Craig attorneys say no crime occurred

Minneapolis Star and Tribune ^ | 26 September 2007 | Rochelle Olson,

[shrinkermd]

Sen. Larry Craig's actions an airport bathroom stall in June didn't constitute a crime and he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, Craig's lawyer argued today. In a 45-minute hearing covered by a crowd of local and national media, William Martin faced skeptical questioning from Hennepin County District Court Judge Charles Porter, Jr. Porter said he doesn't expect to rule on Craig's petition for at least a week and a half.

"Seeking to have a guilty plea overturned is nearly impossible and it should be," Martin acknowledged during the hearing. But he also argued that Craig's plea was not voluntary, intelligent or accurate.

He said that Craig's behavior at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport -- tapping and bumping his foot, sliding his hand under the bathroom stall and peeking into a stall -- does not equal disorderly conduct.

Martin said, "Craig vehemently denied committing or attempting to commit any crime."

Judge Porter countered that the disorderly conduct statute is intentionally broad and is intended to catch behavior that makes other people uncomfortable. Porter peppered Martin with a series of questions.

Metropolitan Airports Commission prosecutor Christopher Renz argued that Craig's attempt to withdraw his plea was flawed because it was filed too late and that he committed the crime by engaging in "a series of invasions into the stall space next to him."

[Bonaparte]

That would be consistent with Craig’s inconsistency. But whatever he does, one thing is for sure. He will never go away. Narcissists never do.

[shrinkermd]

Because none of them are facts. To have a "homosexual crime" like any other crime, you must have both the act and the intent. Senator Craig has denied the intent.

You want him guilty. What for? On what basis? Simply because he agreed to a lesser charge? Note the following article that explains part of the problem: HERE.

Like many people who cannot hold a rational, civil argument you rely on ad hominems and innuendo to massage your preconceptions.

"...Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport and the law firm it hired to prosecute the cases, said Craig was the only man charged with two offenses because he had peered into the police officer's stall and had used unspoken signals - foot tapping and hand motions - known as ways to solicit restroom sex. Craig, who insists he is not gay, said the arresting officer misinterpreted his actions.

Craig was one of 20 men charged with interference with privacy, a gross misdemeanor; the penalty is up to a year in jail. But the defense lawyers said the law, adopted two years ago in response to cases involving hidden cameras in girls' rooms, had never been used in a sex sting operation.

[shrinkermd]

See post 62. Attorneys have previously indicated there were up to 40 with some not accepting a guilty plea. I have no source except for the 20 given.

This case, and others like it are not going away. Ad hominem attacks aside, the only real accusation worth merit is Senator Craig's cowardly plea bargain hoping to remain anonymous.

[Bonaparte]

Not a chance.

MSS 609.746(c)(1).

It's clear that Craig did not cop a plea to this statute.

Now will you please direct me to your source? Where did you read that 40 or 50 others who were arrested during that bathroom sting were charged with MSS 609.746 (interference with privacy) and where did you read that they are taking it to trial rather than plea?

[Bonaparte]

Not a chance.

MSS 609.746(c)(1).

It's clear that Craig did not cop a plea to this statute.

Now will you please direct me to your source? Where did you read that 40 or 50 others who were arrested during that bathroom sting were charged with MSS 609.746 (interference with privacy) and where did you read that they are taking it to trial rather than plea?

[shrinkermd]

See 62. That is published in the paper.

[Bonaparte]

Ok. So “up to 40” has now come down to “some of the 40.” In my understanding, “some of the 40” would mean the same as “at least two.” I don’t even see any evidence of that many going to trial. Where is the evidence that at least 2 of these perverts are fighting this in a court trial?

[SmoothTalker]

Saying he did something is a confession in my book.

[shrinkermd]

"For a discussion of how the Kinsey data came to be widely understood as supporting the ten percent figure, see Voeller (1990). Support for the ten percent figure was also provided by Paul Gebhard (director of the Kinsey Institute) in a 1977 memo to the National Gay Task Force.

All surveys are likely to underestimate the actual prevalence of homosexuality because, fearing discrimination and stigma, many gay respondents are reluctant to tell a stranger (even anonymously) that they are homosexual (e.g., Villarroel et al., 2006). Recognizing this limitation, most research with probability samples suggests that at least 3-6% of the US adult male population is homosexual, with somewhat fewer females (Fay, Turner, Klassen, & Gagnon, 1989; Hatfield, 1989; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Lever & Kanouse, 1996; Rogers & Turner, 1991).

The source is: HERE

The above figures are problematical. It all depends upon the homosexual acts included-fellatio, fondling, sodomy, mutual masturbation and so forth. Some more restrictive definitions get a point prevalence of 2% while others get 6%. 4% is what is usually used.

If you are interested all you need do is Google "Incidence of male homosexuality" and you can read for hours.

[Wolfie]

Soooo.........does this mean ALL others caught in this sting did nothing wrong either?

No, those guys are filthy fags.

[Bonaparte]

Did you even bother to read the statute itself? I linked you to it. I even spelled out the applicable section (c)(1) for you. The statute clearly was intended to combat more than just the example these lawyers have referred to. I know that because I can read and I don’t swallow everything some lawyer says in the newspaper.

[Cementjungle]

He has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion on what others think he wanted to do rather than what he actually did.

While any act of open or overt "gayness" in today's society would be considered a virtue had he been a Democrat, he did plead guilty to something. The fact that he can't make his mind up on this makes me question his competence as a lawmaker.

[shrinkermd]

The statute you listed regarding “privacy” was written to protect girls from being photographed in the bathroom. The first use of this for a “homosexual hunt” was done by the Airport Police. I have read the statute. If you think he did this, you have to ask yourself how come you are so sure?

There is a dispute here that will be resolved in one and one half weeks.

[Bonaparte]

Holy mother of mexico! You actually take as your authority for homo prevalence, a source that rates Kinsey’s nonsense as credible? The “study” published by that lying homosexual pedophile was thoroughly discredited many years ago.

[Bonaparte]

"... was written to protect girls..."

Wrong. It was written to protect anybody. That's made abundantly clear in the statute itself, specifically in (c)(1). Your continued blindness to this self-evident fact suggests that you are probably the least objective voice in this discussion.

[shrinkermd]

609.746, Minnesota Statutes 2006 was written to protect girls and women. The language is clear. That the Airport Police used this in their “hunt for homosexuals” is not buttressed as far as I can determine by any other police power.

Bet the next session of the Minnesota Legislature will revise this such that it cannot be used as was used in this case.

[wideminded]

“The Senators and Representatives ... shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same;” - U.S Constitution, Article I, Section 6

[Bonaparte]

"609.746, Minnesota Statutes 2006 was written to protect girls and women. The language is clear."
___________________________________________________________

I have reproduced MSS 609.746 in its entirety below.

This is your golden opportunity to show me where this statute says that its provisions are applicable only to victims who are female.

I have linked you to this statute and now I have copied it directly to this thread.

Show me where it says what you claim.

Legislature Home | Links to the World | Help | Advanced Search

House  |   Senate  |   Joint Departments and Commissions  |   Bill Search and Status  |   Statutes, Laws, and Rules 

Minnesota Statutes Table of Chapters           Chapter 609 Table of Contents

609.746, Minnesota Statutes 2006

Copyright © 2006 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.

609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY.
    Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of
a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or
place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the
household.
(b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording,
amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house
or place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the
household.
(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping
room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place
where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to
expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering
the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.
(d) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording,
amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a sleeping
room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place
where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to
expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering
the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.
(e) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, if the person:
(1) violates this subdivision after a previous conviction under this subdivision or section
609.749; or
(2) violates this subdivision against a minor under the age of 18, knowing or having reason
to know that the minor is present.
(f) Paragraphs (b) and (d) do not apply to law enforcement officers or corrections
investigators, or to those acting under their direction, while engaged in the performance of their
lawful duties. Paragraphs (c) and (d) do not apply to conduct in: (1) a medical facility; or (2) a
commercial establishment if the owner of the establishment has posted conspicuous signs warning
that the premises are under surveillance by the owner or the owner's employees.
    Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1993 c 326 art 2 s 34]
    Subd. 3.[Repealed, 1993 c 326 art 2 s 34]
History: 1979 c 258 s 19; 1987 c 307 s 4; 1989 c 261 s 6; 1992 c 571 art 6 s 14; 1994 c 636
art 2 s 47; 1995 c 226 art 2 s 22; 1997 c 239 art 5 s 11; 2005 c 136 art 17 s 43

[Bonaparte]

Great questions in your post 47.

I doubt you're going to get any "straight" answers though.

[Lijahsbubbe]

Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Here’s the definition.

Disorderly Conduct:
A broad term describing conduct that disturbs the peace or endangers the morals, health, or safety of a community.

BTW, the cop NEVER told Craig that he’d remain anonymous, or he’d be suing the cop for that right now, since there’s a transcript available. (thank goodness) The officer said that HE wouldn’t go to the media. Craig would have to know someone could get access to his arrest. Heck, I can do that online myself.

Here’s a good link to the transcript, to which Craig admits that he lingered outside the officer’s stall for a few minutes, WHILE all the other stalls were empty, TOOK the stall next to the officer, touched the officer’s foot, put his hand under the stall.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004044.php

All during this questioning Craig did not ONCE ask what the heck the cop was talking about (what do you mean, put my foot under the stall? What the heck is this about?). He responded as one who was familiar with the bathroom sex game, which does, by the way endanger the morals of the community.

Gotta go, but I will be back.