Check out some similar questions!

excon · Sep 2, 2007, 08:47 AM

Hello:

Do you feel that using cops to catch people trolling for consensual sex is a good use of public money?

excon

PS> I'm glad the right wing hypocrite got busted. He WAS entrapped, however.

Dark_crow · Sep 2, 2007, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Do you feel that using cops to catch people trolling for consensual sex is a good use of public money?

excon

PS> I'm glad the right wing hypocrite got busted. He WAS entrapped, however.

Lack of truth is what I find most offensive. Take for instance the case of Craig, and all the other closet cases that are caught with their pants down. THEY LIE. They haven’t the courage to just stand up and say, “I am what I am and I’m not heterosexual”.

I have no quarrel with uniformed cops cruising public bathrooms, especially ones used by minors. I am however against plain clothes cops whose action encourage or entice homosexuals to make a pass, and then arrest them.

I do understand that this is a case of heterosexism: discrimination against homosexual men and lesbians by heterosexuals. It’s a built in prejudice and somewhat understandable, even if it’s unfair and inaccurate to those who are different from this norm.

Choux · Sep 2, 2007, 03:24 PM

He wasn't *entraped*... no way, no how. The cop didn't make him an offer.

Men's public washrooms have to be checked by the police because they are places that children are frequently present, and they are popular places for lewd public sex which is against the law. It is the responsibility of the police to protect the *weaker members* of society. People trolling for sex can simply give "the eye" to another. *I've* seen that!

Wondergirl · Sep 2, 2007, 03:30 PM

I first read your heading as "bathroom cups" and thought, Hmmm, I should add paper cups to my grocery list.

Just like corners with four-way stops, rail crossings, and donut shops, the police check men's washrooms to protect the rest of us from those who break the law.

Dark_crow · Sep 2, 2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Choux

He wasn't *entraped*...no way, no how. The cop didn't make him an offer.

Men's public washrooms have to be checked by the police because they are places that children are frequently present, and they are popular places for lewd public sex which is against the law. It is the responsibility of the police to protect the *weaker members* of society. People trolling for sex can simply give "the eye" to another. *I've* seen that!

I agree; you just don't put your hand into another man's toilet stall.

The officer was acting to dissuade the presence of sexual contact; which in many places is a felony. The Senator was attempting contact, or else why put his hand in another man's toilet stall. There was no entrapment and had he made contact might have been charged with a felony and a requirement to register as a sex offender

Had he wanted a date, the Senator could have asked the officer for coffee or a drink, and broken no law.

Fr_Chuck · Sep 2, 2007, 05:26 PM

Somehow first I have issues with arresting someone for just asking to have sex, but in this case, he waved his hand, and tapped his foot, from what I was reading, did not say he wanted anything.

If that was the entire case, I would say it should have never been an arrest without some verbal requests at least

Dark_crow · Sep 2, 2007, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

somehow first I have issues with arresting someone for just asking to have sex, but in this case, he waved his hand, and tapped his foot, from what I was reading, did not say he wanted anything.

If that was the entire case, I would say it should have never been an arrest without some verbal requests at least

If a man lingered in front of the stall I was in for two minutes and looking through the crack in the door, look down at his hands, ‘fidget’ with his fingers, and then look through the crack into my stall again.

Then enter the stall next to mine and reach into my stall, I would feel very uncomfortable. It would ‘disturb my peace’, and that was all Craig was arrested for.

All else is just a bunch of assumptions; maybe very good assumptions, and as his history reflects, probably accurate assumptions; but nevertheless, theoretically unknown by the officer at the time.

In my opinion, the charge is all that anyone should know about the matter.

Fr_Chuck · Sep 2, 2007, 06:03 PM

Actually I understood he was arrested for the actual requesting sex, but worked a deal on the guilty plea,

Of course a man sitting for long periods in a bathroom not using it, was sort of a sign he was there looking, sounds like entrapment to me.

If we tried to take that little bit of evidence into a court of law where I was a police officer, ( well first the DA would never had let it in) but if we went in front of the judge, we would have gotten sent out of that court house so fast with a lecture from the judge on wasting his time.

BABRAM · Sep 2, 2007, 06:05 PM

It was brought about because of the many Municipal Airport traveler's complaints. It is public restrooms. Along with others, it just so happened that the senator got busted in the lewd act sting operation. In the same sense, as the Internet perverts and pedophiles are busted. Sen. Craig didn't know whom was in the stall next to him. The person turned out to be an adult, an undercover officer. BTW, his wife, needs psychiatric help as well. Poor old women lives in denial.

Bobby

excon · Sep 2, 2007, 06:22 PM

Hello again:

In fact there is a dance going on with a whole lot of communications - making eye contact - choosing a stall close - tapping of the feet - waving of the hand... Why? Well, these guys don't want to get busted, or beaten up or chased out of the men's room. That's why they make certain their signals are received and the other party is willing. Therefore, I suggest he was entrapped.

If a straight man were propositioned in this fashion he'd never even know it. This is consensual sex pure and simple.

excon

excon · Sep 2, 2007, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Men do stuff like this???

Hello Wonderbabe:

Men of this persuasion who want anonymous sex do, yes. As distasteful as it is, I don't see it as a threat to anybody.

excon

Fr_Chuck · Sep 2, 2007, 06:41 PM

Yes if this was not homosexual sex, but merely straight sex, the rules of what an offer and an exchange of money is required in most states.

For unpaid sexual contact, there has to be some lewd behavior to arrest.
If you were in public and was flirting with a person of opposite sex could they have made this arrest.

I would think that gay groups, and ACLU and other groups would be up in arms over this.

Fr_Chuck · Sep 2, 2007, 06:43 PM

Yes excon, I agree, it is distasteful ( not sure the best choice of words)
And even somewhat sick, and I would not want it going on in a bathroom I went into.

But I am just seeing a large double standard and a real push into entrapment.
If this was a drug dealer sitting there, would this be enough to prove he wanted to buy drugs ?

tomder55 · Sep 3, 2007, 01:53 AM

If this was happening in a gay bar then you would go into the establishment with the expectation that you would get propositioned. There is no such expectation in a public men's room nor should there be. I have gone to highway rest stops where holes have been cut through the dividers . It's bad enough you have to spend time cleaning toilets in these places before you use them . But the public should have a reasonable expectation to go into a public rest room and not be solicited .

Craig pled guilty . He did not have to if he was innocent . The cop did not let the sting go to it's logical conclusion. This was conduct unbecoming a US Senator .

Just like getting BJs in the oval office by a young and vulnerable intern is conduct unbecoming a President. Just like getting drunk with a staffer and driving drunk over a bridge killing that staffer is also conduct unbecoming a Senator. And just to show my non-partisan nature... just like being a client to a DC madam is conduct unbecoming a Senator.

CaptainRich · Sep 3, 2007, 05:20 AM

Furthermore, the police didn't make the decision to go into that particular bathroom until enough citizen complaints were filed to justify assembling that operation. All the cop did was sit and wait for the signals he was trained to watch for. The officer didn't deliberately go looking for a senator. That senator went looking for trouble, and trouble found him. He pleaded down and still tried to hide the facts. He got what he deserved.

Dark_crow · Sep 3, 2007, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by CaptainRich

The officer didn't deliberately go looking for a senator.

Can we be certain? It appears that it was known among insiders that he was often having sex in public places. :)

ETWolverine · Sep 4, 2007, 06:57 AM

Excon,

Soliciting for sex from strangers in a public place is harmful to the public.

HAVING sex with strangers in a public place is even more harmful to the public.

And yes, the sex DOES happen in public places like public restrooms at airports and highway rest-stops. That is, in fact, the reason that the cops had been cracking down on the bathrooms at that airport... there had been complaints of lewd behavior in the airport bathroom. Not just solicitation, but the actual sexual activity.

So yes, I think it is a perfectly reasonable use of police resources.

Elliot

excon · Sep 4, 2007, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Soliciting for sex from strangers in a public place is harmful to the public

Hello El:

It is?? Then I guess we should shut down all those public meat markets where people go to solicit sex and get laid.

Oh, oh... Wait a minute... That's HETROSEXUAL stuff. Hetrosexual sex is just fine with you rightwingers... I think, however, you don't like the fact that he's a fag.

excon

ETWolverine · Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello El:

It is??? Then I guess we should shut down all those public meat markets where people go to solicit sex and get laid.

Oh, oh...... Wait a minute....... That's HETROSEXUAL stuff. Hetrosexual sex is just fine with you rightwingers.... I think, however, you don't like the fact that he's a fag.

excon

Nope. If it was up to me, I'd get rid of the meat markets too. I don't think they are particularly good for the public as a whole. But unless there is actual sex taking place there (and sometimes there is in the bathrooms), they aren't doing anything illegal. But if an illegal activity IS taking place there, it should be shut down, regardless of sexual orientation. And that is the key... if it is illegal, it should be shut down, stopped, policed, etc.

Lewd activities in a public bathroom should be policed, whether it is gay sex or straight sex. Or do you disagree with that statement?

Elliot

excon · Sep 4, 2007, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Lewd activities in a public bathroom should be policed, whether it is gay sex or straight sex. Or do you disagree with that statement?

Hello again, El:

Solicitation of sex ISN'T lewd. Lewd is lewd, and I can tell the difference. Maybe that’s what’s wrong with you righty’s.

Tapping toes and waving hands ISN'T lewd. Taking off your pants and shaking your business at somebody is lewd. Indeed, much of what takes place in those bars we mentioned is lewd, and I'm no prude.

If lewd is your thing, have at it.

excon