<p>If he wasn’t guilty as stated in the paperwork, then he shouldn’t have signed papers saying that he was. He had plenty of time to think about what he wanted to do. </p>
<p>Here is the text of the law governing the second charge he was booked on, but did not plead guilty to: <a href=“c”>quote</a> 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.
[/quote]
See 609.746, Minnesota Statutes 2006 (Interference with Privacy)</p>
<p>“People take guilty pleas all the time because of convenience”</p>
<p>You do realize of course that one who pleads guilty does so under penalty of perjury. If he didn’t commit the crime, Craig is guilty of another, more serious one. </p>
<p>“You can’t be convicted unless you broke the law.”</p>
<p>That is a matter of law, not necessarily of fact. In this case, it wasn’t necessary. He pled guilty, and paid his fine, six weeks after being charged.</p>
<p>Butt, I am nearly 100% positive that there will be a lot Working Girls and Working Boys, who can forego the pjmp, and know that they can safely walk the streets and cornors. </p>
<p>Our enemies must be LOL, ROG, and Shouting, ‘USA, USA, USA, USA…’</p>
<p>I am getting the feeling a couple of you don’t know what would have happened next… Serchingon? Do you think he was going to rent a hotel room? Maybe buy dinner and take in a show? </p>
<p>The same thing happens at a local rest stop here. They sting em here too. They don’t go elsewhere to have sex, they do it in the stalls. Hence the public problem. People want to use the bathroom and it becomes difficult when someone (gay or hetro) is using the restroom as their bedroom. You end up stepping over legs sticking out from the stalls, not to mention the noise. Kinda makes it difficult to wee. </p>
<p>Did you think senator craig was going to rent a cab and go back to the hilton?
Did you ever wonder about the holes in some bathroom stalls? In our situation they actually caught guys drilling holes in the stall walls. As I said location, location, location… The good senator could have done all those things on the bar stool next to you “and left” and nobody would care. You might have a bit of a problem with it had he begun the act right next to you no? At least in a bar the crowd is 21 and up. A public restroom in an airport somebody’s kids could be in the stall next door. How you don’t understand that as a problem of “location” beats me.</p>
Not true. If you look at the Plea Agreement is not verified and not made under penalty of perjury. The agreement itself is considered binding, but in law, while pleadings themselves can be a basis for a factual determination, they are not ordinarily factual statements in and of themselves. They are documents that are used to frame the issues.</p>
<p>However, once having admitted to the facts as stated in the agreement, they are considered binding. People often admit to untrue facts simply for purposes of convenience in court; it is not illegal to do so. For example, you might admit to speeding and pay a fine rather than waste time litigating a traffic ticket in another state. However, if later on that was cited against you in another proceeding as “proof” that you had a history of speeding, you could not then deny it.</p>
Why is that? What are the grounds you believe exist for withdrawing the plea in this case? You can’t just go into court and have a take-back – you have to set forth legal grounds to withdraw the plea or overturn the conviction on which it was based.</p>
<p>In light of the discussion, I’d like to amend my question to you, searchingon. You are clearly concerned that the Honorable Mr. Craig has suffered an injustice.</p>
<p>However, the nature of the injustice that you deplore remains unclear: do you believe that Craig was in a restroom well-known as a cruising site AND LOCATION for male-on-male sex, using signals recommended on a website to indicate interest in having such sex IN THAT RESTROOM, but did not actually consummate the sex, and thus was unfairly busted,</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>do you believe Craig was in a restroom well-known as a cruising site for male-on-male sex, using signals recommended on a website to indicate interest in such sex, and this was PURELY A COINCIDENCE?</p>
<p>You are right on. Your point is that signaling for gay sex is now a crime. However, signaling for straight sex is not (unless it’s for money - prostitution). Straights can develop “signals” and use them anywhere and then “hook up”. </p>
<p>The analogy that someone gave about police don’t wait until sexual activity takes place to bust people for prostitution isn’t a fair one because consensual gay sex (w/o money) is legal in private. Even if Craig was seeking a partner, the cop had no proof that he wanted to have sex in the bathroom - Craig may have a hotel room to bring the guy to. The toe tapping signal is just a “how about it?” request. It’s not a guarantee that the sex has to take place in a public place. The cops need to wait and see if the “toe tapper” intends to “do it” in public (by starting to remove clothes or some other more obvious act or words). </p>
<p>Public sex (gay or straight) is illegal and needs to be stopped, but cops need to make sure that the person intends to “do it” in public. (altho I doubt many hetero couples who are over 18 get into trouble when they are found having sex in their cars - public). But, back to the point - Toe tapping or similar signalling is no sure intention that the sex will occur in public. Any smart atty could have argued that.</p>
<p>As a straight mom, I could see the hypocrisy for miles. I don’t know why gays haven’t complained about this double standard.</p>
<p>The whole Craig thing was just a change to bash the GOP. (However, where was the outrage among liberals when Bill Clinton was accused numerous times of sexually assaulting women??? He didn’t even use “signals” - he just went for it.)</p>
<p>jluaer95, laws are designed to deal with the real world, not fantasyland. “Toe-tapping” is not an invitation to go to a hotel room. The “T-room trade” has been going on for a long time. I’ve got no issues with gays - but I do have an issue with anyone who uses public conveniences to have sex in, and consider using the criminal justice system to discourage that type of impolite and intrusive behavior to be appropriate. </p>
<p>I find it amusing that the right wing blogsters have suddenly become literalists when it comes to law enforcement.</p>
<p>Since toe-tapping can be ambiguous - my 87 year old dad “toe taps” all the time and would have NO IDEA of it’s “gay meaning,” - it cannot be used as some kind of “end all” judgment for sexual initiation. </p>
<p>This reminds me of “gang signalling” - many non-gang members have been falsely accused of being gang members just because they didn’t know they were wearing “gang colors” and using “gang hand motions”.</p>
<p>What I can see is that he pled guilty for something that he knew or “should have known”… </p>
<p>the words “should have known” basically lets him off the hook. Those words counter the words “I knew”.</p>
<p>Students may find themselves in trouble at their schools for wearing “gang colors” and using gang signals that they “should have known” (but may not have known) would arouse fear in others. </p>
<p>“Should have known”??? Those words imply that he may not have known.</p>
<p>“Public sex (gay or straight) is illegal and needs to be stopped, but cops need to make sure that the person intends to “do it” in public.”</p>
<p>Does that mean it doesn’t occur until penatration? That’s what you’re saying. Isn’t that alot to ask of our police force? I mean that’s taking the expression “taking one for the team” a bit far isn’t it?</p>
<p>I know, I know, you’ll counter with “until he asks for sex he’s innocent”, what if he’s mute? :)</p>
<p>“Even if Craig was seeking a partner, the cop had no proof that he wanted to have sex in the bathroom - Craig may have a hotel room to bring the guy to.”</p>
<p>Ya think? Do you think he was going to buy him flowers too? Maybe he was going to call his wife on the way back to the hotel too…;)</p>
<p>I think it’s comical how hard some are trying to defend this guy, What do you win in doing so? I have to ask the question even the rest of the gop figured out…is this a guy worth defending? It took the rest of the gop about 10 seconds to figure this one out. </p>
<p>"What I can see is that he pled guilty for something that he knew or “should have known”</p>
<p>Several weeks after the fact and after seeking advice of counsul. It wasn’t a “snap” decision, it was thought out. It just didn’t play out as he hoped it would. That’s a risk he took, he lost.</p>
<p>I’m just thankful we finally have discovered some police work that can be supported by liberal democrats, even if its only arresting homosexual republican senators(or hypoocrits–I still cant get clear on what the true basis for the support is). My hat’s off to you for daring to jump over to the law and order side with the rest of the sane world, even if the reason is narrow and temporary. </p>
<p>The old chinese proverb is that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a small step. Bravo to you for taking it.</p>
<p>I’d like to post my very specific question to jlauer as well:</p>
<p>do you believe that Craig was in a restroom well-known as a cruising site AND LOCATION for male-on-male sex, using signals recommended on a website to indicate interest in having such sex IN THAT RESTROOM, but did not actually consummate the sex, and thus was unfairly busted,</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>do you believe Craig was in a restroom well-known as a cruising site for male-on-male sex, using signals recommended on a website to indicate interest in such sex, and this was PURELY A COINCIDENCE?</p>
<p>Please answer, jlauer and searchingon! It is a simple question!</p>
What do you mean “finally”? There is alot of police work we Democrats have supported - cf. Abramoff, Cunningham, Delay, Limbaugh, Stevens, Safavian, etc. Its a long list.</p>
<p>Although I certainly understand the concerns about “disorderly conduct” laws being used as a witch hunt to punish gay individuals, I also agree with Opie on this one. Location. Now, perhaps I am just more of a prude than others (and perhaps that is the case for most Minnesotans in general?) but, to be quite honest, I just find it very creepy to think about someone peering at me through the cracks in a bathroom stall, or playing footsie with me or other sexual advances WHILE I AM IN A PUBLIC RESTROOM. Gees, why can’t someone pee in peace without having to worry about unwanted advances by others??? There is a time and place for everything. </p>
<p>It is too bad that people who are seeking quick anonymous sex have to resort to seeking it in such public places. And it is too bad that our police have to waste their time “policing” public restrooms (although perhaps I wouldn’t have minded more policing about a dozen yrs ago, when 8-yr old S used a public restroom at this same airport, and came out with the biggest grin on his face - and a copy of Playboy stuck under his shirt that someone had given him as they were leaving the stall. Eewww. Of course, back then I was obviously more concerned about solicitations from pedophiles and perverts, not solicitations between consenting adults). </p>
<p>Is it really so hard to understand how a liberal can be in favor of gay marriage and against strangers soliciting each other for anonymous sex in public restrooms? To me it’s a no-brainer both ways. What I do have a problem with is the phenomenon of guys on the “down low”, who self-identify as straight, and frequently express disdain (and even hatred) for gays, but who engage in anonymous sexual activity, often in public places, with men. There is something very disturbing on a personal level about that - and it also involves public conduct which is unacceptable. Craig’s personal demons are just sad, but his public conduct is a legitimate matter of legal sanction.</p>
<p>Again, I find the sudden right-wing concern for “gay rights” and legal technicalities – in this case – to be risible.</p>
Maybe he was going to call his wife on the way back to the hotel too…;)</p>