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.