Interesting.
The curvature visible at the top of the image suggests this is footage was made by using a camera to record the footage off of a television screen.
What kind of setup displays the network, time and date at the top of the screen?
Posted on 08/30/2007 2:48:08 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Yeah, ok, but still something other than footsie or hand signals needs to be done, would you not agree? Playing footsie or making such gestures are not of themselves, illegal. So why wouldn’t nonverbal movements be required before concluding a violation has occurred?
Just my thoughts.
like, oh i don't know, a gang? let's say gang member "A" made a hand signal to gang member "B" indicating who gang member "B" was supposed to shoot. would you bring gang member "A" up on charges as well?
in this particular case, based on the myriad of arrests and interviews conducted during previous sting operations, i'd say the lawyers have pretty much told the cops what can and cannot be held up in court and what is acceptable PC to make an arrest.
it's a shame that you have latched on to one sentence i wrote as opposed to the many, many more i have written that have actually had something to do with this article. shame, as well, because we seem to agree on pretty much everything else...
and to be clear, saying "i'd break your leg" is protected speech, but "i am going to come over to your house right now and break your leg" can be construed as a direct threat that might put someone in fear of their physical safety. there is a difference.
[there is a difference.]
I already understood that, but you get an A for effort in attempting the clarification.
What kind of setup displays the network, time and date at the top of the screen?Good question. Video capture was more primitive in those days. lol
Vanderbilt has an archive of old newscasts (link below) and it does list this as a topic for ABC on Jul 2, 1982. There is a fee to check out the tapes so I can't see if it's the same as on youtube.
http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1982-7/
DK: I’m not going to bring you to jail
LC: You solicited me.
DK: Okay. We’re going to get, We’re going to get into that. (inaudible)
Has it been verified that there had been a lot of previous arrests in this mens room? If that part is a lie then I’d suspect this was a frame up.
[latched on to one sentence i wrote ]
I sympathize with your motivations, however it is actions similar to what you describe that have assisted homosexual activists in gaining the stranglehold they now have on our legal system, our government, our workplaces, and our society.
There are better ways to respond that won’t assist the rainbow leftists in attaining their goals.
I think the sting that nailed Craig and many others was a great idea.
I’d suggest video taping the operations, but I suspect there are probably privacy issues associated with restrooms and that’s why the queers do their little tap dance in the john and not elsewhere.
“You haven’t presented any evidence to support that assumption.”
I’m not the arresting officer. If he had it, he would have charged him...
Yes, the purpose of the plea was to avoid court...that much is clear from the transcript.
“I think this incident is where the rumors started.”
I think you might be right.
Must not have been easy to find this...I appreciate the info very much.
Thanks.
“Here’s a link to the Minnesota State Penal Code”
Thanks, already have it.
“What statute number do you think he would have been charged for violating?”
Depends on the crime committed...get it? You’ve proven my point.
[Thanks, already have it.]
Then try reading it.
There are two statutes containing the word “Lewd”.
One regarding Telephone calls.
One regarding acts directed at a minor.
Which one?
“Then try reading it.”
I have read it. If you claim to have, you should read it again so you can understand it. You haven’t a clue.
What law did Craig break? Touching feet? What law?
You say these?
“One regarding Telephone calls.”
“One regarding acts directed at a minor.”
“Which one?”
Neither. What are you talking about?
Telephone call...nope, Minor? Nope, not that one either.
Let’s be clear about this. Craig used VERY poor judgment when he pled guilty to misconduct. He should have had an attorney advise him.
The fact is there is NO EVIDENCE of a crime committed here. Read the statutes again...didn’t expose himself, didn’t say anything incriminating. Nothing, nada, zip.
I get it that you don’t like this guy. That is beside the point. There was NO CRIME committed. There is no evidence, and the cop didn’t do his job properly in this sting operation. He came up empty. He did scare Craig into thinking he could avoid a trial by pleading to misconduct...again, poor judgment on Craig’s part. The prosecutor had nothing to go on...NOTHING.
Now, if you do have more info, or evidence, show it. Otherwise, you’ll have to admit you’re wrong on this one.
Those are the only two MN Criminal Code statutes that explicitly contain the word Lewd.
The correct statute was charged - The statute for Disorderly Conduct includes conduct that is Obscene.
Obscene behavior. That’s what Craig pleaded guilty to.
That’s what the other perps caught by this sting apparently pleaded guilt to as well and NOT ONE of them has spoken up so far -at least not openly.
[You’ll have to admit you’re wrong]
What time IS Craig resigning today?
Nope, you still don’t get it.
I don’t think you ever will. Round and round we go.
“The correct statute was charged - The statute for Disorderly Conduct includes conduct that is Obscene.”
“Obscene behavior. That’s what Craig pleaded guilty to.”
No, again...more slowly this time. He DID NOT plead guilty to obscene behavior...he plead to misconduct. Understand? Get it? Misconduct. Look up the definition of this charge in legal terms that you provided...
I pointed out this charge is broad...also includes noisy behavior, etc. Remember? As I said, poor judgment on the part of Craig for taking this plea.
What part of there is no evidence don’t you get? Do you know what the word obscene means? Look it up. What part of Craig’s actions were obscene? Are you starting to understand now? Craig was not charged with obscene behavior...if you say differently, then show me what obscene behavior you are specifically citing.
Of course Craig resigned...over pressure from the party.
I don’t recall hearing an admission of guilt from Craig...nope, not in the police transcript either.
Unless you can provide evidence of a crime, lewd act, obscene act...(which of course you can’t because the arresting officer couldn’t), you should come to grips with the fact that you’re wrong.
What has become painfully clear is the fact that you have no familiarity with the legal system.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place,
including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will
tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of
disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive,
obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by
an epileptic seizure.
LC: I don't, ah, I am not gay, I don't do these kinds of things and...
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.