WHAT WAS THE CRIME? What law did Craig...

[TreasonousBastard]

break?

As near as I can figure out, the worst he did was try to hook up with some guy. Why is this illegal, and why is this cause for celebration amongst so many of us?

"But, he's a hypocrite..."

Oh, bullshit. The guy grew up when you stayed in the closet if you knew what was good for you, and old habits die hard. That Schadenfreude of finding some rightwing moralist with his hands in some other guy's pants gets old when you start thinking about the consequences for people you might actually like.

Or, maybe it's just more of the same old homophobia finding a new door cracked open a bit. To many of us straights there still is an "ick" factor in the reality of homosexual relationships and it might seem acceptable to use incidents like this to vent.

It isn't, if we actually believe in gay rights.

[Beaverhausen]

1. I think it's lewd public behavior

[Puregonzo1188]

4. Tapping your foot? Touching someone else's foot with your own?

Do either of those constant lewd behavior.

[Beaverhausen]

7. I'm not saying it was. That was the charge

Ok- from post # 8 the actual charges are peeping and disorderly conduct. The cop went into the mens room to investigate "lewd behavior."

[WI_DEM]

9. If somebody tried to touch my foot while I was in a stall I would slam down on his foot with my foot

I also don't think it's a good thing to peer thru the crack in the stall door while somebody is doing his thing--bad manners.

[endarkenment]

20. Technically you would have committed criminal assault and battery.

Not a very good idea. Save the violence for when you are actually being physically assaulted.


It is incredibly rude to peer through stalls and invade somebody else's stall space. I'm not convinced it ought to be a crime. Is asking for toilet paper a crime? Is looking to see if the stall is vacant a crime? What is the difference?

[WI_DEM]

24. I was just kidding, but I do think I would tell the freak to stay on his side or I'll call the cops

[endarkenment]

31. That works for me.

From what I have read here it was rather difficult to tell if you were kidding or not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. He Watched The Guy For Two Minutes ...That Goes Beyond Checking To See If The Stall Is Occupied

The person on the shitter has rights too... I don't see how a just society can elevate the rights of a Peeping Tom over the rights of a innocent defecator...

[endarkenment]

29. So what is the time limit?

The point is that this a real ambiguous crime. In fact I really don't think it is a crime at all. It is simply rude behavior. Note also that the cop in the stall was most likely inviting Craig to keep looking.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. It's Disorderly Conduct If You Are Peeking Into Stalls And Rubbing Your Foot Against The Occupants

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Here

A person who surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps over a partition in a public restroom with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of another person is guilty of interference with privacy, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.746 (2002).

If I'm taking a dump I don't want anybody watching me...

[endarkenment]

52. You seem to have made this up.

http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.746&year=2006

I can't find the term restroom in the actual statute. Perhaps you can help me out here.

Now I agree he probably violated the statute here:
'(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."

But I am really curious why you had to invent words that are not in the actual statute.

So is somebody looking to see if the stall is occupied breaking this law?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I Have No Idea What You Are Implying

S Y L L A B U S


A person who surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps over a partition in a public restroom with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of another person is guilty of interference with privacy, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.746 (2002).

<snip>

D E C I S I O N


Because a reasonable person when using a public restroom has an expectation of privacy in that place shielded from public view by partitions and his body, and because the space above each partitioned urinal in a public restroom constitutes an aperture under section 609.746, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ulmer’s motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Affirmed.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=...

... and ...


Section 609.72, subdivision 1(3), provides:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place * * * 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.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&...

[endarkenment]

59. The 2006 version of the law, as I linked does not contain

the phrase "public restroom". If the 2002 version did and it has been removed, that is very significant.

[iverglas]

180. I think I can help

What was quoted in DemocratSinceBirth's initial post was the "syllabus" (in Canada we call it a headnote -- the official summary of a case, published by the court that decided it) from a particular decision by a Minnesota Court:

A person who surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps over a partition in a public restroom with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of another person is guilty of interference with privacy, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.746 (2002).

That was the summary given by the court, not anything DemocratSinceBirth said personally. He then gave the link in his next post:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=

-- which, of course, it would have been wise to do in the first place. Of course, it would also have been wise to give the actual link. ;)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub%5C0608%5Copa051148-0808&invol=1
State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Jeffrey Ulmer, Appellant
(I suspect that DemocratSinceBirth copied the text of the link, rather than the actual link itself, from another post at this site or some such.)

What that decision did was interpret the provision you then reproduced, and apply it to the facts in the case before the court -- I'll emphasize the bits that were being interpreted:

(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.

The court interpreted those bits and held that "other place" included a public restroom, and "other aperture" included the aperture above a stall wall. A bit more explanation from the actual reasons of the court:

- from the beginning:

Because we conclude that a person has an expectation of privacy when using a partitioned urinal in a public restroom and that the space above the partition constitutes an aperture within the meaning of the statute, we affirm Ulmer’s conviction for interference with privacy.

- from the "decision" at the end:

Because a reasonable person when using a public restroom has an expectation of privacy in that place shielded from public view by partitions and his body, and because the space above each partitioned urinal in a public restroom constitutes an aperture under section 609.746, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ulmer’s motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Neither of you was "wrong", there was just a bit of a lack of clarity. I hate to see a genuine misunderstanding become anything else. In all sincerity!

[Beaverhausen]

58. Does it take 2 minutes to figure out someone is already in the stall?

Are you really defending this behavior?

[endarkenment]

63. No I am saying it ought not be criminal.

it is just rude. This sort of cruising behavior occurs all the time in all sorts of public situations. The two minutes was most likely because the cop on the other side was inviting Craig to continue to look. It is standard entrapment of the idiots who cruise bathrooms looking for other gay men.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Why Does The Peeping Tom's Rights Supersede The Rights Of An Innocent Person?

eom

[Beaverhausen]

66. Yes, it should be and IS criminal

Apparantly there are other ways to signal your interest in someone there in the stalls. Why should people who are there for it's intended use have to deal with people staring at them for 2 minutes.

Sorry, I'm not with you on this one.

[mondo joe]

121. Hey, fuck you pal. I have a right to a little privacy in the bathroom stall.

Not a lot, but a little. And that includes not having Republican freaks staring at me while I'm taking a shit.

[JVS]

129. Are you saying that the law needs to be remade to suit people who "cruise"?

[dflprincess]

141. Leaning over to see if you can spot feet on the floor

is checking to see if the stall is open. Putting your face up to the space between the door and the wall is peeping.

[uppityperson]

171. Where does it say he put his face up to the space?

I've read the police report and I didn't see that.

[Madspirit]

177. What Isn't Clear About It?

"where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to
expose their intimate parts"

Seems WAY clear to me. Also, you can quickly glance and tell if someone is in a stall or hey...just kind of touch the door. If it doesn't move, that means it's locked which means someone is probably in it.

Lee

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. There's Such A Thing As Prosecutorial Discretion

I doubt if you go to the DA and tell him or her soembody stomped on your foot because you repeatedly put it on his side of the stall he or she is going to prosecute...

WIDEM has little to worry about...

I'd just give a WTF ...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. If I'm On The Crapper And A Man Rubs His Foot Against Mine And I Ask Him To Stop Do I Have The Right

To Push His Foot Away With My Foot?

What right does a person have to defend his personal space?

[endarkenment]

41. Yes sure push his foot away.

But don't stomp it. That's pretty simple isn't it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. I Wouldn't Stomp It The First Or Second Time

I would probably leave by then and be pretty pissed off...

But if I was on a jury and the same factual situation was presented to me I'd be hard pressed to put somebody in the hoosegow for it....

[JuniperLea]

70. Fuck that!

There is a clear division in restrooms. You stay on your side and I stay on mine. You peek at me, your ass is grass. You touch me while I'm doing my personal business in my personal space, you are asking for whatever I decide to do to your body part that has crossed the line.

You are not doing your cause justice by all this bullshit.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

80. Obviously you have no clue

And your pretzel logic has led you down a truly bizarre path.

There are clear divisions in public restrooms. They have PRIVATE stalls with doors. Once that door is closed, you are forbidden from looking in or putting any body part into my area.

Touching someone while they are attending their most private business is just cause for stomping on someone's foot, if for no other reason than it's completely bizarre behavior to want to touch someone while they are attending private personal bodily business. That is sick and perverted behavior.

[Zookeeper]

186. Let's say it was a unisex bathroom....

and a man in the next stall started touching his foot to mine. You bet I'd stomp on it! And since I'm female, I don't think I'd be totally faulted for that.

It's an invasion of privacy and if it was a man doing it to a woman, it could be considered a threat.

[JuniperLea]

74. Bullshit

Breaking the law is fucking breaking the law and sexual preference makes no difference whatsoever.

[endarkenment]

79. If the DA is going to look the other way if you beat the crap out

of a gay man for making a sexual advance, which was the suggestion, that would describe the legal situation with respect to assault and battery on gay people up until the late 80's early 90's.

[JuniperLea]

82. Quit putting words in my mouth

And keep your straw men to yourself.

[Ediacara]

165. This is sooooo off the mark

There's a huge difference between stepping on someone's foot if it keeps moving into my stall and beating the shit out of someone. For you to confound the two is nothing less than willfully dishonest.

[TalkingDog]

142. OH. MY. GOD.!

That has got to be the most specious argument I've ever witnessed on this site. And that is saying A LOT.

Gay bashing is what happened to Matthew Shepard before those bastard killed him.

Gay bashing is just about anything out of Rick Santorum's ("frothy mix") pie hole.

Gay bashing is the same kind of prejudgment one saw exercised wholesale against blacks through the Civil Rights movement.

Bashing is "othering". Making people alien in order to deprive them of Human Rights. Wanting privacy in a bathroom stall falls in that category to the same extent that a monk wearing a Buddhist Sun Symbol (better known to Western Europeans as a Swastika) makes him a Nazi sympathizer and Jew hater. You can perceive it as a hate-filled statement to whatever extent you please. That does not make it so.

To say that one person's rights and privileges supersedes another's or that you have rights and privileges others don't is, well, a very....currently Republican.... idea.

People in public restroom stalls have an expectation of privacy. If somebody is constantly peering into another person's space or physically moving into that space, a reasonable person might assume a dangerous situation,including and not limited to: mugging, purse snatching, assault, kidnapping, dealing with an unbalanced individual, etc. And if you read any of those examples as a comparison to homosexual congress, then you sir, are merely trying to provoke internal dissent...in other words...troll.

To have an expectation that one should be able to go anywhere and do anything they want at any time is NOT what a democracy is about. That is called anarchy. Democracy is when a person accepts the social contract of a system and consider what is good for others as well as one's self. Trolling for public: hetero, homo, bi, tri, poly...I don't care. Aggressively trolling for public sex in places where there are likely to be ANY non-consenting others is selfish, short-sighted and does not promote a common welfare. End of story.

Calling that bashing or to suggest it promotes bashing is juvenile, petulant and immature.



My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. Technically you're incorrect. Justifiable self defense against a sexual assault

"It is incredibly rude to peer through stalls and invade somebody else's stall space."

Yes, it's rude to peer through stalls.

"I'm not convinced it ought to be a crime."

So, how do you feel about peeping tom laws?

"Is asking for toilet paper a crime?"

No, that's not the same as peering through a stall or attempting to play footsies with someone.

"Is looking to see if the stall is vacant a crime?"

No, but peering in for TWO MINUTES once you've determined the stall is occupied is. What was he doing, just making sure he wasn't seeing things??

"What is the difference?"

The difference is this: You peek to see if a stall is occupied. If it is, you move on, no harm no foul. The difference is that Senator Craig stood leering into the stall for two minutes after he knew the stall was occupied. He didn't move on.

[iverglas]

185. "You peek to see if a stall is occupied."

There is even, if I might add, a correct way to do it!

You don't look through the crack between the door and the frame, you look at it, from slightly offside -- then one of your eyes will see the door, and the other will see what's through the crack. You will see what's there, but you won't be looking at it. It might feel a little bit momentarily cross-eyed. And if the person inside happens to lock eyes with you, it will be with just one eye for a moment, not with a fixed two-eye gaze.

It's the opposite of when you look at one of those three-dimensional two-dimensional pictures, where you have to look through it to look at it. ;)

Now, not everybody might think to do that, but once you've done it, you realize you just feel more comfortable that way, not actually staring at someone through the crack in a washroom door.

That is, if all you're intending to do is see whether there is something beyond that crack, and not get a good look at what it is.





http://www.magiceye.com/

See the starfish? When you do, that's what you're doing when you look through the crack instead of at it. ... Oh wow, I've just realized that one has multiple levels. Cool.



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

[Zookeeper]

190. It's also usually possible to glance (from a distance)...

under the door for feet.

I've never needed to actually get up close and peer through a crack to find out whether a stall is occupied!

There is also the option of knocking. (It's not rocket science.)

[sadiesworld]

62. Technically, the first assault occurs when someone rubs their

foot up against mine. I have the right to remain untouched. What would you think if someone approached you in the restroon and started rubbing your arm? My right to privacy from voyeurs and right to remain untouched by strangers is far more important than someone's perverse need to peep and paw at strangers.

When a look to see whether a bathroom is vacant turns into a violation of privacy depends upon the facts. As does the question of whether a "brushing of the foot" is intentional. B/t the facts given by the officer in the Craig case and Craig's own plea, I'd say both lines were crossed.

It's ridiculous that these kind of obvious statements need to even be made on a board presumably frequented by aduts.

[endarkenment]

69. If you beat the crap out of somebody who touches you

you are likely going to go to jail. Most states consider that sort of behavior illegal, although if you can prove the toucher was gay you might indeed get off.

[sadiesworld]

102. I haven't said a word about beating anyone up.

You seem to think it is acceptable to leer at people on the commode, play footsies, and otherwise use the public restroom as a place to troll for, and engage in, casual sex. I disagree heartily. And fortunately for me, and the men, women and children who agree with me, there are laws against such behavior.

[Gelliebeans]

109. You are right

and I don't want someone peeping or playing footsie with my pre-teen son while he is in the bathroom either. I don't understand why some people just think that they don't have to respect other people's private space. Jeezo. (not slamming you in the least) just adding my two cents to your good point.

[Ediacara]

167. Again, confounding a defensinve push or stomp with a full-scale beating

Once again, nothing short of willfully dishonest.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

100. youre not convinced it ought to be a crime?

Me neither! why not just throw some cameras in there too, am i right?

[Madspirit]

176. Gee

Why couldn't you just move your foot and/or say, "Sorry, not interested." ...but just fyi, this isn't how gays find sex. This is how Republicans find sex. I would hope, if you did that to some person, when you came out of your little stall, they beat the crap out of you.
Lee

[ThomWV]

13. Yes - when you don't know the other guy and he's sittin' on the shitter.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. "Touching someone else's foot with your own?"

When you're in a public restroom and you do it repeatedly to the occupant next to you it is...

[AlCzervik]

18. he was peering into the guy's stall for starters, is that ok with you?

[LanternWaste]

149. Placed in context...

Placed in context with the addition of peeping into stalls, yeah... I'd consider it pretty bizarre behavior (at best) and lewd (at worst).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. You could try reading the report.

He was staring in at an unsuspecting person through the gaps of a restroom stall.

If you think there's nothing wrong with that, I've got a bridge to sell you.

The actual charge was "disorderly conduct."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Yeah

And don't forget my experiment where I could see everything...

LOL@Me

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Well, it probably went better...

than my Michael Vick "what happens when you electrocute a pit bull" experiment.

[WI_DEM]

5. his biggest "crime" in my view is extreme hypocrisy

[tigereye]

88. yes

:thumbsup:


I seem to remember when I was in college, folks used to snap their fingers at the edge of the stall to see if someone was interested - at least that's what I was told by a guy I was dating.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. guilty of the follwing:-

offense http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig6.html

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. "But, he's a hypocrite..."

He is a hypocrite

Res ipsa loquitur:




Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)


Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

[endarkenment]

11. he's a hypocrite

The fact that he grew up in a more repressed era has nothing to do with his hypocrisy. He is a hypocrite because he advocated against gay rights, against hate crime legislation, and openly supported the hate-mongering theocratic 'fambly values' faction of the Republican Party while he was in fact and in deed a closeted homosexual. That is why he is a hypocrite. Duh.

[The Magistrate]

12. The Statutes Are Given Here, Sir, In a Copy Of His Guilty Plea

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html

[TahitiNut]

156. It looks like a righteous bust to me. Disorderly Conduct per the statute.

It'd sure be offensive to me were I sitting on the shitter and someone peeped me for two minutes, tried to play footsie, and then reach under the partition.

"Likely to alarm or resentment"? Yep. Ubetcha. Secual orientation is irrelelvant. I'd be alarmed/resentful no matter what the gender of the individual. (Yes, I've used unisex lavatories.)

[The Magistrate]

158. That Was My Impression As Well, Sir

If his defense boiled down to 'the damn cop's lying' my inclination would be to take it seriously, as my view of the vice squad is pretty low, and they are known to lie, but claiming 'the cop mis-interpreted' is weak beyond belief, and admits the actions occured as described....

[Matariki]

183. Thanks.

That at least makes the actual charges clear.

It wasn't for lewd behavior but a misdemeanor for Disorderly Conduct and Interference With Privacy.

Thanks for posting that.

[Avalux]

14. Has nothing to do with gay rights. He solicited in a public place.

I don't give a shit if Larry Craig is gay, whatever - do it in private. It's really not necessary to pick up guys in a bathroom; other ways to do it. Not everyone in that bathroom welcomes it. If it were me and I saw an eyeball through the crack in the bathroom door, I'd feel violated.

[endarkenment]

45. So anyone who makes any sexual advance in any public place

should be arrested?

[Avalux]

47. Oh please.

:eyes:

[endarkenment]

54. Your words: "Has nothing to do with gay rights. He solicited in a public place."

Which public places are out of bounds? Which aren't?

[mondo joe]

157. Public areas with presumed privacy - like bathroom stalls - are out of

bounds.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Your Right To Solicit Somebody Ends At The Bathroom Stall

eom

[endarkenment]

56. Everywhere else is ok? nt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Just About

It's easier to think where soliciting is appropriate but not where it isn't...

[endarkenment]

65. So the only place one cannot make sexual advances is bathrooms.

Ok. So cruising public parks for sex is ok?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. As long as you don't have sex there

That would be a lewd and lascivious behavior...

[SlavesandBulldozers]

103. do you know the difference between a restroom and a public place?

do you shit in public?

actually, given your line of reasoning ive just read - im beginning to think its within the realm of possibility.

[Tarheel_Dem]

139. in the presumed" privacy" of a public bathroom stall?....

you bet your ass. There are other places to pick up prospective dates, noone has to troll public restrooms these days, unless they're closeted like Craig.

When I was a freshman in college, I lived about 90 miles away. One weekend, an older gentleman approached me in the restroom of the bus station, and later sat next to me on the trip home. I felt uneasy, and after striking up a conversation with me about school, he placed his hand on my crotch. I immediately got up and changed seats. I didn't have him arrested, but I'm 50 y.o. now, and I've never forgotten that experience.

The police were watching the restrooms where Craig was arrested because there had been on-going complaints from people in the past. Where do you draw the line? Not every conversation involving gays is "gay-bashing".

[Madspirit]

179. You're not speaking for this lesbian

What the fuck is wrong with you. Voyeurism is a crime and should be. A person should be able to pee in a BATHROOM STALL in privacy. I don't think the person should be beaten up or stomped and I am not sure foot touching, if it stops when the person asks them to stop, should be illegal but fucking peaking at me on the toilet sure as shit should be a crime and I might beat the crap out of anyone who peeped at me...a SEX crime.
Lee

[AlCzervik]

15. link here

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig4.html

[youngdem]

16. Dude, Is THIS how you pick up guys?

You go into public restrooms, leer through the crack of the stall door while someone you don't know is taking a shit and you play with yourself and repeatedly signal for the occupant YOU DON'T KNOW to service you, then go into the stall next to your victim, ehem, I mean 'potential date' and put your foot next to his and tap it up and down, then stick your hand around the stall?

Really?

Weird.

I don't think you are gonna get many dates doing that.

Perhaps you should try seeing the person's face first, actually SPEAKING to them first, then trying to gauge if they might wanna have coffee or something?

Or hey, go crazy with the 'glory hole' method of first dates. Who am I to criticize. But would you do me one favor? Would you STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME AND MY KIDS? Because if you don't think there is anything wrong with 'flirting' like a complete perv, you are warped, or you don't know exactly what this guy did.

Just ask yourself this....Would you want this guy to approach you or your teenage daughter like this? Of course not.

[Toasterlad]

30. Please Leave Your Goddamn Kids Out of This.

I've about had it with people dragging their precious children into this. NO ONE has accused Larry Craig of being a pedophile. There is a difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. If you want to keep your kids safe, maybe you should get a little education on the subject, especially if you think the danger to your teenage daughter is coming from a 60 year old man trying to pick up MEN in a MEN'S BATHROOM.

MAN is this place ignorant lately! Christ!

[Beelzebud]

147. What if you just don't want your kids exposed to people fucking in a public bathroom.

Is that too much to ask?

It really has nothing to do with homosexuality. For most of us, a public bathroom isn't the place to have a hook up, or get laid.

[LanternWaste]

150. I think the comparison being drawn was between...

I think the comparison being drawn was between pedophilia and creepy behavior, not between being gay and being a pedophile...

:shrug:

[October]

168. Why are they "Goddamn" kids to you?

The ignorance and disrespect around here sure is out of control.

[Zookeeper]

193. Larry Craig was cruising in the main Men's restroom of the...

Mpls. airport. And you think he has the "right" to do that, even though there's no sign posted outside saying, "If you would prefer not to have your children exposed to people having sex in a public restroom stall, let them pee their pants?"

Sorry, buddy. "Goddamn kids" have rights, too. Have you given any thought to what your feelings would have been at 8 or 9 years old if you realized people were having sex in the bathroom stall next to you? Hell, *I* don't want to hear people having sex in the bathroom stall next to me!

So, everyone should be held hostage to the selfish, thoughtless, sexual self-interest of a few?

[uppityperson]

173. People should be arrested that don't have the same pickup habits as you do?

What kids?

[Toasterlad]

19. It's Called Solicitation. It's Illegal.

Although they actually booked him for disorderly conduct. Yes, I think it's bullshit, too.

However:

Just because the man grew up in a time when gay men were not free to be themselves does NOT give him a free pass to use his political power to the detriment of the gay people in this country, and that's what he did. That is his hypocrisy, and that is what he's going to damn well deservedly fry for.

[Wiley50]

21. Living out a parody of a Tiny Tim song

"Toe-Tap through the Tearoom with me"

[rodeodance]

22. peeping into bathroom stalls. All of us have a right to expect some privacy for petey's sake!

[onenote]

35. delete

[Beelzebud]

148. Apparently not everyone here agrees with that..

This place is insane sometimes...

[goodhue]

23. He plead guilty to violating Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.72, subd. 1(3)

He was charged with misdemeanor violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.72, subd. 1(3), and gross misdemeanor violation of Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.746, subd. 1(c). He plead guilty to the misdemeanor but not the gross misdemeanor.

[LibinMo]

37. I've been wondering

Do you think that if he had refused to sign anything and called his lawyer instead could they have gotten a conviction?

Although I doubt that it could have been hushed up under those circumstances.

[TahitiNut]

39. Though challenged, both statutes upheld by Minnesota Court of Appeals ...

S Y L L A B U S

A person who surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps over a partition in a public restroom with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of another person is guilty of interference with privacy, in violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.746 (2002).

<snip>
D E C I S I O N

Because a reasonable person when using a public restroom has an expectation of privacy in that place shielded from public view by partitions and his body, and because the space above each partitioned urinal in a public restroom constitutes an aperture under section 609.746, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Ulmer’s motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause.

Affirmed.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=apppub%5C0608%5Copa051148-0808&invol=1

... and ...

Section 609.72, subdivision 1(3), provides:

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place * * * 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.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=mn&vol=appunpub%5C0006%5C1555&invol=1

[Blue-Jay]

25. The "peeping" charge was dropped for pleading to disorderly conduct.

Yes. Staring at someone taking a shit through the crack is a crime. Invasion of privacy is a crime. do you understand?

[onenote]

27. here's the minnesota law on disorderly conduct..to be honest, its pretty vague

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


The only thing I can figure (and I haven't read the full report) is that he was charged for having engaged in "offensive" conduct by tapping his foot and moving his hand under the stall. To be honest,if he had challenged this I have to believe he'd have won in court. Its just too flimsy a case. He also was originally charged with a second offense: "Interference with Privacy", under the following subsection:

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.


Since the facts as described by the arresting cop nowhere indicate that he was attempting to look under the stall, there doesn't seem to be any chance that they could've made this charge stick.

I have to say that while I don't give a rat's ass about Larry Craig, if I'm in the Minnesota airport in a bathroom, its going to be eyes front at all times and I'm not striking up a conversation with anyone!

[goodhue]

28. you haven't read the report--the peeping occurred prior to entering stall

the arresting officer took note of Craig's blue eyes

[onenote]

40. thanks. I missed that part

I quickly read the report, but missed the part at the beginning where he discusses craig peeping through the crack in the stall.

I suppose Craig will claim he was just checking to see if the stall is occupied. But if you want to know if a stall is occupied, you look for feet, not through the crack in the stall at eye level.

[goodhue]

50. peeping is important step

I suspect peeping is an important step establishing person in stall is not using stall for intended purpose but rather appears to be loitering for opportunity for sexual contact.

In this case, Craig had bad luck in making eye contact with an undercover cop who was hanging out specifically to catch offenders.

What I wonder is how many times had Craig successfully cruised in this restroom before. He was at MSP a lot, flying between Boise and MSP. He knew what he was doing and was shocked to be caught.

[murielm99]

33. We would be applauding him if

he had admitted yesterday at his news conference that he is gay.

He could have said how hard it is for people his age to come out of the closet, and how tough things will be for his family.

He could have found a way in the past to avoid some of his hypocritical votes on gay marriage and hate crimes legislation. If he was too scared to vote yes, he could have been absent when those votes were taken.

I can understand his fear of coming out. I think all gay people have that fear. It is the hypocrisy that galls many people. He has made many hateful and hypocritical statements.

As far as his crime in the restroom goes, I have mixed feelings. I think most people want to be able to use public restrooms without walking into a sexual trysting area, and without the possibility of being solicited. I can understand making restroom sex a misdemeanor, or finding some similar way of discouraging it. Of course gay sex itself should not be illegal.

[Kingshakabobo]

42. Minnesota statute. From the Minnesota penal code M.I. 74873.........

...."Poopus Interruptus."

[Vinca]

43. Gay rights and public sex are 2 different things. Sheesh. nt

[Snot Hannity]

44. People indulge in many kinds

of lewd behavior in bars just to hook up with someone. But doing the same thing in a restroom is illegal. Since it is illegal in a restroom the law can be used to witch-hunt gays and prosecute them. Larry Craig may be a hypocrite. But I do feel sorry for him. There are so many men in his position who can be easily nabbed under this law. Don't blame Larry. Blame the society that creates desparate people like him. Blame the society that overwhelmingly still votes against equal rights for gays.

[Zookeeper]

195. He has free will....

He made a selfish and thoughtless choice. I really don't care what his sexual orientation is, he could have chosen a less public place to have sex.

[rabies1]

48. lewd behavior and voyeurism are the actual charges.

Lewd behavior - well he did a number of things.
Voyeurism because he peeked through the stall for a full 2 minutes.

[DaveJ]

67. The cop was probably sitting there with his pants up.

Shouldn't loitering in a public bathroom stall also be considered a misdemeanor? Oh wait, cops can do whatever they want. In this situation, looking at someone in a public place who is fully clothed as I'm sure this cop was, probably sending obvious signals out that he's inviting something, from a gay person's perspective probably would not be considered voyeurism.

[DaveJ]

55. I agree and I hope he stays in office

I also think there was some entrapment involved.

This undercover cop probably was spending an too much time in the toilet. And even though he was behind a closed door, it probably was obvious he had his pants up or something and appeared to be waiting for someone to approach him.

Too bad a senator can't stand up against this kind of thing. But at any rate, he was duly elected and should serve out his term.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. I Don't Understand Your Point

If Mr. X is gazing at Mr. Y through a crack in a public restroom stall while Mr. Y moves his bowels Mr. Y has an affirmative obligation to end the behavior.... It seems plausible that Mr. Y didn't know it was occurring...

[DaveJ]

89. As I said below this is my theory...

It probably was easy for Craig to notice the cop was just sitting there waiting. First a glance under the stall, it probably looked like the guys pants were up. Then a peek through the crack confirmed it. After Craig started staring, the cop probably stared back seductively. After all he wanted to make a bust. This isn't a case of someone staring at a guy who was moving his bowels. At least that's my theory.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. But Nobody Has The Right To Look Stall By Stall To He Finds A Willing Partner

By that time he has violated the privacy of innocent bystanders...

I'm wlling to die to protect a person's rights but I have the right to do my most private business without being concerned somebody is watching me...

It's just wrong....

[sadiesworld]

98. The cop was there in the first place because of the numerous

complaints about that particular bathroom. If the cop entrapped Craig, Craig should have fought the charge. He didn't, he plead.

[madmom]

101. what a bunch of BS, even if the cop was just sitting there craig has no right to leer thru the crack

[cboy4]

61. He broke the peeping tom law at the very least. Maybe you don't mind

people peaking in on your while you're doing your business on the toilet, or trying on clothes in a fitting room, or looking in through the windows of your house, etc., but I do.

That bothers me more than any lewd activity going in a stall, as long as it doesn't affect me.

[DaveJ]

72. I wouldn't be sitting there for two minutes

... and do nothing. Sometimes silence can be as much a message as saying something. If I were fully clothed as I'm sure this cop was, I would have been done in a few seconds, opened the door and walked out.

[cboy4]

84. I have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

The cop was sitting there, waiting to see if anyone tried to signal him for sex.

[DaveJ]

91. Yes, he was, and that's EXACTLY my point!!!

Who else sits around waiting to be signaled for sex besides someone who wants to be signaled for sex?

[cboy4]

96. Djohnson, if you support creepy peeping toms, then that's

up to you.

I mean, what you just wrote is beyond absurd.

Entrapment is when someone is lured/encouraged to behave in an illegal manner when they had no intention from the start to engage in such an act.

For instance, entrapment would be the cop makes eye contact outside the bathroom and motions with his head to follow him inside the bathroom.

Even Craig doesn't accuse anyone of entrapment. He only denies that he made an signals with his feet.

You can't possibly be suggesting that this officer was trying to engage in sex. If he were, he wouldn't have arrested Craig, now would he?

[mondo joe]

128. Someone who is undercover. But that's not entrapment.

No one MADE Craig do what he did.

[LittleClarkie]

138. Somebody who hasn't had enough ruffage lately?

?

[Zookeeper]

189. So, if a person is just sitting in a bathroom stall...

with their pants on, because, perhaps, they are upset and need a moment of privacy, it's OK to stare at them through the crack in the door and harass them?

How about if a kid is in the stall? It's OK for him to be subjected to an adult staring through a crack in the door to check him out as a prospective "date?"

[FredScuttle]

71. Uh, the law he pled guilty to breaking

Thanks for playing.

[DaveJ]

75. What does that prove?

He was trying to keep it off the headlines. He couldn't make a court appearance for this.

[FredScuttle]

132. Please tell me you're joking

because that is absolutely laughable.

[LSK]

73. does anyone do research anymore????

Its at the bottom of the arrest report:

Count 1: Interference with Privacy MSS 609.746 subd.1(c)
Count 2: Disorderly Conduct MSS 609.72 subd(3)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1683655&mesg_id=1683655

[DaveJ]

77. I suppose you mean this

"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"

But if the cop was just obviously doing nothing but sitting there with his clothes on then I'm not sure this statute was violated.

[LSK]

86. but Craig pleaded guilty

[DaveJ]

90. He was hoping nobody would find out.

Yeah it would have been braver for him to stand up against the charges, at least to prevent others from being entrapped, but he was only thinking about himself. He was hoping it would all just go away. What else would you expect from a Republican?

[cboy4]

120. You really should should read up on case law, because you

clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

You can't even comprehend what the definition of entrapment is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. Entrapment Is Entrapping Somebody To Do Something They Would Not Normally Do

If that was a willing sexual partner and not a cop the senator would have had sex with him.

[cboy4]

136. Bingo.

[LanternWaste]

151. by your interpretation, I'm in effect *not* being peeped at?

So if I'm in a bathroom stall w/o having yet pulled my slacks down and someone is peeping at me, then by your interpretation, I'm in effect *not* being peeped at?

[Blashyrkh]

78. Don't you consider peeping into public toilets stalls illegal?

Why are people defending this abhorrent behaviour simply because he's gay?

I mean, if I snuck into the women's toilets, peeped through a door and then started playing footsies, I'd have the shit beaten out of me by the 40 women in there then I'd be arrested and publically shamed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. When I Was A Teenager

We were at a party and this guy figured out how to see through a vent as the girls/women did their business in the bathroom... He was discovered by another guy and beat within an inch of his life...No homophobia there....It's all about boundaries...

[Blashyrkh]

93. Exactly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. Some of The Girls Were Literally In Tears

eom

[zanne]

83. I had the same reaction.

Idt didn't seem to me he did anything illegal, but he was "peeping". I wouldn't want to be peeped at while I was on the toilet.

[soothsayer]

95. Ok, it's a bit of a thought crime since he didn't actually do anything, but

to the cop, his intentions were clear (e.g., public sex in the bathroom), which had been a problem in that bathroom evidently, which is why the cop was there to catch the next guys who tried it. I doubt money would have exchanged hands (who knows?) so it wouldn't have been prostitution, just public sex. NOW, having said that, who hasn't had sex in a bathroom with a girlfriend/boyfriend? But you're really not supposed to, and of course it's much more annoying if you are hitting on strangers who are just trying to get their poop on, or whatnot.

[Blashyrkh]

199. I haven't.

Pools, yes.
Gardens, yes.
Treehouses, yes.
Public toilets, ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm no.

At any rate, Craig wasn't trying to spice up the sex between himself and his partner. His was trying to find a partner. Being chased out by security giggling after being caught is a lot different to eyeing off prospective dates whilst their, uh, engaged.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. I Rather Have Someone Watch Me Have Sex Then Take A Dump

eom

[MyNameGoesHere]

87. Better question

why did he plead guilty? If it were me and i just had a "wide stance" i would be screaming bloody hell. Maybe there was something to his behavior?

[skul_Donteecha]

92. The crime is perjury.

He says he pleaded guilty when he was not. Entering a plea is covered by perjury laws. Then again, a BJ in Idaho may also be a crime and this could amount to attempted BJ.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. I'm Disappointed

My commitment to equal rights for all Americans is non-negotiable...I am really disappointed that four people have tacitly condoned Senator Craig's behavior in this instance by recommending it for the Greatest Page...

You, me, anybody does not have the right to grossly invade another person's privacy by looking at them through a crack in a public restroom stall for two minutes while they do their business...

What gives you the right to trample over the rights of others....

[proud patriot]

99. I've been thinking about this a lot

I believe this perspective is quite enlightening .

[Major Hogwash]

119. So have the people of Idaho - they want ol' Larry to resign!!

McCain called for Craig's resignation today!

Ol' Larry's old buddy, McCain, just threw his old buddy under the bus and then drove over him!
The license plate said "Straight Shooter Express", but the tags are out of date!

LoL

[mike_c]

104. I agree with the OP on this one....

What Craig did was rude. Really rude. Tawdry and rude. But it's ludicrous to criminalize all behavior we regard as rude, or loud, or inconvenient, or whatever. It makes sense to use the law to protect people from being harmed, but to protect them from being offended? That's just too much, IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. It's An Invasion Of Privacy That Goes Beyond Being Rude

Nobody has a right to watch another person defecate or urinate after they have went into a bathroom stall and locked the door...

My commitment to individual rights is absolute and non-negotiable but a person's right to look at another person ends when he or she goes in the bathroom and lock the door...

[mike_c]

115. should everything you "don't have the right to do" be criminal...?

What does that mean, "nobody has a right to watch another person defecate or urinate...?" What do rights have to do with it? Lots of restrooms don't have doors on their stalls-- for a variety of reasons, but this circumstance gives the lie to any "right" to bathroom privacy.

What Craig got caught doing was being rude. Hell, it was selfish and nasty. But why do we need to make laws to protect people from being offended when someone else decides to be selfish or rude? Being offended never harmed anyone, and people who need to have folks arrested for making them uncomfortable should grow some thicker skin or go live on an island alone somewhere.

I don't like people bugging me in restrooms any more than you do. But I don't consider them criminals, just rude.

[mondo joe]

122. "Rude" is simply a matter of manners. Staring at people who have a reasonable expectation

of privacy, in an intimate act, is more than "rude".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Ummm

They have removed restroom doors from many stalls to discourage the behavior that Mr. Craig wanted to participate in...That sucks...I'm not taking a dump where people can observe me ...I'm modest and have bashful bowels...

In this instance there was a door and the person behind it had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mr. Craig violated the privacy and violated the law... If you want I'll provide the statute...

I don't see how a person's right to be a Peeping Tom supersedes a person's right to move his or her bowels free from gazing eyes...

It has nothing to do with living on an island and everything to do with establishing boundaries and respecting the rights of others... I have no more right to go to my local Target, enter the restroom and look through the crack in a stall door while someone is moving his bowels than I have a right to peer through the crack in my neighbors drapes while he is having intercourse with his wife... Society has declared this behavior verboten and has passed laws to ensure the behavior doesn't occur...

[noamnety]

106. I just love watching men

defend their right to spy on women in bathrooms and dressing rooms.

That's what we basically have here - a bunch of men defending their right to be peeping toms and sexual predators. They're legally entitled (in their own minds) to watch anyone, anytime.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

113. It's Unbelievable To Me

That somebody , intentionally or tacitly, would elevate the right of someone to watch another person evacuate without their permission over the right of the person to evacuate free from leering eyes...

[noamnety]

117. I'm guessing these are the federal wire-tapping defenders

What's wrong with a little spying on people, eh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. Just Wild

I have certainly seen my girlfriend of seven years in various stages of nakedness...I would never arrogate to myself the right to watch her on the toilet; especially surreptitiously and without her permission

WTF

[LanternWaste]

152. In a nutshell, you're absolutely correct.

In a nutshell, you're absolutely correct.

I'm now waiting with baited breath for the justifications to be posted that video taping someone taking a poop is also well within the bounds of 'expected' and 'reasonable' behavior in a public bathroom...

[Zookeeper]

198. But, but...

if someone gets off on it, aren't you oppressing them by not allowing them to video tape you pooping? Are you a prude or something?!?

:sarcasm:

[TreasonousBastard]

107. Just for the record...

I read the cop's report a while ago.

It's an arrest report, which was written later in the comfy confines of the precinct house and strictly according to formula. Which means it's full of enough bullshit to give the prosecutor something to work with while not getting the cop in any trouble. Taking it completely at face value is silly.

Two minutes he was staring into the stall? Gimme a break! Does anyone know how long two minutes is when you're doing something a bit under the table? What's missing from the report just may be the cop waving back at him or giving him some other reason to stick around. It was a sting, after all, and how do you sting people?

I'm betting the cop led him on in something that would be very close to entrapment if the report was honest. No way someone apparantly as experienced as this guy is in hooking up would put himself in a dangerous spot like staring into a stall unless invited. Quick glance and move along.

Nope. This guy is being pounded because he's gay, not because of anything else.

Reminds me of how they found out getting a blowjob in the White House isn't illegal, so they had to try to nail him for lying about it.

But it was the blowjob they hated.

[noamnety]

116. that's crap (no pun intented)

If they'd been having complaints of men sneaking into the woman's room, doing exactly the same behavior, staring in the stalls at length, playing footsie while women were trying to pee, and reaching under the stalls, they'd have put a cop in that restroom and nailed the heterosexual predator as well. And there's nobody here who would be complaining.

So I find the opposite of what you're stating to be true - some people are acting like poor gay men HAVE to be sexual predators in order to get some. I find that line of thinking to be offensive.

[JVS]

130. I agree with you.

[mzmolly]

108. It's illegal to have sex in public places. Had he rented a room and invited a person back, he'd not

have broken the law. (Other than the peeping thing...)

This is NOT about gay rights. I don't have the "right" to bag a guy in a public restroom. I don't have the right to spy on a person taking a leak.

[Critters2]

111. Thank you.

It seems so obvious, but...

[mzmolly]

114. No problem. Frankly I think it's a disservice to gay people to argue that this is what gay rights

is about. It cheapens and confuses the issue.

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Beyond Obvious

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. "Had he rented a room and invited a person back, he'd not have broken the law."

That's an example of a Republican's penurious nature coming back to bite him in the ass..

[mzmolly]

134. LOL! Indeed! "Why buy the cow..." as they say.

;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

145. Maybe Congressmen Should Get A Spending Allowance Like The President

eom

[spanone]

112. Whatever the police report says. I'm sure there's a copy. He was charged & plead guilty to crime.

[mondo joe]

126. As a gay man, I find your premise quite insulting.

He did something wrong, he got busted.

How he grew up is NO EXCUSE for what he has done to hurt gays.

Gay rights has nothing to do with a special license to have sex in public, or violate others' privacy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

131. Countenancing His Behavior Is Not Helpful To Gay Folks

It reinforces negative stereotypes that gays are predators... You still have philistines who think that you can't integrate gay and straight men in sports or the armed forces because the gay men will be checking out the straight guy's junk in the showers...

[TahitiNut]

135. Thanks for the note of sanity.

:applause:

The LAST thing GLBT folks need is the implication that such behavior (peeping, footsie, reaching) 'comes with the territory' and should be condoned. If such license were common, no tanning bed or dressing room would be safe for anyone's privacy, irrespective of gender.

There's a very wide chasm between 'understandable' behavior and behavior we can condone, imho.

I cannot and will not equate Craig's behavior to 'being gay' -- any more than Foley's.

[TreasonousBastard]

153. Excuse me? Be as insulted as you want, but...

the point has little to do with public sex.

It is gay public sex that's being prosecuted, here not just any old public sex.

Not only that, but no sex took place here, merely the intent as alleged by the cop, and only the cop.

Whether or not public sex of any kind should be prosecuted is a serious question, and most of us tend to say "yes," but this sort of sting blurs the line between proper maintenance of public order and entrapment by exposing simple willingness bo act.

By this standard, every one of us spends some time in the slam for something.


"Sir, if I wasn't here, would you have stopped for that stop sign?"

"Maybe not."

"Here's your ticket for thinking about not stopping at a stop sign."

I can't help note that on other threads people claim the government has no business asking census questions and DU has no business asking for our phone numbers when we donate, but here the government is free to make a case based on the unsuppported word of one cop claiming intent.

That is the point, and I don't understand why more people don't see it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

154. Do You Agree With This Proposition?

You said


"It is gay public sex that's being prosecuted, here not just any old public sex."


It's my contention:

that all sex , regardless of the gender or orientation of the participants, that occurs in public restrooms where the general population goes primarily to evacuate or "wash up" should be prosecuted...

When a person goes into a restroom and locks the door that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The right of a Peeping Tom does not supersede the right of a person, to move his or her bowels or urinate, free from the gaze of leering eyes...


I told a story upthread about a party I went to as a teenager... Some fucking yahoo figured out how to get in the attic and see through a vent as girls/women did their business in the bathroom... A girl detected him and broke out into tears... The guy was beat by my friend ,Charlie Bowers, within an inch of his life...No homophobia there... He just showed a wanton disregard and disrespect for others and was met with spontaneous moral outrage that resulted in a beating...

[TreasonousBastard]

159. This is getting silly-- everything about this story depends on...

believing the report this one cop wrote.

If Lindsay Lohan gets this much pain from getting caught screwing some guy in a rest room a couple of days ago, I might rethink Craig.

But, I don't think so. I see about as much of a prosecution as Mile High Club members get. Or the swing bars with lots of good stuff going on out back or in "private" rooms.

Or, for that matter, this guy Vitter, who also seems to have broken at least one law involving sex and isn't being punished as harshly as Craig.

[mondo joe]

163. I don't know why your imagination or a closeted repub is a better

or moer reliable source than the police report.

You are REALLY scratching.

[mondo joe]

155. You are quite wrong. Point by point:

1. It is gay public sex that's being prosecuted, here not just any old public sex.

Correction: There are not hetero equivalent cases of public sex that are legally permitted, so it's not simply a matter of gay public sex being prosecuted. NO PUBLIC SEX IS LEGALLY PERMITTED.

2. Not only that, but no sex took place here, merely the intent as alleged by the cop, and only the cop.

Correction: Craig was not charged with having sex but with disorderly conduct. And he admitted his guilt.

3. Whether or not public sex of any kind should be prosecuted is a serious question, and most of us tend to say "yes," but this sort of sting blurs the line between proper maintenance of public order and entrapment by exposing simple willingness bo act.

Correction: Again, Craig was charged with disorderly conduct, not with being gay.

4. By this standard, every one of us spends some time in the slam for something.

Correction: Craig did not spend time "in the slam". He was fined, as MANY people are for relatively minor lawbreaking, like traffic violations, littering and so on.

5. I can't help note that on other threads people claim the government has no business asking census questions and DU has no business asking for our phone numbers when we donate, but here the government is free to make a case based on the unsuppported word of one cop claiming intent.

Correction: Some people feel those things - don't mistake DU for a monolith in which everyone agrees. Furthermore, the government is always free to make a case based on a cop - in the case of traffic violations or anything else. But in THIS case intent was not an issue - disorderly CONDUCT was.

[TreasonousBastard]

160. If you insist...

1. It is gay public sex that's being prosecuted, here not just any old public sex.

Correction: There are not hetero equivalent cases of public sex that are legally permitted, so it's not simply a matter of gay public sex being prosecuted. NO PUBLIC SEX IS LEGALLY PERMITTED.

Kindly demonstrate just how public hetersexual sex is being prosecuted as hotly as gay sex.

2. Not only that, but no sex took place here, merely the intent as alleged by the cop, and only the cop.

Correction: Craig was not charged with having sex but with disorderly conduct. And he admitted his guilt.

Craig plead to disorderly conduct-- the original charge was lewd behaviour, or some such thing. Pleas are the norm in things like this so everyone gets Attaboys and the town gets a nice fine.


3. Whether or not public sex of any kind should be prosecuted is a serious question, and most of us tend to say "yes," but this sort of sting blurs the line between proper maintenance of public order and entrapment by exposing simple willingness bo act.

Correction: Again, Craig was charged with disorderly conduct, not with being gay.

Again, the original charge was lewd behavior. Besides, what was diosrderly about asking for sex?

4. By this standard, every one of us spends some time in the slam for something.

Correction: Craig did not spend time "in the slam". He was fined, as MANY people are for relatively minor lawbreaking, like traffic violations, littering and so on.

Don't be silly asnd recognize hyperbole for what it is.

5. I can't help note that on other threads people claim the government has no business asking census questions and DU has no business asking for our phone numbers when we donate, but here the government is free to make a case based on the unsuppported word of one cop claiming intent.

Correction: Some people feel those things - don't mistake DU for a monolith in which everyone agrees. Furthermore, the government is always free to make a case based on a cop - in the case of traffic violations or anything else. But in THIS case intent was not an issue - disorderly CONDUCT was.

Actually, it was originally lewd behavior before the pleas began, and the point is still that this sort of ridiculously weak case shouldn't be brought, and the guy shouldn't be crucified over it.

Nope, no matter how anyone wants to dress this up, it's still going after GAY sex, not going after sex.

Another case in point-- several years ago rest stops on highways in NY and NJ were closed, some just at night, because they became gay cruise areas. None of the "lover's lane" rest stops were closed, though, although every morning you had to wade through the rubbers on the ground.

Nope, maybe we don't want a lot of public sex, nobody's arguing for public sex after all, but it's only gay public sex that's being chased down and prosecuted.

(Except, admittedly, for street hookers, but that's another story.)

[mondo joe]

162. Let's.

1. Kindly demonstrate just how public hetersexual sex is being prosecuted as hotly as gay sex.

Answer: You'd need to point out where heterio public sex is permitted. I can't think of anywhere where that is the case. Can you?

2. Craig plead to disorderly conduct-- the original charge was lewd behaviour, or some such thing. Pleas are the norm in things like this so everyone gets Attaboys and the town gets a nice fine.

Answer: So what's the problem - through the plea he got an appropriate charged and accepted his guilt.

3. Again, the original charge was lewd behavior. Besides, what was diosrderly about asking for sex?

Answer: What's disorderly is peering for sustained periods into private stalls, and reaching into them.

4. Don't be silly asnd recognize hyperbole for what it is.

Answer: Don't be silly and illogical.


5. Actually, it was originally lewd behavior before the pleas began, and the point is still that this sort of ridiculously weak case shouldn't be brought, and the guy shouldn't be crucified over it. Nope, no matter how anyone wants to dress this up, it's still going after GAY sex, not going after sex.

Answer: You are still wrong - it's going after sex in public places. I have NO doubtthat if there were men cruising the women's room or women's changing rooms at a department store, there's be a response.

6. Another case in point-- several years ago rest stops on highways in NY and NJ were closed, some just at night, because they became gay cruise areas. None of the "lover's lane" rest stops were closed, though, although every morning you had to wade through the rubbers on the ground.

Answer: I don't have the data on this so Ican't respond.


7. Nope, maybe we don't want a lot of public sex, nobody's arguing for public sex after all, but it's only gay public sex that's being chased down and prosecuted.

Answer: To the contrary - by making this about gay sex only that's exactly what you are doing. If you could find hetero equivalents that are accepted or even tolerated, you might have a point - but you don't.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

127. I think...

It was for doing a lousy Judy Garland impersonation and forgetting the lyrics.....

[LittleClarkie]

137. He may have grown up in another time

but he didn't have to grow up to be a lawmaker who voted against his own self-interests and referred to our former president as naughty.

It's his voting record that makes him a hypocrite.

[valerief]

140. He's one ot the guys that writes the laws that got him arrested. nt

[Terran]

143. To the OP

and anyone else in this thread defending Craig or temporizing about his actions: you have made this the #1 Dumbest Thread Ever at DU. Get a fucking clue. It wasn't entrapment, a criminal statute was violated, he plead guilty. Period.

And yes, he's a bug stupid hypocrite besides, isn't THAT enough for you??

Jeez. :eyes:

[snooper2]

144. I didn't know Mark Levin posted here...

Hello Mark!!!! :hi: :hi: :hi:

[ecstatic]

161. A young boy should be able to walk into the men's restroom without fear

of hearing middle aged men f*cking? Would you feel comfortable with your child walking in on that? :shrug:

[mondo joe]

164. Hey, us middle age gay guys should be able to do the same.

Just saying. :-)

[ComerPerro]

166. tell me why I should care? Republicans promote this kinda fascist crap anyway, nice to see em busted

[Matariki]

169. I've been wondering that myself

and the level of schadenfreude around here.

[Matariki]

170. And it sounds like the cop was encouraging him(?)

So the arguments that he was 'violating' privacy or whatever doesn't hold water. As far as 'lewd' behavior - did he expose himself? did he offer money? It sure doesn't sound like it.

So it's illegal to flirt in an airport bathroom?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

175. The Cop No More Encouraged Craig

The cop no more encouraged Craig than a policewoman masquerading as a prostitute encourages johns to pick her up... She has no affirmative obligation to say "I'm really a cop"... That defeats the purpose of the sting...

[Matariki]

181. I mean encouraged him by rubbing his ankle with his foot.

I think that's what the report said. The difference with your example is that prostitution is illegal. Flirting in an airport bathroom isn't. There is either more to this, or something is very unjust.

Was there an actual solicitation made by Senator Craig for public sex? Did he expose himself? Did he offer money?

Since when is play footsies illegal, especially if the other guy is playing footsies back?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

182. He Admitted To Peering Into The Stall For One To Two Minutes

My right to move my bowels free from the gaze of leering eyes after I go into a bathroom stall and lock the door supersedes a person's right to watch me...

[Matariki]

196. yeah, agreed.

And the charges were Disorderly Conduct and Interference With Privacy, which I didn't realize when I posted that.

Misdemeanors both. Probably not *too* serious unless you're a United State Senator.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

197. Believe Me

When it comes to consensual sex what two or more folks of any gender or orientation want to do is none of my damn business but when I do my business it's none of there's either....

[Madspirit]

184. All You Say

I agree with all you say. ...BUT he also peered in and peeping at people trying to go to the restroom, that IS a crime and should be. ...one that hopefully would get someone some therapy, not jail time but still, I have a right to go into a public bathroom and feel safe.

Lee

[Madspirit]

172. He's a hypocrite

...because he's against us when he's engaging in gay sex himself. That IS the definition of "hypocrite"...saying one thing and doing the other. If he just wants to be a gay Republican he should come out of the closet and join the Idiot Log Cabins. To talk trash about gays while engaging in gay sex, that's hypocritical.
Lee

[qanda]

174. You want to equate this with gay rights?

Yikes! I sure wouldn't want that behavior associated with any right I was trying to gain and I certainly wouldn't want Craig as the poster-boy.

[rndmprsn]

178. hmmm...he plead GUILTY

to a misdemeanor crime, what more proof do you need...for the sen to come to your house and tell you this personally?!

geez

[Snot Hannity]

187. Gay/Bi men cruising

public restrooms, truck stops, rest stops, dark alleys, bath houses, etc. looking for other men to hook up has been going on since the beginning of time. I don't understand all the puritanical posts here.

[mondo joe]

188. I smell troll.

Let's be quite clear: From the beginning of civilization, some people - of all genders and orientations - have been drawn to sex with an element of risk or exhibitionism.

That does not mean the rest of us are called on to sacrifice our own privacy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

191. What is sad

What is sad is that people who should know better have made essentially the same argument but more delicately and in a different spirit...

[mondo joe]

192. Identity politics is poison to logic and reason.

Alas.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

194. And

Identity politics is poison to logic and reason and one's cause.