Posted on 09/01/2007 10:40:02 PM PDT by shrinkermd
When the mob uses a euphomism for kill, murder, or “whack”, the police must show beyond a reasonable doubt that this is what was being referred to. The situation here was one of non-verbal communication so obscure that no one seated on a jury panel would be familiar with the supposed communcation signs (or admit to it).
Wearing an earring on your left ear means you are queer. Or was that the right ear? Or was that different for England than it was the US?
And there are some homosexual “signs” like wearing a bandana in your back pocket (which among earlier generations had been an oil rag for those working as a mechanic). The exact position of which itself was a solicitation for different sexual services. Much like those jelly plastic wristbands of the 1990s that kids wore to school.
Do you believe that a prosecution could show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Then you’d better pray that none of your offspring are ever arrested for adopting the latest fashion trend only to be told that they were soliticing sex for money.
Wouldn’t Senator Craig have to explicitly state that the sex act would be done IN the bathroom or to expose himself to the officer (as George Michael did)?
Does this mean that walking into a bar and asking a woman if she wants to f***, s****, or perform a Lewinsky is now criminal? What makes the implication that the act WOULD be performed there? And how does that implication extend to “beyond a reasonable doubt”? A civil case requires 51% proof. This is a criminal charge (where the burden of proof is tougher), no?
None of this is to say that he wasn’t trying to pick up on the guy, and it is extremely distasteful and IS sexual harassment.
Know too that it would be considered a “hate crime” which you could be prosecuted for in many parts of this country if you took offense to his flirting in the bathroom and called him a “damned f****t” or worse beat him up for the offense to your character. Some might think a violent response to be harsh to such a gesture but when the perp already knows you are “alone”, it doesn’t take much more to extend into an act of rape. And a person shouldn’t have to wait for pants to be dropped to defend himself.
If I discussed a plan to rob a bank for instance, but never do so is that a crime? No
“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?”
I’m not who you wrote to, but no.
I’d do it, though, if the man invaded my stall space.
It wasn’t a simple foot tap.
Well I am going to continue to wash my hands, but I just might do it faster.
I used to date a girl in Galveston ( back in the 60's) whose brothers would go down to the Seawall public bathrooms on Sat. nights to beat up queers and steal their money. They alway seem to know one from another. I assumed it was because most of them drove Corvettes. I asked them "Aren't you afraid of getting caught"? They said the queers would never turn them in because the cops were on their side. The cops would patrol the bathrooms and do the same thing.
There are several things that bother me about this. First of all, this is not prostitution. It’s two consenting adults and no money exchange. Second, how can we be absolutely certain that tapping his toe was meant as a request for sex? Also, even if it was a request for sex, how do we know it was a request for sex right here and now in this public place?
Is it illegal for two gay men to “pick eachother up” in a public restroom and then go to one of the men’s home or motel room for sex?
Strange...A little song called SPRINGTIME FOR HITLER comes to mind.
It was a simple foot tap. If the cop ignored it, Craig would have left. In my opinion.
BUT, when the cop (according to his statement) responded with slow tap of his own foot, Craig went further, touching his foot to the cop's foot and passing his hand under the stall.
It went beyond a simple foot tap only because he cop encouraged Craig. Of course, that's why the cop was there to begin with.
I guess then that Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor would be in trouble today.
Standing at the urinal and tapping out singing in the rain would be a no, no I guess.
And there have been instances where a felony conspiracy charge was levied against someone for conspiring to commit a misdemeanor.
Oh Crap! (pun intended). I've been coming on to every dude in Wal-Mart these past few months! (Those damn dispensers spin like gyros.)
Explanation: I work the graveyard shift there, and Mother Nature hits me about 6 a.m. every day.
What the cops did with Craig is no different then what the cops do when they dress up an undercover cop to look like a vagrant to attract street criminals. Nobody, except the criminal of course, cries when the crook is then arrested. If that is entrapment, then I am all for it. Because someone dangles a big wad of money in a storefront window does not give me the right to try to steal it.
“BUT, when the cop (according to his statement) responded with slow tap of his own foot, Craig went further, touching his foot to the cop’s foot and passing his hand under the stall.”
That’s where he went beyond a “simple foot tap.”
That, and hovering right outside the front door for a couple of minutes. (I’ve waited for many a stall. I never stand right in front of it).
That, and handing over his business card.
Mr. Humphreys apparently never considered his father's public restroom activities as harmful to his own life, in which he became a homosexual activist, leaving his wife and children for a male graduate student.
His PhD dissertation was based on interviews, some of which were elicited under false pretense, with some of the hundreds of men for whom he had acted as 'watchqueen'.
Amazingly, he apparently doesn't regard STD transmission as a harmful effect.
(http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/humphreys_l.html)
Well, yeah. Now he's sticking his foot in the other guy's stall. Now he's touching the other guys foot. Now he's reaching into the other guy's stall. Now he's a public nuisance.
But who's responsible for that? Didn't the cop encourage him with his response to the foot tap?
Look at what I posted in context. I said, "Is a simple foot tap (which is ignored) a public nuisance?" My point is that Craig would have left if the cop didn't encourage him.
Contrast this to a prostitution sting where the cops conduct the sting because women who live in the neighborhood are being approched by men looking for sex, thinking they're prostitutes. The approaches are lewd, vulgar, intimidating and scary.
Say what you will, a toe tap ain't none of these.
Sounds like conspiracy to rob a bank to me.
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.