At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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 sorta 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.
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.
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.
Linear Mode
