<p>I don’t know WHAT was going on in Craig’s head. It makes no difference because in MHO the police are “jumping the gun” and arresting before an actionable offense has taken place. Just like you can’t arrest a shoplifter UNTIL he leaves the store. </p>
<p>The point that gay sex often happens in that bathroom is irrelevant. Shop lifting may often happen at a particular Wal Mart yet the cops still have to wait until the person leaves the store with the item before making the arrest - even if the person has hidden the item in his clothes (an obvious sign - more obvious than the toe-tapping.) If you try to arrest a shoplifter, while he’s in the store, because he put some item in his pocket, then he can claim that he was going to pay for it on the way out. And, voila, no arrest can be made or all charges are dropped. </p>
<p>Craig, if he was looking for sex, could have claimed that he was looking for a sex partner to invite back to his hotel room. As distasteful as that may seem to some, it’s not illegal. the police are jumping the gun. Again, cops can’t say that hiding items in clothes is “an obvious and known sign” of shoplifting so now arrests can be made as soon as that occurs. NO, cops have to wait until the person leaves the store with the unpaid mdse.</p>
<p>What i believe and what you and everyone else believes is IRRELEVANT. The fact is that no unlawful public sex took place. The charges would have gotten thrown out in court.</p>
<p>exactly. The same point would be made if someone was arrested for shoplifting if he was arrested before leaving the store. It’s not “stealing” until you leave the store - even if the “signs of shoplifting” have taken place (placing something in clothes or in a baby stroller). It’s not “public sex” until there is a stronger indication that the sex is going to take place right there, such as direct words, some clothing begins coming off, some inappropriate touching begins taking place, or of course, the act is in progress.</p>
<p>Just curious… is it public sex if someone masturbates by himself in a closed door bathroom stall? would someone be arrested for that? I know straight guys that have often done that.</p>
<p>What he was charged with, and pled guilty to, has been adjudicated so many times, and appealed so many times - all the way up to the Supreme Court - that the legality of the sting in reaching a conviction is already a well-settled point of law. It is very likely that the case could have been dropped before it even reached a courtroom. But after deliberating for six weeks, with access to as many lawyers as he’d like, and the support of his family, he freely chose to plead guilty.</p>
<p>I am asking a simple question, and not making any argument with respect to the legality of the arrest. So far, neither of you have answered definitively. jlauer states " I don’t know WHAT was going on in Craig’s head.", leaving open his acceptance that it was purely coincidence that Craig was using recommended signals to indicate interest in having anonymous male-on-male sex in a restroom identified (by both users and law inforcement) as commonly used for that purpose. Serchingon refuses to answer the question.</p>
<p>and there is not one iota of evidence about that, just u repeating the same statement. Please, refer to any case in question. You are dead wrong. No conviction has ever been reached in a case like this ( tapping foot, waving hand, bumping foot, telepathic inference of someone soliciting sex )</p>
<p>drb, no I do not refuse to answer the question. I am in fact answering your question and I am telling you that what we all think is irrelevant for this discussion, which actually has to do precisely with the legality of the arrest!</p>
<p>Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will
tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others. </p>
<p>Now. Let’s see. We on one side of the thread may have great difficulty ignoring the fact that this sucker is way overbroad and potentially susceptible to a “void for vagueness” Due Process (not specific/clear enough to give the defendant notice of what was a crime) argument, but with our present Supreme Court it’s “finestkind” for an “Everday Joe” defendant. Of course, as partisan as they can be , Larry might make them write some good law for a change. But if you are betting man, bet for the prosecution on this one. Maybe the court will limit their opinion to Senators. ;)</p>
<p>By the way folks, you don’t have to actually exit the store to be charged with shoplifting. Many moons ago the place where I worked had a daily shoplifter(s) stop. Once your past the checkstands, fair game. Sorry. Been to court many times in the old days and never had one overturned. </p>
<p>And let me add this would any of you cared about this issue before Craig got caught? You are reacting like this was a planned sting on the senator, when in fact it was his bad timing…this particular time. The sting was not set up to get a senator, it was to cite those people whom use the public restroom for sex. Would you have cared one bit, if Craig hadn’t even been there. Would you still complain about how unjust it is? </p>
<p>For the last 20 years the state patrol has done something similar at a particular rest stop because it IS inconvienent to have to step over legs sticking out of stalls or be approached for gay sex and so on… They finally created a state patrol office at the rest stop (mod bulding) so officers would be present 24/7 to discourage the practice. Where were you folks then?</p>
<p>As I said, I don’t care who has sex, it’s where that can become an issue. If I have to step over you or can’t use the toilets because you’ve tied several of them up, it’s gonna bother me just a tige. But you folks go on about how wrong it is for the police to do this…</p>
<p>Once you dissect it, tapping a foot and waving a hand do not amount to “disorderly conduct” not even in the great state of MN.</p>
<p>tapping a foot and waving a hand: not offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous nor noisy even in a bathroom. It should not have REASONABLY arouse alarm nor resentment. That’s why it will be thrown out.</p>
<p>Otherwise, people could be claiming feeling “resented” for all sort of things.</p>
<p>Now that, serchingon, would be the question IF Mr. Craig has not effectively waived his right to an appeal (which is commonly done in plea negotiations. I don’t know the specifics here. ). It would actually be framed more in light of the circumstances then existing. Picture an upraised middle finger. It may mean “We’re Number One” or have no meaning somewhere, but around here…</p>
<p>BTW, you left out “anger” in your second to the last edited paragraph.</p>
<p>Here’s a newsflash for all of you Republicans: Police do stuff all the time that would not likely hold up in court if the defendant had a decent lawyer. Police do stuff all the time that DAs won’t even touch. And sometimes, they do that stuff and the courts and prosecutors reward them for it, too.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as a generally law-abiding, if generally liberal, citizen, I don’t mind this as much as I should. It’s police harassment, but more often than not the police have a pretty good idea whom they should be harassing, and the harassment sometimes prevents serious illegal behavior. Sometimes, of course, the police go too far, or make bad judgments – I’ve seen that, too. But, for instance, when the Republicans had their convention here in 2000, you had to be a pretty hardcore civil libertarian not to be rooting for the police as they maintained a delicate balance between permitting protest and maintaining order and a functioning city. Very, very few of their arrests held up in court. No one was injured. The city worked. Good job.</p>
<p>That’s what’s going on here. People charged with soliciting sex in public men’s rooms might be able to beat the charge in court, but that would entail a lot of expense and embarassment. (Can you imagine Sen. Craig’s lawyer arguing publicly that his client shouldn’t be convicted because maybe he wanted to take the guy he hadn’t even seen somewhere else for gay sex? That would play GREAT on the Court Channel.) For the most part, they will plead guilty to something minor and ambiguous like disorderly conduct, pay a fine, and – unless they are seriously out of control – avoid that restroom for hookups for a good long time. And probably tell a few select friends about it, too. The record is probably expungeable if they are not arrested again within a few years. Usually, no one is humiliated publicly. Not such a bad result.</p>
<p>The only difference here is that the person arrested was a public figure, and something of a hypocrite, and had enough people gunning for him that the whole thing made it into the press. So he’s being punished disproportionately, and I feel some sympathy for him about that. But he’s also made things 500 times worse for himself by the way he’s handled everything, and he IS a blowhard right-wing politician, so I’ll save my tears for others.</p>
That is exactly what happens here but sometimes , to “help” the defendant decide to plead , they are originally charged with a “public lewdness” -type offense. :eek: They’d plead to murder before they let THAT go on their record. DOC , sometimes (oft-times) deferred (or un-adjudicated) , looks mighty good to them at the time.</p>
Great! So which is it? ( I will offer it as multiple choice question to make it simple).</p>
<p>A: 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</p>
<p>OR</p>
<p>B: 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>Yes, at one time, just going past the checkstands used to mean “shoplifting” but now because there are various “points of purchase” (even a customer service station in the front of the grocery stores) can be used to purchase items. In the case of dept stores, cash registers are all over the place - people can bring unpaid mdse upstairs (to look for matching shoes, etc) without being accused of shoplifting. Therefore, stores (especially large chains) wait until a person leaves a store to arrest for shoplifting.</p>
<p>“B: 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>Or, “C” - that he suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, and when he has any free time, he goes from public bathroom to public bathroom picking up stray toilet paper?</p>
And “Yes”, they would be arrested. </p>