather

than taking it to the next level such as some type of private hook up at another location.

[kestrel91316]

44. Sex with a stranger in a public toilet is a little outside the bounds of

"courtship", don't you think?

I have done some things in my day, sexually, but that sure isn't one of them, lol.

[WinkyDink]

59. BWAHAHAHA! I'll view "The Courtship of Eddie's Father" anew!

[Buns_of_Fire]

25. "...a delicate ritual of call and answer..."

In the background, I keep hearing Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald:

"When I'm calling YouuuuuuuuuuuOooooOooooOooooOooooOooooOoooo......."
"Will you answer TooooooooooOooooOooooOooooOooooOooooOoooo......."

[sandnsea]

30. He's going to get the charge thrown out

So all this is going to go away in a week anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

How is that possible?

We've been assured here repeatedly that he clearly broke some law or other and that there was no possible entrapment, so on what grounds will Craig get this thrown out?

[sandnsea]

35. Ask Arlen Spector

He is encouraging Craig to fight this. Since so many at DU support the idea that this was entrapment, and nothing was going on except innocent foot tapping - it seems pretty clear to me they'll find a friendly prosecutor and judge and get it dropped.

[SidDithers]

33. Whaaaa??...

what are you talking about?

Sid

[sandnsea]

38. Here's the link

He's got until Sept 30 for his resignation, and he's got Arlen Specter on his side, so it's pretty clear what they're going to try to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1718783

[Major Hogwash]

31. The cops knew where Larry Craig would be that day, so they set up shop at his favorite stall.

And waited.
Like foxes silently waiting for the chickens to come home to roost.

Yeah, right.

[UTUSN]

36. Nope & nope: "consensual sex"? and "losing a GOOD CITIZEN"?

"Consensual sex" was what Walter JENKINS did, which was to REACH AN AGREEMENT with somebody NOT A COP, and THEN the cops were spying into the stall.

Plus, this opinion writer seems to define "GOOD CITIZEN" as somebody with a nice house and family and that "righteous breastplate" who is out there doing sleazy things.

She might have said it the way Mark GERRAGOS did all last week, that the cops have bigger criminal fish to fry than footsie-players, but not the way the o.p. link said it.

And since when do "intentions" count for nothing? "Whatever" is for apathetic nobodies.



*******QUOTE*******

.... Clearly, whatever Mr. Craig’s intentions, the police entrapped him. ....

...criminalizing consensual acts does not help. .... What community can afford to lose good citizens? ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[L. Coyote]

41. 'To Catch a Predator' IV - Dateline NBC moves to MSP airport!

What if he had shown up for an episode of 'To Catch a Predator' on NBC?

Would anyone complain about entrapment if this had been a cyber case with a date for underage sex?

[LisaL]

48. I've seen posters here suggesting that show is using entrapment

tactics, since no actual minors are involved.

[kestrel91316]

42. This isn't entrapment, it's a STING. Craig was the initiator and pursuer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

People who are STILL yapping and whining about entrapment need to do their homework. Google is your friend.

[Joe Chi Minh]

45. I can't see anything wrong with entrapment, at. all. Nothing. If you know someone has

a criminal proclivity they are liable to succumb to, get the goods on them, and get it out of the way.

It seems to me a valid and particularly useful tool for law-enforcement, though I believe its proscribed to our police in the UK. The clandestine services are another matter!

On the other hand, I believe it's now lawful in the UK to fornicate with another man in a public lavatory! Do we have great leaders or what?

[sandnsea]

51. That's not entrapment

Entrapment is more like what is done with some of these "terrorists". An FBI agent goes in to some group of young male numbskulls, plants all kinds of ideas, suggests the guns and crimes, sets up the "buy"; and then says he arrested terrorists. Entrapment is when the law officer entirely creates the crime, where there just wouldn't be one at all without the cop's existence. That isn't what was happening in this bathroom.

And no, it isn't great for it to be lawful to fuck all over town.

[Joe Chi Minh]

53. Thank you for the elucidation. Very interesting. US agents provocateurs did it with the Somalian

Embassy in the US I believe.

The Somalis didn't want to know, but the mere representations made to them by the agents provocateurs were misrepresented by the US government as plotting anti-US terrorism, so they bombed Somalia.

[Guaranteed]

46. This is crying wolf. Nothing anywhere near entrapment.

This kind of bullshit takes credibility away from real cases of entrapment. The word shouldn't even be coming up here.

[LisaL]

49. Maybe somebody can explain to me why it's even illegal.

Let's say someone is tapping their feet and making hand gestures, and then they go get a hotel room. Would that be illegal if the money is not exchanged for sexual favors? As far as I can see, the cop did not provide evidence that Graig was actually going to solicit him for sex and that sex was going to occur in that bathroom.

[mondo joe]

54. I don't believe it's the foot tapping. In this case it was the looking and then reaching

into the stall, violating privacy.

[LisaL]

63. Privacy?

How much privacy can you expect to have in a public bathroom anyway?
If I go into the bathroom and look underneath the stall to see if its occupied, am I violating someone's privacy, and can I then be hauled off to be arrested? Cause sometimes all the stall doors are closed, yet not all stalls are occupied, so is it a crime to check for occupancy?

[mondo joe]

64. You can expect some prvacy. Is that really in question?

Looking to see if it's occupied isn't the same as peering in for 2 minutes.

[LisaL]

68. O'key, if you can expect privacy while sitting in the stall, then

when two people are having some sort of sex in a stall, should they also expect privacy?

[mondo joe]

73. Obviously, the privacy of the bathroom stall is limited - by design - to its

intended function.

[LisaL]

77. But if the stall is supposed to be so private, and peeking into it

is illegal, how would anyone know if someone is having sex in there?

[mondo joe]

78. This seems easy enough to me, but if it escapes you:

Firstly, the limits of privacy do not appear to include the feet. So you may surmise what's going on by how many feet are in the stall, and their placement.

Secondly, there are sounds, which anyone who has ever been in a stall knows are not much muffled by the stall walls.

Lastly, sometimes you don't know. That would be part of the "game" that appeals to some public sex aficionados.

[LisaL]

80. It doesn't escape me that others could figure out that people

in the stall are doing something that stall is not designed for. I am just not sure how then expectations of privacy apply if someone else is peeking into the stall by just standing outside the stall. I mean, if the person really trying to look into the stall by getting their head underneath it or something, that's one thing. But what if someone is just standing outside and they can see into the stall? How are they violating someone's privacy? What if you can see into the stall if you are not planning to solicit sex?

[mondo joe]

83. Let's go back a step, please: What indicated to you that "expectations of privacy apply if

someone else is peeking into the stall by just standing outside the stall"?

Was someone charged under those circumstances?

[WinkyDink]

61. Yes, somebody can. LINK to police document (specific charges at end):

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/craig-arrest-doc/?resultpage=2&

[krispos42]

55. I doubt the cop responded at all

He was sitting, clothed, in a public bathroom stall. He met the eye of man (Craig) peeking in on him.

The officer was a handsome young man sitting in a bathroom stall waiting for something to happen.

Craig saw into this activity what he wanted to see: a handsome young man waiting for some anonymous public-area homosexual sex to happen. And he acted accordingly. By initiating it.

The rest is history.

[LisaL]

66. In the report, cop said he moved his own foot up and down.

In response to Graig's foot tapping. I am not sure what is the meaning of that.
I am not familiar with toilet sex soliciting rituals, and what it means to move your foot up and down.

[krispos42]

75. True enough. I meant he did not initiate anything.

I had forgotten that the cop had responded, though. Thank you for correcting me.

[Ino]

60. On the other hand...

any one of Craig's actions by itself would not be proof of soliciting, but all of his actions together are (peeping + finger wiggling + toe tapping + toe touching + swiping). The detective was being thorough by allowing the interaction to continue, rather than arresting him at the very first sign. It's no different than a undercover cop's interested response to a drug dealer's (or prostitute's) step-by-step come-on until it's played out.

At any rate, something about the whole "elaborate series of codes" -- either the codes themselves or their results -- led to complaints about lewd behavior. This was an airport restroom after all -- people looking for a quickie between flights don't have time to check into a motel.

[druidity33]

65. WTF?

It's called a STING operation and PDs run them all the time. How do you think they arrest Johns on the street? They dress up a female (or male) officer and set her out there as bait... of course she flirts with the John, asks him what he wants and tries to entice. THAT"S HER JOB. And yeah, people busted for soliciting a prostitute have been complaining about these methods for a long time... but that sure as heck DOES NOT make it entrapment. Man, i wish people would read up a little on the law before making declarative statements like this. Why not just google entrapment?

[LisaL]

70. When prostitute stings are going on, cops usually get

the evidence first that someone is willing to pay money in exchange for sex, before making an arrest.
In Graig's case, I am not sure I see enough evidence presented that Graig was actually going to solicit sex.

[druidity33]

71. yes, for solicitation...

but he was booked for Disorderly Conduct and Lewd Behavior!

(and his name's Craig btw)

:shrug:

[LisaL]

76. What is so disorderly or lewd about foot tapping?

It appears that the conduct itself, which included foot tapping and hand gestures, is illegal. How so?
If someone sits in the stall and just taps the feet, without expecting any sex, should that be illegal?

[druidity33]

79. read the report...

I'd say if you've spent time "peeping" into other people's stalls and physically put your hand into the stall next to you, perhaps while uttering graphic comments, then it's fucking lewd. I just don't get why it's so hard for people here to understand... he broke the law! If you're so outraged about the unfairness... PROTEST THE LAW, not the arrest. BTW, HE PLEAD GUILTY!

oh, and your second question is RIDICULOUS... he wasn't "just tapping his feet".

[LisaL]

82. I've read the report. And it's not alleged he uttered any

graphic comments, by the way. Yea, I can see if he uttered graphic comments, it would be lewd, but it's not alleged he did. And I've never said I am outraged by the unfairness. Far from it. I am just not sure as to why cops don't wait until they are actually solicited for sex before making these kinds of arrests.

[druidity33]

86. obviously

nothing anyone says will make you think Craig is actually at fault here.

Any particular reason you've disabled your profile?

[LisaL]

88. Up till now, I didn't even have a clue my profile was disabled.

What exactly does it mean, and how do I able or disable it? Is it some box I clicked when I joined? If so, I forgot I did it.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. Obviously it means something very very bad.

It is so bad I can't even tell you what it means.

[druidity33]

94. click on options...

then go to edit profile... it allows you to state your gender, the state you reside in, etc.

:)

[mondo joe]

81. You might find this informatin helpful:

Craig was originally charged with Interference With Privacy, MSS 609.746 subd. 1(c), which provides that:

(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.

Craig was also originally charged with, and pleaded guilty to, Disorderly Conduct, MSS 609.746, subd. 1(3), which provides that:

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:
...
(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.

A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.


In exchange for his guilty plea, the state dropped the more serious offense.

[LisaL]

84. Could cops bust anyone in a public shower that has no stalls

using that law? LOL.

[mondo joe]

85. Would a reasonable person have an expectation of privacy in that setting?

?

[Warren Stupidity]

87. Suppose gay men are courting and flirting in the shower?

Not having sex mind you, but quite clearly that is what is on their minds. And you walk in and they check you out! Shouldn't they be arrested or something?

[LisaL]

89. I hope they are arrested immediately if there is any foot tapping

involved.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. Or towel snapping!

That must be nipped in the bud.

[uppityperson]

93. so to speak. nt

[mondo joe]

92. I'd expect that would depend on the specific laws and specific behaviors.

Wouldn't you?

Edited to add: Other considerations would be the standards set in place by the shower owners. A gym I used to go to had so much sex going on in the bathrooms/showers that they finally posted a sign saying it was not permitted, and there may have been other specifics as well.

[The Count]

123. Are we talking a public shower? because this is the issue here

It doesn't matter who does the courting and how as much as where.

[mondo joe]

95. Craig was not charged with soliciting sex.

So that's a non-issue.

[LisaL]

100. Right. It was foot tapping that did him in. Better watch those feet.

[mondo joe]

101. Rather, it was his invasion of a private space first by looking, then physically

entering that space.

[LisaL]

105. He entered a different stall.

Not the one the cop was sitting in.

[mondo joe]

107. He first spent 2 minutes looking into the occupied stall, then put his foot and then

his hand into it.

[BlooInBloo]

96. When people don't agree with a sting, they call it "entrapment".

[mondo joe]

98. Nuh-uh! Like that time I offered to pay a hit man to take out my boss and he turned

out to be a cop! That was total entrapment!!!

If he had said he was a cop before or any time during our business meeting I would never have made the offer. Instead he made me think he was a consenting hitman by not alerting me otherwise!

;-)

[BlooInBloo]

99. heh!

[H2O Man]

97. Wrong. n/t

[blogslut]

102. That's it

I've reached my limit. It's thread hiding time.

[treestar]

103. The question is did the defendant have a predisposition for the crime

Entrapment is a legal defense that sets free the suspect who has been induced by law enforcement agents to commit a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court invented the entrapment doctrine to control outrageous, overreaching police activity that endangers civil liberties and violates fundamental fairness. The Court's subjective test, which most state courts and all federal courts follow, holds that entrapment occurs when a law enforcement agent puts a criminal idea into the mind of an innocent person who otherwise would not have committed the offense. The focus is on the predisposition of the defendant: Did the idea to commit the crime originate with the defendant or law enforcement?

[Major Hogwash]

111. Well, since he pleaded guilty and paid a fine already, I think the answer is obvious,

YES!

[B Calm]

109. If a policeman is hiding along side of a road with a radar gun

and pulls you over for speeding, would you call that entrapment? Craig deserved to be caught!

[Lil Missy]

116. He was soliciting sex in a public bathroom and pled guilty. End of story.

[LisaL]

121. Wrong. He wasn't even charged with soliciting sex.

He didn't plead guilty to soliciting sex either. The cop didn't wait to see if he was actually going to solicit sex before making an arrest.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. When Someone Goes Into A Bathroom Stall And Closes The Door They Have A Reasonable Expectation Of

Privacy...

I don't see much difference between a man or woman piercing that privacy and the goverment piercing your privacy to listen to your overseas phone calls...

Up thread you suggested not much can be seen... The cracks in some bathroom stall doors are large enough to give an unfiltered view of the toilet and the occupant...

[LisaL]

134. You got to be confusing me with someone else.

I have not suggested not much can be seen. In fact since there are large cracks in the bathroom stalls doors, people might see inside without even trying. Would that be a crime?
Unless Craig was doing something unusual, like trying to stick his head under the stall (and it's not alleged he was), if Craig was just standing there looking in the general direction of the stall the cop was sitting in, where is violation of privacy? I mean, even if you have expectation of privacy while in your stall, if someone is just standing there, and they are not doing anything unusual trying to look into your stall, where is the crime?

[mondo joe]

136. "just standing there looking in the general direction of the stall"?

Not quite. That was the point of the office noting Craig peering directly into the stall, with his face close enough to the crack in the door to see his eye color, for 2 minutes.

[LisaL]

139. If, as I understand it, the idea of this sting is to prevent

sex in the public bathroom, why didn't the cop wait to see if Craig was actually going to solicit him for sex? The cops have no problem waiting until the agreement to exchange money for sex is made in prostitution sting operations. If the peering, foot tapping and hand gesturing was actually going to be followed by sex solicitation, why didn't the cop wait to make an arrest?

[mondo joe]

141. Looks like you are indeed not understading it.

The peering and other invasions of privacy are a crime in and of themselves, whether sex was ever intended to follow or not.

[LisaL]

144. What I would really like is to see opinions if it was democratic

senator or congressman accused of similar behavior.
Because I am still not sure as to how you would separate this illegal peering from someone simply standing there waiting for the stall to become vacant.

[mondo joe]

145. Suggested differentiation:

Standing waiting for a stall to become vacant vs looking into the stall through the cracks to look a the person on the toilet.

I don't know how you handle restrooms, but in my life I've done the former many times and the latter never.

[LostInAnomie]

130. I don't think the author actually knows what entrapment is.

How exactly did the police officer induce an unwilling man into committing a crime?

[LisaL]

132. WTF was the crime? Foot tapping and hand gesturing?

I mean, this is ridiculous. The cop did not wait to see if Craig was actually going to solicit him for sex. But apparently foot tapping while in the stall and hand gesturing is in itself is a crime. Well, I had no clue foot tapping in the stall is forbidden by law.
Live and learn.

[mondo joe]

135. Asked and answered. BOLD added to help you.

Craig was originally charged with Interference With Privacy, MSS 609.746 subd. 1(c), which provides that:

(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.




Craig was also originally charged with, and pleaded guilty to, Disorderly Conduct, MSS 609.746, subd. 1(3), which provides that:

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:
...
(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.

A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.


In exchange for his guilty plea, the state dropped the more serious offense.

[LisaL]

138. It really doesn't matter how many times you post this.

Interference with privacy was one charge. Disorderly conduct was the other. Apparently foot tapping and hand gesturing while in the stall is disorderly conduct. Who knew? Well, I sure didn't.
And even interference with privacy charge seems fishy to me. If Craig was standing there looking into direction of the stall, then a lot of people doing the same thing could be charged with interference of privacy when in the public toilet. A lot of people check for occupancy by glancing toward direction of the stall, or underneath it, and I guess that's a crime.
Again, live and learn.

[mondo joe]

140. Why do you refer to foot tapping, but ignore the peering into - as well

as placing a foot and hand into - an occupied stall?

As you have been told repeatedly, Craig was charged with doing more than "standing there looking into direction of the stall".

Is there a reason you mention the foot tapping but ignore the more substantial actions?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. OK

If you go into a bathroom stall and close the door do I have a right to look through a crack in it while you presumably defecate or urinate?

If I do please tell me where this right emanates from...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. They Glance Underneath It

They don't look for two minutes through the crack in the stall door where it meets the divider which in some stalls is big enough to see the entire person sitting on the toilet...

If you don't belive me you can go to a restroom and see for yourself...

[LostInAnomie]

Craig probably would have had a decent case if he would have fought it.

But, he didn't because he didn't want the embarrassment. That's pretty much what cops plan on in these types of busts. They know that the accused want the case to go away more than they want to become a pubic issue.

It's shady, but it's not entrapment.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

137. This Whole Entrapment Thing Is So Silly. Some People Really Need To Educate Themselves On What

entrapment is. If they had, they'd see that there's no entrapment here. But until they do educate themselves on what it is, they are speaking out of sheer ignorance and are ripe for mocking.