Posted on 08/29/2007 8:11:54 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - A foot-tapping ritual was a common thread in many of the 41 arrests reported during a four-month airport bathroom sting that snared Sen. Larry Craig. An undercover officer would take a seat in a stall. Soon another man would sit in the stall next door and start tapping his foot, perhaps moving it closer to the officer's. The officer would move his foot up and down slowly. The suspect might then extend his hand under the divider between the stalls, sometimes repeatedly. That would be enough to get the man busted.
Airport police reports obtained by The Associated Press gave strikingly similar accounts of the events that led to the 41 arrests officers made for alleged lewd conduct in public restrooms in the main terminal of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport during the May-August sting.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
"Dogging" - coming to a community near you - soon...
Finding out that the guy he was flirting with was a cop must have been a turnoff
Amazing that police have time for this kind of entrapping nonsense, but they are too busy to bother doing paperwork to determine a suspect’s immigration status.
A couple of thoughts that might end up being long. First what if it had been say a 17 year old kid on the other side of the stall?
Second. Free speech is fine, but if you tell someone you are going to beat them to death that is at least making terroristic threats.. at worst assault. If you make contact that is battery. Neither are or should be protected under free speech.
Cruising face to face, seeing your partner is one thing but infringing on someone else’s private space is at least impolite, at worst see above.
Free speech is fine and what our country is about, but our society and most modern civilization has agreements called laws that draw boundaries. Those agreed to restrictions on how, where, and when you can have free speech...or when it is a public nuisance or even hazard are set down as law.
Riding down the street in a neighborhood of dynamite workers blaring your thoughts over a megaphone at 12:00 p.m. is impolite, unfair, and the lack of sleep for the dynamite workers could cause injury or death the next day. It could be hazardous to the workers or nearby public.
Free speech does not apply in all situations and that is why we have laws about making threats, harassment, intimidation, causing a disturbance, etc.
What we agree with or not personally as concerns behaviors, it is a fact that as a society we have agreed to laws that keep things somewhat sane in daily life.
If someone wants to cruise, hit one, pick up, proposition, etc, face to face... another adult... with no coercion... during normal hours is one thing and should be free speech because the other person can say no. But when you do it at the wrong time, in the wrong circumstances, with the wrong tone of intent (want a date or want to die) you step beyond.
Again, what if the person on the other side have been a 17 year old kid? What if he had been a mental handicapped individual? Neither should have been put into the position of having to assert themselves in unfamiliar surroundings to stop the unwelcome or unrequested "advances".
Craig was probably okay until he touched the other person, or intruded in his space (multiple times). Doesn’t a person in society have the individual right to expect privacy while doing his “business”? Otherwise we would have not reason for private stalls in bathrooms and could just “go” outdoors or say in the airport lobby. It benefits both sides to use bathrooms.
Herd animals, cavemen, and early man probably were not quite as immodest as modern man. Most today prefer our societal customs and laws and don’t want to go back to those times.
Most today have the courage, and enjoy approaching someone they are interested in as a potential partner. Most however, would find it sort of creepy to be doing your private “business” in a bathroom stall and have some creep touching you (in your stall—from their stall) or gesturing for you to come out or over to theirs. Particularly if you hadn't yet even seen them face to face.
That is why we have society and why even in even our country (with the acknowledged and agreed right to free speech) the citizens have also agreed on certain limits and behaviors to that right.
Senator Craig has a right to free speech but not under certain (agreed to) circumstances to impose it on another who did not welcome or request it. If Senator Craig wanted to stand in his stall and recite the ten commandments, passages from the Kama Sutra, or the Koran... that is okay and free speech.
However there are certain circumstances where not having completely unrestricted free speech makes for a better society.
Sitting on a toilet, in a bathroom stall, doing your private business is one of those places and times you should have a reasonable expectation not to be touched or otherwise impeded in your "business".
That tends to make a modern society, and that most tend to think that also.
There's a great distance between something being "not random" and being a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, everything that is offensive is not necessarily a crime. I find men hugging and kissing each other in public offensive, but it's not a crime.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has found that the disorderly conduct statute, as it pertains to speech, is unconstitutional. The statute is still used because the Court ruled that it is constitutional if applied only to "fighting words" even though this is not what the statute says. Prostitutes (illegal) in Las Vegas ask if you want to party. Everyone knows what they mean. Is that solicitation of prostitution? The action that Craig was arrested for was basically a means of communication, speech. What he was allegedly communicating was not illegal. The activity that he was allegedly soliciting is not illegal.
Prosecutors usually count on the person arrested for this type of activity to quickly plead to avoid the embarrassment of a trial. They usually do. I have concerns about this type of "sting" operation.
re: Ithaca spin
Well that particular story was from Harvard U. and Cambridge, Mass. But it’s all the same kind of leftist multi-culti pc crap. “ooooh, the police wore gloves when booking some pervs caught having sex in public restrooms, let’s all blame the police for THEIR insensitivity..... oooohhhh, waaaaahhhhh!”
As a straight guy, who avoids public restrooms as much as possible, I can tell you that I have only once or twice entered a stall in an airport with luggage, but that once inside the only place to put it is next to the door.
Those stalls are not as roomy as the king's castle, and there just isn't any other place for luggage unless you want to put it on your lap.
I think it’s time to have generally open toilets so that you are protected from view from the shoulders down and the whole room is exposed to outside view.
With all the many genders which have evolved soon we’ll need 10 or more different toilets for the many “Genders”.
Keep the perverts out, or keep them exposed.
And let’s ventilate them properly.
Indeed! It is good to know this little bit of information. I'd hate to be arrested for lewd behavior because I was unknowingly tapping my foot in the restroom!
Mental note to myself: When taking a dump in a public stall, keep feet firmly planted on the floor AT ALL TIMES!!!
I *think* that if the signals are accepted, they would both move into the same stall. Then they could proceed with....whatever.
when the perpetrator is using a specific “code of conduct” known to be used by gays to solicit sex (as shown by multiple other gay solicitations) then you have pretty good evidence that there is clear intent.
I had no idea that "foot tapping" was a code used by gays until this story broke.
Fortunately, I'm now educated. I wonder what are the other specific "codes of conduct" I need to know about so I don't inadvertently advertise myself as wanting gay sex?
You get an A.
Agreed. At most, you could be convicted of "acting really goofy."
Arrested for what? It’s illegal to tap your toes in a public bathroom?
Yes. That is why the undercover cops wait until a relatively clear offer of money for sex before making an arrest.
Yes, and in our pro-homo society, I can't see governments setting up sting operations to try to entrap perverts. There has to be more to this than we've been told.
Soliciting sex in a public restroom is disgusting. But I’m not so sure the “evidence” the police had would convict someone “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I agree, he should have hired an attorney. A sitting senator does not consult a lawyer for 2 months, pleads guilty, knows that the left is out to get him, but thinks no one will find out. That is dumber than picking up paper off the BR floor.
“ither the sting netted local perverts or the interstate perverts have a web site or something to spread the secret code.”
I would guess these sickos have websites that list where they can go for this kind of sick behavior.
I’m guessing a simple Google search would turn up several choices for the perverts.
Nothing surprises me anymore.
Guess where the GOP is having it's convention next year....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.