LongHaul Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Most of you know that I have no love for the Republican Party Agenda and hence the Republican Congresspersons. What bothers me even more is injustice. In reading an account of the problems Senator Larry Craig is having right now I came upon a statement that just stopped me cold. "Craig was arrested on June 11 in the Minneapolis airport men's room after an undercover officer observed conduct that he said was "often used by persons communicating a desire to engage in sexual conduct." Are the Minneapolis Police aware of the existence of what we in Chicago call "singles bars"? I wonder what would have happened if Craig had done exactly the same things in the airport lounge? LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 How could Craig: 1) look into an occupied stall 2) move his hand under the stall divider ...in an airport lounge? The Mpls/St. Paul airport doesn't have stalls out in the lounge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-in-KC Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 What did he do wrong: If he was innocent, he should have asked for his speedy trial and gotten it over with. If he is guilty, he should have taken his punishment like a man, whether it be by conviction at trial or by plea agreement. What he did wrong? He's WHINING. I expect the people I elect to have the moral courage of their beliefs. I do not think that unreasonable. Since Mr Craig is not mine, I hope folks in Minnesota feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerT Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 Long Haul To answer your question 1) HE LIED 2)He is in denial about his own sexuality 3) He committed illegal acts with an undercover cop, and he has done the same thing in the past 4) Then he lied again about his actions, even his fellow GOP senators are now calling for his resignation. So, don't fall on your sword for this guy , he is not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Maybe he needed a couple squares! Ed Mori 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oak Tree Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Actually, he's a senator from Idaho. He just happened to be stopping off in Minneapolis at the time. I'm still a little unclear as to what the actual law is here. Is it illegal to indicate to someone that you'd like to have sex with them? I'm sure that I personally wouldn't have recognized the secret signals - this is just a glimpse into a whole world I'd never really thought about as existing - a gay community with secret codes for having sex in public restrooms. It probably is somehow illegal, and I guess it should be. I don't want any lewd conduct in airport restrooms when I'm around. It would be stronger evidence if they actually caught him in the act, though. I think he would have been done even if he had fought the charges and won. He still would have had to explain why he was doing what he was doing. Good luck with that. His only hope was to plead guilty and hope it stayed hidden. Bzzzzt! So much for that strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR540Beaver Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 LongHaul, I heard a guy make the same argument on a talk radio program today. He said, "this guy didn't do anything different than I did in college with girls at a bar." The host pointed out that that was not quite right. Asking a girl out in a bar isn't a crime. Soliciting sex in a public restroom where children can walk in is a crime. The homosexuals who cruise public resrooms for anonymous sex are not looking for someone to take home. They do it in the stall. Remember, the good Senator was concerned about missing his flight. I don't think he had time to head to a hotel and rent a room. That being said, I don't think the case will have any legs if they take it to court. No words were spoken, no money exchanged hands and no one had sex. You can't convict someone for taping their feet or running their hand under the stall wall or touching the edge of their shoe to someone else's. Pretty flimsy evidence for an "act of lewdness". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Unless you plead guilty to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongHaul Posted August 30, 2007 Author Share Posted August 30, 2007 He didn't plead guilty to it he plead guilty to a lesser charge in hope that it would go away which is exactly what would have happened if it was you or I. If I run my hand over my face and wink and you think it's a solicitation am I guilty of that crime solicitation? I think this cop jumped the gun. He probably gets away with that because people he arrests don't have the resources to make a case about it. Merlyn, so it's against the law to move your hand under the partition between stalls in the mens room? I wonder if the law that states this also included the womens room. The man could have walked up to a female in the lounge and out right asked her if she wanted to go off into the corner and have sex and not broken a law as long as money didn't change hands. If they did just go into the corner that would be a crime but in reality nothing happened. So John if this was you for some reason you'd be cool with the fact that you had been arrested for a sex crime even though you did not actually do anything. Most applications ask if you have ever been arrested not if you were convicted. You'd win you case in court but be in violation of BSA registration requirements. Ranger being in denial of your sexuality is not a crime. I still wonder if wiggling your hand under a partition in Minneapolis is. What should be illegal is ENGAGING in sexual acts not wanting to engage in sexual acts. Just how would someone go about engaging in a lewd act without being in the same stall? I still think this whole thing stinks, justice wise. LongHaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-in-KC Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 LH, That's my point. He PLED. Once you plead, don't whine anymore. Take your punishment. Thanks for the clarity on his home constituency. I hear NPR at 530AM, I'm not actively listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 LongHaul writes: Merlyn, so it's against the law to move your hand under the partition between stalls in the mens room? I was asking YOU how Craig could have done "exactly the same things in the airport lounge". He couldn't have. There aren't stalls in the airport lounge. Your hypothetical question doesn't even make sense, since he couldn't have done in the lounge what he did in the men's room. Running your hand under a men's room stall isn't illegal per se, just as having 5 containers of gasoline in your car isn't illegal per se. But doing the former in conjunction with staring at the same man through the door crack for two minutes can be cited as part of someone's lewd behavior, just as charges of arson can cite all the gas cans in your car in the latter case. The Smoking Gun has all the police reports: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John-in-KC Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Listening to the local commercial radio station, the going thinking is Mr Craig will resign from the Senate sometime off the news cycle this weekend. We'll see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 I have a problem with this, too, because I don't see what Craig did as "lewd" behavior--maybe it's conspiracy to commit lewd behavior, but the other "conspirator" was an undercover police officer, so you wouldn't have the elements of that crime. It's pretty clear to me that Craig in fact wanted to engage in lewd behavior, and was inviting somebody else to engage in it. Imagine if he'd whispered to the officer, "Psst! Let's vandalize this bathroom!" What would his crime have been then? Certainly not vandalism. He pled guilty to "disorderly conduct," and maybe soliciting somebody else to join in the commission of a crime is disorderly conduct. But, the police officer tapped his foot, too--wasn't his behavior, then, just as lewd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Maybe some of the trained legal professionals can do a quick primer (if possible) on what constitutes entrapment versus a legal stakeout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted August 30, 2007 Share Posted August 30, 2007 Had the good senator plead NOT guilty, then I could see the argument for entrapment or misunderstood intentions. But since he plead GUILTY to a lesser charge, it means he agrees with the lesser charge and accepts his responsibility in committing it. He had a month to weigh his options. He may have been guilty of the original charge too, but his acceptance of the lesser charge is enough to stop debate. He did it, he said he did in his plea. There's nothing to debate. He made a career decision. He now needs to reap what he sowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now