Posted on 09/04/2007 5:35:49 PM PDT by tsmith130
Tell us about your, “wide stance” too while you are at it.
> RUSH is wrong on the Craig issue and he needs to quit being so dismissive everytime a caller disagrees with him. The irritation in his voice is obvious...he can’t seem to understand that we peons are not buying it.
His show has suffered since he became entrenched with the Republican elite. I really started to notice this during the debacle about the Dubai ports deal...
The cop has/had Dick Cheney's picture above his workdesk. I tried to phone it in to the media last night. The media needs to ck out his office before he hides Cheney's picture. Sgt. Karsnia.
If I ever find myself falsely accused by a toilet cop, I might plead guilty, too. In court it would be my word against the cop's, never a good position for a defendant. My main motivation would be to prevent others from learning that I had been accused, since the accusation alone will tar a person for a lifetime. The more time I spent fighting the charge, the greater the odds that those around me would find out about it. A guilty plea is quick. Since I am not a public figure, the press would probably not be as interested in my case as they were with Craig's. I might be able to pay the fine, and be done with it -- exactly what the cop seemed to offer Craig. Also, a $500 fine is a lot cheaper than the $5,000 - $10,000+ I would probably have to spend fighting the charge in court.
After listening to it, I'm inclined to believe the cop when he says Craig stood in front of his stall looking in. Craig himself said he stood there for a minute or two. The cop said other stalls were empty. Craig did not deny that.
You may be correct, but you may be wrong. That is the problem. The evidence against Craig just is not clear enough for this event to have ruined his life. I have looked in stalls to see if they were occupied, and have made brief eye contact with the occupants through the crack in the door. I seem to recall one shoe-bumping incident. I sometimes tap my feet on the floor. The evidence against Craig is just too ambiguous. There is nothing that clearly proves that he was soliciting gay sex.
If the cops are going to run these sting operations, they should require much better evidence before they can bring charges. There should be video + audio of unambiguous sexual solicitation, or no chargesshould be brought.
Like a lot of men, as a result of the Craig fiasco I will be using public facilities less often. I'm not afraid of the gays, I'm afraid of the cops.
I can appreciate that sentiment. I'm not sure the video solution would work though, the cop would be a lot more obvious than just a hidden mike. The toe tapping would be hard to tape, but the hand signal and any further action would be easier. But that's in general and we have a specific case to judge.
If I ever find myself falsely accused by a toilet cop, I might plead guilty, too.
I find it difficult to image being in that position, but I would certainly not say the things Craig said, arguing about what position my hand was in and plea bargaining on the spot. My family and friends would be the first to know and they would believe my side of the story. Hopefully. But who knows?
There are obvious problems with using such cameras, just as there are obvious problems with permitting a cop's word alone to destroy a man's life. If I have to choose between the two, I'll take the video cam. A ground level camera facing the front of the stall, that cannot record anything above the level of the partition.
To place a hand or foot inside another person's bathroom stall and to make bodily contact with the person in that stall, constitutes disorderly conduct, with or without lewd intent.
In most cases I bet it constitutes accidental conduct that should not be prosecuted.
Even so, I think the USSC has ruled that use of surveillance cameras in places like public toilet stalls, where there is a strong expectation of privacy, is an unconstitutional intrusion on 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.
"In most cases I bet it constitutes accidental conduct that should not be prosecuted."
Good move.
If I were ever detained by an LEO for questioning, my one and only comment would be, "I want to call my lawyer." After that, he could ask any questions he wanted. I wouldn't answer him. In fact, I wouldn't even look at him. I'd look at the floor. Even if he started roughing me up, I'd still look at the floor and say nothing.
No criminal suspect can gain a thing by answering police questions without counsel present.
It might show a distinctive watch or ring, a particular pattern on a shirt or pants or socks, and of course it would have a date imprint that would immediately precede the time of the suspect's arrest.
I think the USSC has ruled that use of surveillance cameras in places like public toilet stalls, where there is a strong expectation of privacy, is an unconstitutional intrusion on 4th Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure.
Then at least require that there is a recorded conversation between the cop and the suspect that contains unambiguous sexual solicitation. No such conversation, no arrest.
Let me know when you win that bet.
Let me know when cops stop lying to get convictions.
"It might show a distinctive watch or ring, a particular pattern on a shirt or pants or socks, and of course it would have a date imprint that would immediately precede the time of the suspect's arrest."
Then there's the question of image quality. Surveillance cams generally don't have resolution sharp enough to pick up fine detail. Also, stalls are usually not well-lit. That's another problem.
Bottom line is that without a clear shot of the suspect's face, a lawyer can successfully challenge that video, IMO.
The question is moot anyway, since the Supreme Court has already ruled that cops can't film people in bathroom stalls.
Whatever the charges, the justification for the stings is that they reduce gay sexual solicitation in bathrooms. The stings are not intended to reduce accidental foot movements into adjacent stalls, or to prosecute men for making brief glances between the door and the stall frame. Craig did not plead guilty to avoid publicity of his foot and eye movements. He pleaded guilty in an attempt to avoid publicity that would lead people to believe that he was soliciting gay sex.
Bottom line is that without a clear shot of the suspect's face, a lawyer can successfully challenge that video, IMO.
OK, then stick with the audio. If there is no audio that confirms an attempt at sexual solicitation (or that confirms interference with privacy, or disorderly conduct) the cop has too much power to extort a guilty plea with a false accusation. I want better evidence before a charge can be brought that can ruin someone's life.
I have been thinking about another aspect of this case. At first it seemed to me that these stings might help prevent solicitation of kids under the age of consent. Maybe I was wrong about that. People in adjacent stalls cannot see each other's faces, so I thought that the guy soliciting sex would not usually know if the adjacent stall contained a 12 year old or a 70 year old. However, Craig knew that Karsnia was an adult before moving into that stall. Maybe that sort of preliminary age confirmation is typical in gay bathroom sex. If so, the conduct is less offensive than I originally thought.
It has also occurred to me that though I am usually no fan of new government mandates, I would be willing to make an exception here. We need public stalls that provide a lot more privacy.
Larry Craig - get back under the bus!
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.