You rang?
Posted on 09/01/2007 10:40:02 PM PDT by shrinkermd
...That said, what results! In minute, choreographic detail, Mr. Humphreys (who died in 1988) illustrated that various signals — the foot tapping, the hand waving and the body positioning — are all parts of a delicate ritual of call and answer, an elaborate series of codes that require the proper response for the initiator to continue. Put simply, a straight man would be left alone after that first tap or cough or look went unanswered...
... His findings would seem to suggest the implausibility not only of Senator Craig’s denial — that it was all a misunderstanding — but also of the policeman’s assertion that he was a passive participant. If the code was being followed, it is likely that both men would have to have been acting consciously for the signals to continue...
... Clearly, whatever Mr. Craig’s intentions, the police entrapped him. If the police officer hadn’t met his stare, answered that tap or done something overt, there would be no news story...
...In other words, not only did these men have nice families, they had nice families who seemed to believe what the fathers loudly preached about the sanctity of marriage. Mr. Humphreys called this paradox “the breastplate of righteousness.” The more a man had to lose by having a secret life, the more he acquired the trappings of respectability: “His armor has a particularly shiny quality, a refulgence, which tends to blind the audience to certain of his practices. To others in his everyday world, he is not only normal but righteous — an exemplar of good behavior and right thinking...”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You rang?
and more to the point, a national distribution center for AIDS..
No you are not right!
The condition you describe is merely the placement of “bait”. In the common understanding, the placement of bait constitutes a trap, and hence “entrapment”.
As stated, however, legal entrapment has a more stringent definition, well beyond the provision of an enticing target. It’s interesting that according to Wikipedia, the entire concept of entrapment was introduced as a novel defense in an atmosphere of unbridled law enforcement tactics where agents would induce, to the point of coercion, innocent citizens into the performance of illegal acts.
I have always been sympathetic to this defense as a general rule. I remember in the sixties when an FBI infiltrator was alleged to have been the ring leader of a group of anti-war types in suggesting and organizing a raid on the local draft board, even to the point of using federal monies to procure a ladder.
I have also felt that the boundary was approached in the case of Abscam, where phony sheilks offered bribes to senators. ( Recall that Murtha escaped this dragnet only by animal cunning. )
At any rate, whatever one might feel about the moral boundaries, legal practice has long been established to allow cops to set themselves up as decoys for sexual procurement.
Washing your hands is a sign. It’s really just a cover to loiter in the bathroom while the other guy opens the door to his stall.
Would you be willing to convict a man of solititation of prostitution/pandering (or even “disturbing the peace”) for saying nothing but making eye contact with a prostitute or vice squad cop?
Are you technically in your own stall if you use a glory hole (to give or receive a Lewinsky)?
This is the love that dare not speak its name. And there are reasons for that.
Oh, my darling,
knock three times on the ceiling if you want me
Twice on the pipe if the answer is no, oh,
(Knock, knock, knock!) Means you’ll meet me in the hallway
twice on the pipe (clink, clink) means you ain’t gonna show”
Tony Orlando and Dawn 1970
Of course not. Please note that the shoe is on the other foot here. The question is whether a vice squad cop, by making eye contact with a prospective "john", is committing an act of entrapment in the event that the individual is encouraged thereby to make further advances.
The question has also been raised whether all this tapping and hand signaling constitutes a crime. From a realistic point of view, it's conclusive that he is signaling his willingness and desire to engage in sexual acts. From a legal point of view, I think it is discernibly different from the apparent standard we see on TV in COPS, that requires a verbal solicitation.
Evidently, as I say, the procedure is routine and the legal standards have been set. If they were to be realigned in favor of the defendants in these case, you would have to question how these activities could be policed.
What everyone missed is that, Craig, by claiming it was entrappment, was implicitly confirming that he was indeed trying to solicit gay sex.
To be entrapped, you have to be led into something illegal that you wouldn’t otherwise have done, ergo he is admitting that what he was doing was trying to arrange a liaison but it was the officer that initiated it.
Otherwise he would claim his actions were just misinterpreted, and not that he was “entrapped”.
So all the discussions about foot action, placement, movement, etc are moot, he admitted, by claiming entrappment, that he was trying to arrange sex.
And then he has the chutzpah to announce to the nation “I am not Gay, I have never been Gay”.
The bottom line in this NYT article is predictable: Any kind of sex is far less objectionable and dangerous than people who make public statements that any kind of sex is objectionable and dangerous.
***Some highway rest stops are also pretty bad.***
One outside of Little Rock, Arkansas had to be closed because of the homos.
But having the police deal with this problem is not the way to go about it - they have better things to do and they can never be everywhere at once. I say we should employ "flag burning" rules.
This is a free country. If you want to burn the American flag in protest or if you want to tap your foot in a bathroom stall, you are free to do so. But, this being a free country and all, we also are free to react to your behavior. If this results in a few cuts and bruises, hey, you'll heal. And, after a while, maybe you'll choose not to exercise your freedom that way. Freedom, you see, is a two way street -- it's not just you.
This simple solution worked in this country for decades -- until it became not "politically correct" to do so. Now we're forced to have hundreds of laws to govern behavior when common sense and respect for others used to be our guide.
"If it's legal I can do it" is now the refuge of the misfit.
(When I say "you" I don't mean you.)
Right. They just "SEEM" gay....reaching their hands under public bathroom stalls...tapping their feet....and "accidently" touching the guy in the next stall...
Everbody does this don't they? LOL
Since Craig made the first move, that's probably correct.
I say "probably" only because the cop was apparently in the stall for quite a while, leading Craig to believe that he might be there for other reasons. Even then, if the cop had not responded to Craig's foot tap, I'm sure Craig would have left.
Is a simple foot tap (which is ignored) a public nuisance? What about eye contact in a public restroom? A raised eyebrow? Standing "too far" from the urinal? All of these could be considered "signals". If there's no response, there's no further action and there's no nuisance.
Reminds me of an old joke.
If you change one lightbulb they don't call you an electrician. If you fix one leaky faucet they don't call you a plumber.
But if you give one Lewinsky ...
I’m not clear on the concept of ‘sex in public restrooms.’
Do they make contact and then go somewhere private?
Or do they crowd into one stall and go at it?
If the latter, I don’t know how they can expect not to be observed and arrested.
Smile when you thay that!
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.