Not in the least defending the “Idaho Values Alliance”, but they didn’t just pull that one out of their asses. Deuteronomy 19:15: “One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
This is also the standard given in various places in the Old Testament law with regard to specific crimes (murder, idolatry), and is also alluded to in the New Testament.
Incorrect. See Post #216. Whether or not it should be illegal is a different discussion but it is illegal and a crime was committed.
Well, the point I’m making is the cop doesn’t know what was in the senator’s mind. He did not overtly ask for sex. Just because he moved his foot the way some gay guys move their foot doesn’t mean he was trolling. As some of the straight guys have said, they wouldn’t have recognized any of this as a hit. If he was smart, he would have stood his ground and walked away from this in court.
There’s a reason his defenders keep referring to the toe tapping and not the two minutes of looking into the stall from the slat.
In a public restroom, I’m interested if the stall is vacant. I do this by bending down and looking under the door to see if there’s feet (hopefully a maximum of two). I don’t do this by looking in the slat between the door and the stall even momentarily, let alone for an extended period of time.
ain’t no doubt what he was about.
Additionally, IF and that’s a big ‘if’) he was indeed pure as the driven snow and simply unaware of the possabilities that his gestures were mistaken, upon being presented a badge, why would an innocient person shout “Nooooooooo!” vs. say, “what’s the problem officer?”
It’s totally reasonable to infer from the Senator’s actions that he was trolling. Eventually, it would be for a jury to decide, and maybe he’d get away with it, but he decided to cop a plea instead. I don’t see what you’re not getting. He did a lot more than just move his foot around.
If some dude stared through the door crack at me for two minutes, then tapped his foot and moved it towards me and then started running his hand over to my side of the stall, I’d figure that there was something up.
He thought that if he pled, it wouldn’t be noticed and that a trial would bring loads of publicity. I think that he made the right call given that he didn’t want his career destroyed but it just didn’t work out.
He was playing footsie with the cop under the divider. I wouldn’t notice the tapping. I’d probably be annoyed and creeped out by the peeping and I’d wonder if I was being cruised but wouldn’t know for sure. The footsie…that would pretty much clue me in. That doesn’t happen by accident.
Thanks MEB. Looks like I was wrong. Not an uncommon event. Still think think any religious belief is stupid. When I die, if I see jesus, I will call him the asshole that he is. Jesus, god, you suck giant chocolate balls…If you exist please god, strike me dead…nope still here…
So to speak.
Taking the second part of your statement first… what conduct did the accused perform that would have alarmed the larger populace entering the public space?
See, this is the issue – conduct that’s legally directed at YOU, because you’ve invited it, is not criminal… even if it WOULD BE criminal directed at someone who hasn’t invited it. If I give my wife a playful grab-ass in the kitchen it’s not criminal; if I directed the same conduct towards a co-worker in the office kitchen, it’s assault.
So – putting aside the peering through the door cracks business, the conduct of tapping toes isn’t violative of the law. And the FURTHER conduct of touching toes and waving under the wall would be violative of the law if directed against someone that didn’t do anything to invite it, but the officer DID invite it, and so the accused did not reasonably believe his conduct would have been seen as unwelcome or upsetting.
Now, the peering through the stall door for an extended period of time is different. The officer’s report does not indicate what, if anything, he did during this time, but the same analysis applies. A quick peep (say, as might be done by someone checking for occupany and too infirm to bend down to look for legs) is not violative of the law. What he saw would make or break his defense of his conduct here. If the officer were doing something that created an invitation to look, then the accuseds’ further conduct was, in his mind, reasonably invited by the officer, and not criminal. If the officer did nothing out of the ordinary, then the extended peeping becomes a criminal act.
Wouldn’t that actually be battery?
Didn’t seek legal counsel, you say?
I suppose it’s possible he went to get info to give the lawyer he intended to hire but hadn’t yet, and that he ultimately decided not to hire. Or he could be lying. I’ve always found it difficult to believe that he didn’t call a lawyer.
You really want to quibble with Bricker about legal terminology?
Go ahead. Make his day.
At common law, yes, assuming “grab ass” means actually getting a handful of butt cheek as opposed to simply reaching towards the posterior area with a clutching motion.
Many, if not most states, though, have codified crimes that include the word “assault” as encompassing unwanted touching. “Simple assault,” is often used to refer to conduct that threatens physical touching but does not include it.
In my state, there’s a single codified offense, “Assault and Battery” that includes both simple assault and assault with battery.
No, but looking for public sex is, and that’s what he was busted for.
The fact that he was hitting on strange men in a bathroom is, itself, evidence that he intended to have sex in a public setting.
If the cops picked up a guy behind a store after hours, and he’s wearing a ski mask and holding a crowbar, they’re going to bust him for burglary, even if he hasn’t gotten around to breaking into the store yet, because there’s enough evidence that he intended to break into the store. Same deal here. Craig’s actions are those of a man looking for quick, anonymous, public sex.
No, you don’t. If you get busted with a pound of marijuana in your car, they’re going to charge you with intent to sell, even if they don’t have any evidence for you setting up (let alone concluding) a transaction, because having that much pot is itself considered evidence of an intent to sell.
Only when I am correct. I’m not a lawyer but I was recently on a jury where the defendant was accused of two counts of battery. The distinction was explained to us in detail. Of course, that’s California law which could be different elsewhere.
How about “consent” - as in, the other people who went to the restroom to use the facilities as intended did not consent to be party to the public sex going on? That work?
I quibble. A minor point, perhaps but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
How do we know he was intending to commit his sex in the bathroom? The airport is surrounded by motels, the Sen is a well-paid public servant. They never got to the actual proposition, no? So maybe we didn’t intend to have sex there on the spot, they never got that far.
Was he leaving for home? Maybe he had a flight in an hour.
He wasn’t charged with solicitation of sex. He was charged with disorderly conduct. So the only question that must be answered is: did his conduct fall into that which is prohibited by the disorderly conduct statute?
Uh… no. The crime of burglary has specific elements, and one of them (at common law, anyway) is the breaking and entering of a place. If you haven’t committed that element, you’re not guilty of burglary.
Yes, that’s true. But WHY?
It’s because the law explicitly creates that presumption. In Virginia, for example, § 18.2-248.1 breaks down possession of marijuana crimes into less than one-half ounce, between one-half ounce and five pounds, and over five pounds as distinct offenses.
And the law could create the presumption you mention – the state could criminalize wearing a ski mask and holding a crowbar, and say that’s a conclusive presumption of intent to commit burglary. (Please note that they haven’t, anywhere I know of).
Again, let’s focus on what he was charged with, which was not “looking for public sex.”