<p>
It has come to that Gilbert. In politics today people are looking for any Swiftboat that they can ride to victory - and fair be damned. ;)</p>
<p>“Opie…”</p>
<p>doorway, doorway, doorway…or as before location,location, location. </p>
<p>Pretty simple, why try and twist it so much? 
</p>
<p>Let’s try this one… is it light or dark outside? </p>
<p>The sting wasn’t to catch Craig, he just got caught in it. Simple really. </p>
<p>taint that complex folks.</p>
<p>Mini, haha, I wonder if he has free time after resigning if he would like to come to my home to clean, I mean really, could picking up TP off a public restroom floor be ANY nastier!</p>
<p>Actually, it’s quite a neat trick if you have to do it palm up! But that’s what OCD will do to you. ;)</p>
<p>drb, I have already answered your question several times. I have told you that it is irrelevant. </p>
<p>Now you are posing a question and you giving me YOUR choices. Why do you care so much about what I think? Either, A or B or minis C do not change the facts of what happened: foot tapping, hand waving, telepathic message, arrest. Is that simple enough for you? Do you get it?</p>
<p>I don’t hope to see you in a public bathroom anytime soom. ;)</p>
<p>serchingon, I think perhaps the citizens and courts of the great state of Minnesota might not be as great as you would like. At the same time we’re not idiots and can put two and two together (hey, highest average ACTs in the nation this year). My guess is that the COMBINATION of all the nonverbal gestures and forms of communication that were exhibited by Craig would most likely be upheld in Minnesota as sufficient evidence of disorderly conduct. For example, there is at least one case in MN from 1998 (not positive, but I think it is still good law) where the state court of appeals specifically held that nonverbal communications and gestures ALONE are sufficient to convict in cases of solication (there are obviously some fact differences from Craig’s case, since the earlier one involved the solicitation of minors but the court’s statement was made despite the fact that the defendant had also made some very obvious verbal communications as well as nonverbal). </p>
<p><a href=“http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub\9802\c197775&invol=1[/url]”>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub\9802\c197775&invol=1</a></p>
<p>I’d never have thought airport restrooms would be places for gay sex acts. I thought they were for travellers to relieve themselves. Rest areas, sure, we all see the cars with the sole occupant, sitting, waiting. Are airport bathrooms the new bathhouses?</p>
<p>So now I guess I’ll stand right outside the doorway when my son goes to use the bathroom for it’s intended use. I’ll even give a hollar in there first so all of the men having sex or propositioning one another will know there’s a mother bear ready to pounce. Maybe it will remind them of their wives or their own sons. This gives a new nighmarish meaning to “don’t touch anything while you’re in there”. I guess I won’t remind my son to wash his hands anymore. I’ll bring the handi-wipes so he’ll be that less likely to be endangered. </p>
<p>So this will be one more lovely talk I’ll have to have with my son about the real world before he’s old enough to even think about sex. Why can’t these men (all the Craigs and Clintons alike) just learn to leave it in their pants until they get home, or to the hotel. It sickens me.</p>
<p>serchingon, </p>
<p>Remember you’ve called several of us dense, so really explain your logic again…')</p>
<p>“My guess is that the COMBINATION of all the nonverbal gestures and forms of communication that were exhibited by Craig would most likely be upheld in Minnesota as sufficient evidence of disorderly conduct.”</p>
<p>Well, Serchingon could do a controlled experiment. Go into public bathrooms, sit in the next-to-last stall, and wait for someone to enter the last one. Then tap his foot multiple times. Then move his foot into the next stall and touch the foot of the person next to him. Then reach under the stall with his left hand, palm up (wearing a wedding ring) and wave it, finally picking up a piece of toilet paper without turning his palm over.</p>
<p>See how many times it takes before he has a sexual episode or is arrested. (Could get beat up, too, which occasionally happens in the name of science.)</p>
<p>actually he should be sure to peek through the cracks on all the stall doors while fidgeting and gesturing with his hands–that’s the part that really creeps me out</p>
<p>Serchingon, as a lawyer who accepts appointments to represent convicted felons on appeal, all I can say is that if you were right in your “analysis” a lot of guys in prison today would be walking out the door tomorrow. This thread reminds me of the thread below about “Liberal v. Conservative cognitive skills.” You and Jlauer seem to think that if you can just define the terms the way you want, the case gets stuck in the box which reads “Not Guilty” and we all go home. In fact, it’s more complicated than that. Just because there is a possible innocent explanation for a guy’s actions - tapping his foot against the foot of the guy in the next stall, reaching his hand under the partition, etc. - that doesn’t mean the guy is absolutely not guilty. There’s enough evidence to take the case to trial and let a jury decide - that’s why we have juries. The jury might find him guilty, might not. But his actions, in my opinion, meet the minimum standard needed to charge a person and take him to trial (and yes - he probably is guilty of doing exactly what they accused him of doing, based on what I’ve seen in my career.) And since he pled guilty - case over. </p>
<p>Setting aside a guilty plea is nowhere near as easy as you guys think it is. I’ve had dozens of cases where a defendant wanted his or her plea set aside, and I’ve never gotten one set aside on appeal yet. Based on the criteria followed in my state, I don’t see anything in this case which would come close to justifying that.</p>
<p>Opie…it is clear that you have not been able to follow the logic of the argument which has already been touched upon by JHS, jlauer95 and 1of42.</p>
<p>You see, I am working on a project about the “Limitations of Having A Debate Online”. It is clear that some of you have no experience whatsoever debating nor are able to make logic-based arguments (sorry if I sound like a snob). Some of you have strayed from the OP question, exhibiting your individual biases, political inclinations and even some degree of provincialism.</p>
<p>About an hour ago, I showed the thread to my debate teacher as part of my project. We went over my “thesis”, my “opponents objections”, the “questions”, the “unresolved points”, 'emotional behavior" and so on.</p>
<p>In order to have any chance at winning a debate or accomplishing anything productive, one needs to be arguing with someone who is basically “reasonable”. A skilled dialectician understands that sometimes, the other’s person’s arguments will simply be stronger than one’s own. This is something that many of you have failed to see.</p>
<p>According to my debate teacher the most prominent losers have been mini, and Opie. (I lost some points for “emotional” by the way…) followed by drb ( who was constantly trying to derail the argument, without proving anything)</p>
<p>The winners, well. No need to rub that in. Thank you all for contributing to the project. I hope it was fun!</p>
<p>(By the way drb, i believe that Craig was cruising the restroom and knew exactly what he was doing, it was not a coincidence in my opinion)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, about a half hour ago I talked to God and he said you and your debate teacher were full of crap. ;)</p>
<p>:) Oh happy day! </p>
<p>you know I have an answer for you and your debate teacher about arguements on the internet. </p>
<p>As the old saying goes, “Winning an arguement on the internet, is alot like winning the 100 in the special olympics. Yes, you won, but your still ■■■■■■■■.”</p>
<p>Congrats to you and your teacher, now would you like a hug?:)</p>
<p>It’s nice to know you can stop and any time and declare yourself a “winner”. Are you sure you don’t want a hug? </p>
<p>;) Tell me at what point did you decide you were the reasonable one? </p>
<p>Sure you don’t need a hug?</p>
<p>Search…</p>
<p>Great job! I hope you get a good grade! </p>
<p>Curb… take the wax out of your ears - what God told you was that Search and his debate teacher were full of facts.</p>
<p>jlauer, don’t be so naive. There is no project. There is no debate teacher. It is all just imaginary. He couldn’t handle the heat and he got desperate enough to frame a ludicrous story. I just called him on it, that’s all.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon, what a coincidence, I just talked to my dog 15 minutes ago and he said serch was full of crap too! oh, and p.s., the dog would win the debate!</p>
<p>Well, some of you may have “facts” but you sure don’t understand the law, and this is a legal matter. </p>
<p>As a matter of law, Craig is guilty of the offense of “disorderly conduct” in Minnesota because he entered a plea of guilty to the charges. That resulted in the court entering a finding of guilt which is binding. </p>
<p>The only way that can be changed would be if he can get permission from the court to withdraw the plea (difficult), or if he can win some sort of collateral challenge to the case. He cannot appeal because you can’t appeal from a guilty plea --entering a plea of guilty is also a waiver of the right to appeal. He cannot challenge the conviction based on grounds that he is factually innocent, either – that is not legal grounds for overturning a conviction. Nor can he challenge the law as being vague or unconstitutional – when he entered the plea of guilty, he also waived that claim. </p>
<p>To force a higher court to overturn the conviction, he would need to show that there was a procedural error, such as the form of the document he signed. </p>
<p>But in the meantime, he remains guilty – again, because he entered a guilty plea and a judgment of conviction was entered on that plea. If he had entered a plea of “not guilty” it would be another matter entirely.</p>
<p>We can speculate all we want about what was really going on in that bathroom – but as the record stands there is a legal admission of guilt and a legal finding of guilt.</p>
<p>
You don’t sound like a snob, you sound like something else entirely, but let’s not get petty. Let’s discuss logical argument. I posed a question to you. You are certainly entitled to an opinion that it is irrelevant, and you can certainly evade answering as jlauer did, but you decidedly did NOT “answer the question”, at least until post #93. So don’t lecture us on logical argument, and get thee and thy debate teacher to some remedial education.</p>