So ... if Larry Craig gets his guilty plea overturned, the prosecutor sez he'll reinstate ..........

....... the original charge that was dropped .... violation of privacy, to wit: peering into an occupied toilet stall for several minutes. (<----- as reported on tonight's Olbermann show)

Larry ...... let it rest, buddy.

Now repeat after me: "I Resign".

who have the attention span of a gnat, that the repukes' "family values" are now in the toilet.

about this attempt - I don't think he'll gain anything from a trial that goes into great detail about this.

to him, if he gets this conviction/guilty plea overturned it will prove to...... HIM.... that he's not Gay.

It's that simple. He's got this denial thing and in his mind this conviction stands in his way of further denial.

trouble!

Anyhoo....how many people get to take back a guilty plea that they made weeks after an arrest?

ROFL

However, I feel like talking today.

It was a bum rap. Not that he wasn't guilty, but they could have never received a conviction on that charge.

Now, mind you, it's not that I don't revel in his demise. I just prefer the justice system to work as it was designed.

He went the route he did because of the publicity involving a trial.

But this guy has enemies. Probably from within his own party. Leaks like this don't happen if you are protected.

First of all, if I as a straight male, allowed another man to pear into my stall for a protracted period of time without verbally addressing him and telling him to stop, (in some fashion) then I feel I would have encouraged his resulting actions.

If it were a minor, thats another matter, but I think he was entrapped in some small manner by the officer not trying at least once to discourage the advance.

It is not illegal to be bi/gay, at least not yet. If I were in a unisex bathroom, this is not the approach I would take to engage a female, but other more aggressive men would. If that happened, the woman being looked in on would say something instead of letting it progress if she did not want it to.

Whether you "allow" him to peer or not, he has violated your right to privacy. There is no right to do so in the process of screening for willing partners.

using stools with no doors gives one a different perspective on the expectation of privacy.

But I will put it to you to tell me, if a person was peering at you through a stall slot for two minutes would you just sit there and say nothing, I know I wouldn't.

already broken the law and violated my privacy.

I don't think the constitution covers the inherent right to privacy in a publicly financed facility.

Or did you not bother noting those?

Craig was charged under MSS 609.72, subd. 1(3) & 609.746 subd 1(c).

under the first:
"subd. 1: 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."


under the second:

"(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."

How much privacy are you guaranteed in a public toilet surrounded by those shoddily constructed partitions?.....the partitions with a half inch gap between the door and the frame? Is it "peeping" if all you have to do is stare straight ahead without averting your eyes?

We can probably all agree that pressing your eye to the gap or standing on the neighboring toilet to peer over is "peeping"......but, is standing two or three feet back while "waiting for a stall to open" considered peeping?

I assume his attorney will attack that "reasonable" person clause as it pertains to time standing and waiting, in a busy airport bathroom, for a stall to open up.

The police report doesn't mention HOW close Craig was to the door - it only mentions that the cop could see his blue eyes. All we know is that they made eye contact.

And I think you're on track with the "pressing your eye" observation. I assume that is precisely why the officer noted that he could see Craig's eye color.

.... I believe the stall ultimately occupied by Mr. Wide Stance was empty from the time of his entry to the ti me he occupied it? If that's the case, then he had no reason whatever to be looking into the other stalls.

I'm never going to Minnesota, you could violate subd. 1: with a load fart on the sidewalk. And (3) happens every Sunday in church across this nation.

As far as the (c) part goes, the places listed here are not public, but the spirit of the law is clear. Like I said, I'm used to people walking by while I'm on the shitter, and I wouldn't be offended if that person was gay and cruising for me, I would just tell them to go beat of to to internet porn and let me take a shit. I can see the conduct described as being offensive at the level of gross misdemeanor if it involved surreptitious or intimidating tactics.

What a sanitized would we live in, well, I guess when you hire people to make laws against everything, they'll do what you paid them to do.

liberty to violate the privacy of others.

some are more sensitive about their bodies than others, and that actions like these do offend some and are outrageous.

The more I think about this whole thing, maybe there is an angle that does piss me off about his behavior more than any other. He tried to use his authority as a United States Senator to avoid prosecution, for a misdemeanor no less, that he would no doubt strongly support in public for political purposes.

For this simple reason I see his actions as a reason to distrust all Government claims to privacy in any of their endeavors. There is nothing I hate more than hypocrisy.

eom

bathroom, do I have the right to smoke a joint in private?

No judge would dare agree with either scenario, but how does the fact that one resides in public housing remove the publics right to know what goes on in a facility they own? The Government can declare the need for privacy in their buildings due to national security, I don't think the founder's would disagree with that notion, but the entire concept of public housing was against their belief, as the requirements for apportionment of taxes shows clearly.

The sixteenth amendment not only did away with the rights of the people to have their tax dollars spent evenly for the benefit of all, it also opened the door to the conflicting situation you have described, as well as having taxes siphoned off into pet projects for the rich.

That said, I do believe the needy should have both public housing and fourth amendment rights, but the laws to establish them have not been made clear to my knowledge. Until someone has those rights violated and can sue with standing, there will be no need for a law to establish them.

Hey, gotta light.:smoke:

So what difference does it make if it's in private or not?

not unlike a team of football players showering in the same room.

no one pushed him during that 3 weeks....All police reports are public records..you can go down to your local police department and pull reports for the previous day...the story was actually reported (as usual) before the MSM grabbed it.....

So what pressure was he really under...if he didn't do it then he should have fought it...and plead not guilty. He is a Senator he should be familiar with the laws shouldn't he.

The MN police have arrested numerous men in the bathrooms for the same activity.

If Craig was cohearsed or trapped then we should change the law in all States that Police cannot arrest Johns cruising prosititutes on any town avenue...

He flashed his Senate Business Card for a reason...for intimidation of the cop.

It's time for Americans to demand that people take responsiblity for their own actions.

They don't bring tribunals into airport bathrooms. At least not yet.

I don't think it was your regular police report, as it was a sting in an airport. Probably Feds or Airport Police.

I didn't hear that he offered money for a hummer anywhere. So that is why he wasn't charged with solicitation.

So what, he flashed the fact that he was a senator, BFD. I would have done the same thing. Not. Against. The Law.

It is your right to ASK that people take responsibility for their actions.

Really. I don't even know if he broke any laws at all.

I just think that their are bigger fish to fry.

Methinks they're more upset at the notion that Craig may be gay.

then there are plenty of Repukes on the hill to be angry with.

He pissed someone off. He was targeted.

Why is it people like Hastert, and Graham walk the halls un-fingered???

Things to ask yourself.

I find that intriguing.

KO also mentioned the five week delay between the arrest and Craig's plea. It was NOT a hasty decision made in a panic. Just look at the dates on the documents.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1741356

Faceless oral sex (you may know this as "a blowjob") UNDER THE FREAKING PARTITION BETWEEN THE STALLS!

I am limber but I couldn't even pull that off.

Both people would basically have to get right down on the floor.

In an airport mens room.

A guy I know was filling me in on all the wonderful details of sex in public restrooms.

You know, I am a pretty uninhibited person and have done all kinds of stuff, but close proximity to the floor of an airport stall would probably not add much eroticism to the moment.

eom

for the more he is prancing around saying he didn't do it the more people are noticing his extraordinary bathroom activity.

from their own failings.

And they know where this will end eventually.

to this man, that he's fighting this hard to stay in the Senate? He's been in Congress forever, and yet it's not enough for him. Term limits would be helpful.

People who live a lie are not about to all of sudden start busting out with the truth. He's got to keep the lie up, so he'll play it all the way out. To go quietly would be to admit the truth, and he's not capable of doing that.

I think he's fighting for his name now more than for his job. I wouldn't be surprised if he beat the rap, and then retired.

why should he be allowed if the case has already concluded? Seriously would any one of us be allowed to revisit a charge and change things to make us look better after the fact?

I know Larry Craig is a hypocrite but I gotta defend him here. I don't like this authoritarian garbage. Basically the cop is saying that he will put more charges on Larry Craig if he defends himself. WTF? So the cop is punishing Larry Craig for defending himself. Why do we let cops get away with this garbage? Why should citizens get punishments for defending themselves? This isn't just about Larry Craig, but its about the entire system. I know I'm in the minority, but I hope Larry Craig appeals anyways and gets found non guilty. (which probably won't happen they probably wont even let him reinstate a plea) I also hope Larry Craig realises the errors of his ways and respects gay right. (LOL like thats gonna happen. But lets face it, they don't have enough evidence to convict him "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's not much different than the parties to a civil suit settling prior to a trial or a defendant in a criminal case pleading to a lesser crime in the midst of a trial to avoid a jury verdict which can be more punitive...

I'll bet Craig will think twice before he stares at somebody on the crapper for two minutes...

This "cruising" thing is incredibly creepy. But it seems from the transcript of the cop interview, the reason he pled guilty was because the cop promised him this case would remain private if he did so. I just don't like how our justice system seems to be more about backroom deals and threats of bigger punishments in exchange for guilty pleas (which may be true or not) instead of actual justice. This guilty plea seems more like a backroom deal to keep this situation private than actual justice.

the power to do that.

If Craig believed taking the plea would keep the story quiet, that was a gamble he took, and one he lost on.

He is certainly free to TRY to change his plea and go back to square one - but in doing so the state is also back at square one.

Everyone should get the same justice. But it appears that Larry Craig made his plea because the cop told him if he did it, this charge would stay out of the press. I assume thats why he pled guilty, because I know they couldn't have proven him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with their flimsy evidence. I can see a good reasoning for him to withdraw his plea.

The senator had every incentive to lie...The cop didn't... To the cop Craig was just another troll...

No witnesses, no video tape or recordings of him admitting it. Its just the cops word versus a senator's word. And I would think a Senator's word would carry a ton a weight in court. I cannot see how they could of convicted him if he plead non guilty, and thats why I think the Senator plead guilty just to keep this private.

And even though the rules of evidence prohibit Criag's history from coming in I assure you just about every juror would be aware of it... Throw in the fact that most D A offices have conviction rates in 90's my money is on the prosecution...

Craig was not an innocent man...

But I'm just saying I don't think they had enough evidence to convict. About the eye color, he could have seen his eyes later and and then talked about it on the tape. Again, the cop has no proof this isn't what happened. I'm not saying this it what happened infact this probably didn't happen, Because I think Larry did approach the cop considering the rumours of him doing it before. But its the cops responsibility to prove he didn't lie, not Larry's. But I just think If he wanted to defend himself, he could hire a great attorney and gotten off because of the severe lack of evidence. Remember they have to convict "beyond a reasonable doubt." Yeah the cops may have a high conviction rate, but not every man they capture is a multi millionaire Senator. So it seems to me the reason Larry Craig plead guilty was because the cop promised him he wouldn't go to the press in the interview (which he must not have done considering it took months to leak.)

The trial would be on COURT-TV and if he's still in the Senate it would be on all the cable news channels... It might be the trial of the new millenium...

I just think in a he-said , he said situation the defendant better have a better defense than the cop's lying... You would need evidence from the cop's background that he made "bad arrests" to impeach his testimomy...

And I don't see him getting a do-over...Every person who ever plead to a charge and changed his or her mind could ask for a do-over and block the courts up...

I just don't like these backroom deals cops and prosecutors do. Because of it, many innocent people plead guilty to try and not get a huge sentence. Even though Larry Craig probably did what he was accused and hes a hypocrit, I can't change my opinion on the idea because I don't like the guy who is accused. I believe our justice system would be a lot better off if these backroom deals ended.

he can only say what HE will do.

If Craig's plea rested on the story staying quiet, that was his own stupidity.

were arrested before Craig...in a sting operation that had been ongoing since May. Do they get to change their plea's? Do they have enough to pay for good lawyers to make an attempt as Craig is doing?

All of it, from anonymous bathroom sex to the fallout from the arrest/plea, are all about sexual compulsion, denial, ego and id.

One doesn't carefully weigh the risk/benefit equation of "Hmm should I put 20 thousand dollars into a mutual fund today, or perhaps go suck off some random dude I never met at the airport bathroom? I think I'll choose option B." It's not that kind of rational decision making process.

Likewise, the current situation is one of a lifetime of denial and a false facade of being the straight, white, Christian, Republican, grandfatherly champion of fambly values from the Spud State having crumbled away and the pathetic old closeted queen underneath revealed. Even though this cannot be undone, Craig has obviously built up some kind of psychological defenses that tell him that as long as he's a U.S. Senator, that the facade is still true and that maybe others will believe it. Or that if he can erase the stain of that conviction, the truth of the facade will be evident to himself and others once again. It doesn't make any sense, but neither does Craig's whole life leading up to this moment.

Unfortunately it will never end for the guy, I suspect. It will be much worse for him once the court denies his motion and he leaves his seat, becoming an disgraced, unemployed FORMER right wing Republcan Senator, alone with his thoughts.

I'm guessing this guy will be a high suicide risk once the noise and fury of September is over for him.