According to earlier posts, he was arrested for and pled guilty to the “peeping”. I’ve not seen anything contradicting this or showing that he didn’t stare at the officer through the cracks in the stall for several minutes.
So intent to have public sex isn’t really relevant to the charge or his guilty plea, legally, as far as I can tell.
I think it’s pretty obvious that public sex was what he intended, but “intent to have public sex” wasn’t the charge.
ETA: I see Bricker beat me to it. Oh well.
So, anyway, are any of y’all willing to defend the idea that staring at someone in a public bathroom stall is A-OK, or is that a legitimate offense?
My point was that Bricker is a lawyer and certainly knows the difference between assault and battery. Hell I am a criminal defense attorney in California and I knew what he meant. This is not a GQ about assault. It is a general discussion in the pit. Yea ,you know the difference between assault and battery. I guarantee you Bricker does as well.
Although this point seems to be moot, the Senator isn’t claiming that he meant to have sex elsewhere. He’s claiming that he didn’t intend to have sex at all.
I wasn’t talking about what he was charged with, I was talking about what he was arrested for.
Under the circumstances I described, there’s nothing a cop could do until the guy starts busting in windows? That seems odd to me. The specific charge might not be burglary, but if it’s plainly evident that a person intends to commit a particular crime, there must be some way for the cops to act before he actually commits it, no?
(Underlining mine)
:dubious: So which are you? The cop, or the senator?
If he had said, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I never intended to have sex in the bathroom. I intended to take the detective to the Microtel across the street and make sweet sweet love to him until he forgot his own name,” perhaps he could have beaten the rap. He decided to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, instead.
Well, then it’s a short discussion. He was arrested for publicly propositioning gay sex. He did it. End of story.
Sure. They briefly detain him, get his ID, ask him what he’s doing. If he doesn’t give them probable cause with something that he says, they have to let him go… and he’d have to have balls of steel to continue the burglary after such an encounter.
That’s undoubtedly key to the reason he pled guilty at first. He wanted no part of a defense that might need him to admit anything along the lines of actually seeking out man-love.
How do you figure? Is there another restroom in the same area where heterosexuals proposition each other for anonymous, public sex that doesn’t get targeted for sting operations? Otherwise, I don’t see any basis for your accusation.
Ya gotta listen to the arrest interview. Several times Craig says he doesn’t remember in regard to events that happened just ten minutes before.
The cop went easy on him until Craig started insisting the cop did not see his left hand, which the cop was sure he did. Being evasive is one thing; lying is something else.
(By the way, Craig stated that he sat down, thus confirming my earlier comment on his “wide stance” excuse. Ya can’t call it a stance if your’re sitting. Well, maybe he misspoke. And maybe he misspoke when he said, “I am not gay.” :rolleyes: )