[QUOTE=elucidator]
Another self-confessed attorney! What is that now, seven?
[/QUOTE]
You know why scientists are now using lawyers instead of white rats in laboratory experiments?
[spoiler]Three reasons:
There’s a shortage of rats.
Scientists sometimes form a sentimental attachment to rats.
There are some things rats won’t do.[/spoiler]
Tonight on MSNBC, after they did a Larry Craig story, they had a musical lead out: “I Have Friends in Low Places”
Well I had to run to the grocery today and the general consensus is that he is innocent and being setup by the Democrats. “I’m telling you Hillary payed that cop off”. Also that the Idaho Statesman has been taken over by California liberals. And we all know California liberals are the worst kind. They’re not choosing to overlook that he’s gay, they just don’t believe it. They’ve decided to stand around with their fingers in their ears going lalalalalalala.
[QUOTE=redtail23]
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.
[/QUOTE]
No, the peeping charge was dropped as part of the plea bargain. He only pled guilty to the disorderly conduct charge.
And it wasn’t “several” minutes, it was only 2 (according to the cop), less than one (according to Craig). And the other stalls were occupied during that time, so (had he fought the case) he could have argued that he was waiting for the stall to open up.
Also, what was the cop doing during that time that he was peeping into the stall, other than staring back at him? If I had been a defense attorney, I would have argued that the cop staring back
at him and looking into his eyes constituted encouragement, thus leading to entrapment.
Had he wanted to fight this, I think he might have had a pretty good case. Of course, that would have led to a big publicity furor and probably cost him his next election. A quiet plea bargain was a better deal (if only it had remained quiet).
Since we know that some restrooms become known as cruise areas, both by cruisers and cops, should the cruising be stopped? If so, how? Should the cops hide outside the restroom and bust in mid-shag and pull the guys out of the stalls with their pants down? Hidden cameras and then arrest them as they leave the restroom? Or some form of entrapment (which seems to be the current MO)?
If an airport (mall, park…whatever) starts getting numerous complaints maybe they should just put uniformed guards in the restroom to just act as “attendant”.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Bricker: Possession of Burglar’s Tools? Usually a crime.
[/QUOTE]
Yes. But ONLY a crowbar, without evidence of its being used to commit a burglary, or an admission of intent from its bearer, is not likely sufficient evidence for that crime.
As the Virginia Court of Appeals explained in Moss v. Commonwealth:
Pretty much all the case law on the offense in Virginia involves evidence of possession of the tool(s) AND THEIR USE. Without being able to point to the tools’ being used, or to show unambiguous intent by way of a confession, the mere possession of a crowbar, not a tool “intrinsically buglarious,” there’s no crime.
I don’t actually know what would constitute “burglary tools,” so I just said, “crowbar.” I wasn’t really trying to be literal, I was trying (ineptly, it appears) to communicate the idea of, “stuff you’d use to break into a place.”
All’s fair in love and stalls.
[QUOTE=Miller]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, we call them the airplane restrooms (it was an airport, right?) Come on , haven’t you ever heard of the “mile high club”? And who cares about “anonymous”? :dubious: Are we going to legislate Sex only when married?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Yes, we call them the airplane restrooms (it was an airport, right?) Come on , haven’t you ever heard of the “mile high club”?
[/quote]
Really? What’s the code for communicating with a woman you’ve never met - possibly never even seen - that you want to fuck her in the bathroom of an airplane? How do you signal her? Rythmically crumple your bag of peanuts?
Look, they stake out the men’s bathroom, because there are people in there having sex every day. If there were a venue where straight people had public sex with that sort of regularity, they’d probably stake that place out too. But those venues don’t exist. Gay men get prosecuted for this crime disproportionatly because they commit it disproportionatly.
What the hell are you talking about?
I love it. Keith Olbermann played the audio tapes of the cop’s interview at the airport. I couldn’t get Boyo Jim’s links to work, but here’s the start of the transcript: unedited transcript.
In it, the cop kinda loses his patience with Crag’s many lies and calls him on the carpet for them:
Yes, officer, Republican liars are precisely why we’re going down the tubes.
Okay I listened to the police tape and now I’m truly disgusted. He say’s he was just picking paper up off the floor of and airport bathroom floor. :eek:
Bicker, Thanks for your enlightening explanation. Would you say then, there is a fundamental difference in sting operations between something which is inherently illegal, such as selling drugs or soliciting for prostitution, than in this case, which you say would then not be illegal if the sting operator plays along with it?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]
In a case like this, without physical evidence, such as a video of either the cop or the senator, it boils down to a “he said, she said” (OK, a “he said, he said”) argument. Would you feel good taking this to court?
Do vice squads rely on people wanting to keep things quiet in order to win cases, such as this?
Why advantage was there for Craig to make a statement to the police? Do defendants believe they get talk their way out of charges?
Why the hell would anyone in the circumstances make a statement? I would think that the police are going to charge you, and anything you say would just be used against you.
Had he not identified himself as a US senator, would it have been likely to have been found out? If he showed an Idaho drivers license and doesn’t make a statement, would he likely have been found out?
[QUOTE=Miller]
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.
[/QUOTE]
But if he hasn’t purchased it yet and doesn’t have it in his possession, there’s no crime. This guy wasn’t close enough to the cop to “assume” the crime was going to come down. Now…if he got up and entered the stall, that’s a different story. I just don’t see it as a cut and dried deal. If he was anyone but a public official, I think he could have fought this and walked away unscathed. Unfortunately, once he was arrested, his career was shot to hell regardless of his guilt or innocence.
Incidently, I’m glad it happened. He’s a hypocrite and deserves to fall just for that.
[QUOTE=TokyoPlayer]
Bicker, Thanks for your enlightening explanation. Would you say then, there is a fundamental difference in sting operations between something which is inherently illegal, such as selling drugs or soliciting for prostitution, than in this case, which you say would then not be illegal if the sting operator plays along with it?
[/quote]
Yes. Although I should point out that sting operations like this can often produce charges that address something fundamentally illegal, like public lewdness or solicitation of prostitution. Here, the arrest happened without reaching those heights, and the charges they could bring were limited.
Lots of “it depends” factors. The main one would be my guy’s record. If he’s got a previous conviction for public restroom hijinks, then I’d lose any opportunity to go the “Signals? What signals?” defense. (Prior bad acts are not admissible in general at trial, but can be admitted to establish a lack of mistake).
In a case like this, I’d feel great about a trial, because I could keep my guy off the stand entirely and argue, “Even if everything you say is true, which we don’t for a moment concede it is, you haven’t shown a violation.” But I’ve never had to defend a public figure.
Absolutely. I saw this much more in prostitution cases, where the men arrested for solicitation cases were married or otherwise committed and desperate to handle things quietly. Plenty of police tactics would have never survived trial, but they knew that in order to go to trial and win they’ve have to admit to stopping to talk to the woman at the corner. But the same thing applied to the park/mall/department store restroom arrests.
No advantage, and ye gods, yes they do. I could have been the most successful defense attorney since Webster stood up against The Devil if only my clients would have Shut The Fuck Up. Most of my cases involved inculpatory statements made to police by the accused. Most of my traffic stops involved a driver who handed police probable cause on a platter. For some bizarre reason, even people who have been through the system and should know better get diarrhea of the mouth when they’re detained.
Why would you think that? They only TELL YOU THAT the moment custodial interrogation starts! But no… that makes no difference to Chatty Cathy’s ideological kin; they blather.
Possible. Someone may have recognized him. But more likely it would have stayed under the radar. It’s a gamble. Maybe he’s been arrested three or four times before, and the cop said to himself, “Maybe I could do OK with a US Senator owing me a favor,” and tore up his paperwork. It happens, I imagine, although again remember that one thing a public defender DOESN’T see too often is US Congressmen as clients, so this is mere speculation on my part.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Really? What’s the code for communicating with a woman you’ve never met - possibly never even seen - that you want to fuck her in the bathroom of an airplane? How do you signal her? Rythmically crumple your bag of peanuts?
What the hell are you talking about?
[/QUOTE]
Why do we care about a hook up with someone you have never met? Either having sex in public is wrong- with anyone, from your wife of 20 years to your “anonymous” gay partner- or it isn’t.
"Originally Posted by Miller
"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? " Bolding mine. Are those not your words?
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Why do we care about a hook up with someone you have never met? Either having sex in public is wrong- with anyone, from your wife of 20 years to your “anonymous” gay partner- or it isn’t.
"Originally Posted by Miller
"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? " Bolding mine. Are those not your words?
[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding me?
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
And the other stalls were occupied during that time, so (had he fought the case) he could have argued that he was waiting for the stall to open up.
[/quote]
Nope. The cop explicitly reported that there were other stalls open. So Craig’s behavior was pretty damned incriminating. He could not have successfully argued that.
This just in … although Senator Craig is resigning, he is not gay. 