Senator Craig: Guilty or Entrapped?

[TromboneAl]

Well, I guess I wouldn't be a good cop, since I can't help but think how it would feel for someone who truly did not intend anything, and simply let his feet slip, only to be arrested.

Quote:

No way this would have ended up with a conviction if it had gone to court...smart lawyer would have cleaned up the mess in no time...problem is, Craig is guilty, knew he was guilty, was hoping to plead out to a lesser charge and then hope the story never came out. It did and he's done.

Or he was innocent, but realized that, because he was a senator, if it went to court he was screwed anyway, no matter what the outcome.

Quote:

How do they have sex when one guy is in one stall and the other guy in another stall?

I don't see a problem here, or any need for shimmying. One of the guys just steps out of his stall and into the other's stall -- either when no one's around, or no one's paying attention.

[bright eyed]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondCor521 I think you mean "how?", not "where?" I would have thought one guy would just go into the other guy's stall, but according to A roundup of questions about U.S. senators and sex in public bathrooms. - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine they also sometimes manage under the stall divider. 2Cor521

you know, i don't think a day goes by on this board where you don't learn at least one new thing

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmerEd No way this would have ended up with a conviction if it had gone to court...smart lawyer would have cleaned up the mess in no time...problem is, Craig is guilty, knew he was guilty, was hoping to plead out to a lesser charge and then hope the story never came out. It did and he's done. He can't explain away a guilty plea, no matter how hard he tries.

What I would have said...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73ss454 I would guess they bring a hole saw.

And a de-burring tool? Ouch!

-ERD50

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum you force gay men into closets with your constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and then you hunt them down once you've locked them behind your partitions. this is shooting fish in a barrel and calling yourselves sportsmen.

I'm not clear on how lack of gay marriage forces gays to have sex in public rest rooms. This type of activity should incense decent gays who have been stigmatized enough. It seems to me that the best thing the gay community could do would be to come out (pun intended) strongly against any lewdness (gay or straight) in public. And, yes, two people ("g8-t" or straight) having sex in the "privacy" of an airport toilet stall is still sex in public.

[Brat]

He may really be bi-sexual.

Frankly, were he my husband I would cease sexual activity and go the my physician to assure I hadn't acquired any stds. On the same day I would go to a domestic relations lawyer and figure out my options.

While Idaho isn't known to be generous to women seeking a divorce I doubt that he will find an 'understanding' domestic relations judge in that venue.

It isn't a matter of not loving him or even 'understanding', it is a matter of preserving the wife's health and marital assets - and that is exactly what I would tell my children.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem I'm not clear on how lack of gay marriage forces gays to have sex in public rest rooms. This type of activity should incense decent gays who have been stigmatized enough. It seems to me that the best thing the gay community could do would be to come out (pun intended) strongly against any lewdness (gay or straight) in public. And, yes, two people ("g8-t" or straight) having sex in the "privacy" of an airport toilet stall is still sex in public.

that isn't what i said and you know it. by gay marriage i meant that gays are not even permitted by str8s to enjoy basic human rights. what i said, if you'd only open your heart enough to listen, is that for at least 100s of years str8s have forced gays to hide their sexuality. so, fine, it has been hidden. congrats. you got just what you wanted. but now want even more. it is not enough that you have forced the hiding. now you are poking your sticks into the hiding places. your witch hunt is relentless.

i am not justifying public sex (though wow did i have fun on a golf course that one time, and in the library stacks at college oh, right, and in that glass elevator at the mall--i was young, what did i know). what i am saying is that were gays to be allowed the same basic human rights that you have gone to war for, that you have sent your children to war for, so that you could enjoy such rights, that when you extend these rights to all humans, when you show that you consider even the lowly gay to be as fully human as you are, that maybe then, after time, once gays have had the opportunity over many years, maybe generations, to develop the same sense of self worth as str8s have enjoyed for 100s of years, that maybe then they will not compelled to hide their sexuality in a smelly stall. ick. cause i gotta tell you though i'm sure it is sacrilege to many here: it's way better on a golf course.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy True, but the difference is, when they hear messages directed at heterosexual activity, they acknowledge that those messages might actually apply to them. Whether they follow through is a whole 'nother thing entirely - As you said, "I am immune" "It won't happen to me" are likely responses. But that is different than " that doesn't apply to me". Subtle distinction yes, but for prevention and health promotion, the distinction results in different needed strategies/messages.

i'm still not sure i understand what you say. are you saying that the message delivers differently depending on your sexual orientation? if i were to say "jumping off this here 1000 foot high bridge will kill a gay person" does the str8 person think "hey, i bet i can jump off that there 1000 foot high bridge and survive"?

[bright eyed]

i'm thinking if you're sticking your front or backside under a stall, w/out mtg the person ever, you're not concerned so much about whether it's safe or not? or is there a flashing of the condom first?

[Moemg]

I have no problem with heterosexual or homosexual sex .What burns me up is when they are politically anti gay and they are homosexual or holier than thou and visiting prostitutes .

[Moemg]

This is an glip from an article about political women who stand by their man

"It's impossible to get inside anyone's marriage and figure out what really goes on," he said. "But if you can't immediately persuade your wife to stand with you, you're finished. How they convince them to stand there before cameras and hot lights and angry questions is impossible to know."



I think it'd take a good chunk of money or a BMW convertble to get me to stand there and I'd still throw his clothes on the lawn afterward .

[NotSoonEnough]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moemg I have no problem with heterosexual or homosexual sex .What burns me up is when they are politically anti gay and they are homosexual or holier than thou and visiting prostitutes .

I have lived in Idaho most of my life (was born here), this is one of those places where one party has had the kind of total control that eventually leads to corruption. Rumors about Larry's sex life have been around for 20+ years, no one really cared as long as he got things done. Still, I have never voted for him, I have voted ABC (Anyone But Craig), always felt that everything he has ever said in public was disingenuous and pandered to the lowest common Republican denominator.

FWIW, I really like our Gov. Butch Otter. He does not do the lock-step pandering and his libertarian bent is a good balance to a legislature that often spends more than they should...used to be that Republicans stood for "less" government, whatever happened to that idea?

[Leonidas]

I’m not sure if this was directed toward me specifically or was just a broadside at a lot of people, but I am going to respond. And I’ll respond publicly because you wrote them publicly and because it is germane to the topic – was Larry Craig righteously busted or entrapped.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum you force gay men into closets with your constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and then you hunt them down once you've locked them behind your partitions. this is shooting fish in a barrel and calling yourselves sportsmen.

I don’t believe we’ve ever met or interacted outside of this forum, so I’m not sure what you are basing that statement on, but it is not accurate. A search of my past post failed to turn up anything remotely dealing with same sex marriages. Just for the record, in 2005 I voted against a state constitutional amendment that prohibited same-sex marriages. I don’t think this is the thread to discuss my opinion on same sex marriages so I won’t go into the details here of why I voted as I did.

As for the second part of the quote above – I’m not sure what you mean. If you think that I ever engaged in some kind of anti-gay oppressive behavior then again you’re wrong.

As for the last part of the sentence it almost reads as if you are justifying people having sex in public places. If that is the case then it is utter nonsense. How can you justify the risk of exposing someone’s young child to seeing people having sex in a public restroom? And if you’re trying to say that gay men are forced to have random anonymous sex in public restrooms and that makes arresting them oppressive I call bullsh*t again. I’ve been undercover in certain gay clubs and hetero swingers bars and I know that there are people out there that like to have random anonymous sex with strangers – and some of them don’t care who sees them. But I also know that there are plenty of straights and gays who condemn the activity. I’m on their side. To me there is a simple solution – go get a room.

Prime example of how this works is a real life scenario. We got a complaint of a club where sex acts were open and blatant. An investigation disclosed that it was truly a private club – new members had to be referred by existing members, they paid expensive dues and the general public was not allowed in nor could any indoor activities be observed from outside, and they did not have a license to sell alcohol. Not something I want to participate in, but no law was being broken and we closed the investigation. Six months later things changed – a membership was awarded at the door to anyone with $20, they were serving booze, and there were still blatant and open sex acts being performed where anyone walking inside could see. So sorry, it’s now a public place and people went to jail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum so gays and str8s are treated the same? i suspect you didn't even buy that while you were typing it.

I’m still wondering when we ever met that you gained so much insight into how I did my job or how I think about things. Are you judging me based on cops you’ve interacted with, or stories other people have told you about their experiences? If that’s the case, then do I get to judge you as a gay man based on my experiences with different people halfway across the country who happen to be gay also? Do I get to climb inside your head and know what you’re thinking based on stories that someone has related to me about their experiences with gays?

If you were painting with a wide brush because of the actions of other people that had/have the same occupation, I would have to wonder what category you would place all the gay and lesbian cops that I know. Are they being oppressive when they arrest a gay man for breaking the law? Ultimately I would have to reiterate that you don’t know me and have no basis in fact for making that kind of statement about me – other than what I contribute in this forum.

Now, if you’re judging me on something that I’ve written here – please point me to the place where I wrote anything that sounds like the words you put in my mouth. The only thing I see remotely like what you said was maybe the “fish in a barrel” part. I did write about it being easy to arrest men who want to blatantly break the law by engaging in sex in public restrooms. In my career I also found it real easy to catch people who couldn’t obey the posted speed limit – I fail to see where either is oppressive, or morally/ethically suspect.

There was a gay activist that I used to speak with three to four times a week. It was a working relationship because he was a point of contact for much of the gay community and they paid him consulting fees to smooth out problems with the police department. It was beneficial for me because smoothing out problems without involving the media and/or elected officials made life much easier. If there was ever a gay man who had the right to hate cops it was this guy, and he had spent a lot of his life proving how much he hated them –and he had paid a price many times over. But times changed and so did the police department and he found that along with the advent of gay public officials and gay cops that attitudes had genuinely changed and he got a much better reception than ever before - he didn't have to be confrontational even though he was still capable of it. We didn’t always agree, but it was always civil and practical. Until one day when he called me and halfway through the conversation he just went off on me – accusing me of some pretty terrible things. I was shocked into silence and when he started to slow down a little I realized what he was talking about.

Quote:

“Are you talking about something that happened in 1972? What the hell Ray, I was in the 7th grade in 1972. What does any of this have to do with me? If I did something wrong, or offended you somehow, let me know and I’ll try and make it right. But I don’t think I’m responsible for anything that someone else did to you in a different time or place. In fact, I’m pretty damn sure that the devils from your past that are tormenting you have nothing to do with me. Go find those people who did you wrong and do whatever you feel justified in doing and let’s you and me deal with the things that involve us.”

[dumpster56]

FWIW, I really like our Gov. Butch Otter. He does not do the lock-step pandering and his libertarian bent is a good balance to a legislature that often spends more than they should...used to be that Republicans stood for "less" government, whatever happened to that idea?[/quote]

What happened was the republican party got in bed with the christian coalition. That theological bent that has made the republicans want to use the government to bash anyone who really does not believe. Kinda scary, think taliban.

[toofrugalformycat]

Craig is a member of the party that led us into the Iraq quagmire, is warehousing political prisoners without trial at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, has run our country into serious debt, giving our money away to chummy incompetents in no-bid contracts, the list goes on and on, and I'm supposed to be upset that he played footsie in a men's room with no children present?
He's a mere distraction to keep us from paying attention to what's really important. Heck, maybe he volunteered as a party loyal just to keep the important stuff lower down on the page.

[Zipper]

This guy should be toast.

The religious nutbags, the "Crawford Chimp" included, who talk to god, are pathetic.

If you run for office in Canada or Europe and you wear your religion on your sleeve you are considered a major nutbag.

0% chance elected.

In the USA you have to be a nutbag or a neonutbag to even have a chance at elected office.

The "Red State Update" really sums up you guys down there.

Michigan, Illinois, and NY impressed me but I was truly disillusioned by my neighbour Ohio voting for Bush.

Why on earth did you vote for such a pathetic idiot!

[Khan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zipper This guy should be toast. The religious nutbags, the "Crawford Chimp", included who talk to god, are pathetic. If you run for office in Canada or Europe and you wear your religion on your sleeve you are considered a major nutbag. 0% chance elected. In the USA you have to be a nutbag or a neonutbag to even have a chance at elected office. The "Red State Update" really sums up you guys down there. Michigan, Illinois, and NY impressed me but I was truly disillusioned by my neighbour Ohio voting for Bush. Why on earth did you vote for such a pathetic idiot!

Judging by my blue-collar neighborhood, I don't think we did.

[dumpster56]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zipper This guy should be toast. The religious nutbags, the "Crawford Chimp", included who talk to god, are pathetic. If you run for office in Canada or Europe and you wear your religion on your sleeve you are considered a major nutbag. 0% chance elected. In the USA you have to be a nutbag or a neonutbag to even have a chance at elected office. The "Red State Update" really sums up you guys down there. Michigan, Illinois, and NY impressed me but I was truly disillusioned by my neighbour Ohio voting for Bush. Why on earth did you vote for such a pathetic idiot!

Don't go there about religion and how in europe they would be run out of the country. The religios nuts here in america are well your neighbors. Sorry but I am keeping to myself these days.

[NotSoonEnough]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newguy888 Sorry but I am keeping to myself these days.

Ugh! Don't remind me, after the last election I don't discuss politics with my neighbors. Seriously, the last election has me wanting to sell the house and move further out in the sticks...

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazygood4nothinbum . . .it is not enough that you have forced the hiding. now you are poking your sticks into the hiding places. your witch hunt is relentless. . . . . . what i am saying is that were gays to be allowed the same basic human rights that you have gone to war for, that you have sent your children to war for, so that you could enjoy such rights, that when you extend these rights to all humans, when you show that you consider even the lowly gay to be as fully human as you are, that maybe then, after time, once gays have had the opportunity over many years, maybe generations, to develop the same sense of self worth as str8s have enjoyed for 100s of years, that maybe then they will not compelled to hide their sexuality in a smelly stall.

The problem is when people (either gay or straight) don't "hide their sexuality" enough. Having sex (or soliciting sex) in a public restroom is the exact opposite of "hiding your sexuality" and that's why Craig was arrested.

Gays who are interested in having society in general accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships, especially regarding things like marriage, probably realize that gay men having sex in public restrooms (or in the library stacks) hurts their cause. Or maybe some of them are so interested in being seen as victims that they don't really know how to move their agenda forward in a rational way.