[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

Below is the full statute. He plead to Subdivision 1(3). That’s not resisting arrest or anything like it.

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.
Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1969 c 226 s 1]
Subd. 3. Caregiver; penalty for disorderly conduct. A caregiver, as defined in section
609.232, who violates the provisions of subdivision 1 against a vulnerable adult, as defined in
section 609.232, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a
fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=609.72

[Hunble]

Nope, I can not identify a single item in that law that would justify the police officer charging Sen. Craig with any legal violation.

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

In his guilty plea he says

... I did the following: Engaged in conduct I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment or others which conduct was physical rather than verbal in nature.

I understand that the court will not accept a plea of guilty from anyone who claims to be innocent.

I now make no claim that I am innocent of the charge to which I am entering a plea of guilty.

He signed his name. Now he is in the position of saying his earlier sworn statement to the court was false. His guilty plea is at:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig8.html

[what's up]

I notice that there is no mention of lewd behavior under your definition of disorderly conduct.

[what's up]

This is part of the Senator's statment which is under your definition of disorderly conduct:

"Engaged in conduct I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment "

No mention of lewdness.

[brytlea]

(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.

Hmmm would this include those bozos who talk on their cell phones and use the F word every other word??

susie