Larry Craig

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by gunsmoker, Aug 27, 2007.

  1. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,486
    660
    113
    Bad news from Idaho. Senator Larry Craig, a conservative Republican with a long record of supporting gunowners' rights and the Second Amendment, has pled guilty to lewd conduct in a men's room. The Senator now says that he is innocent and should not have pled guilty, but he did.

    Here's some information on Larry Craig's record as to gun control:
    .
    Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
    Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
    Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
    Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003) ..
     
  2. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    So Idahoans need to put another Pro-2nd Senator is office, just because he supports something we support, doesn't excuse his actions. I say hang him out to dry like he was a democrat (disclaimer: I have no party affiliation)
     

  3. Mike from Philly

    Mike from Philly New Member

    787
    0
    0
    He led the opposition to the renewal to the Assault Weapons Ban, although he and Frist almost got out-maneuvered by Kennedy/Fienstein.

    He was for the Amnesty bill, which wipes out all the good he has done in a lifetime.

    Good Riddance and take your boy Lindsey Grahmnesty with you.
     
  4. merlock

    merlock Active Member

    2,515
    0
    36
    +1
     
  5. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    I still do not see what he did wrong.

    From all accounts of what I have read, he went into a bathroom and tapped his foot as a "secret code" to find a sexual partner.

    Where's the crime?
     
  6. Ashe

    Ashe Active Member

    4,864
    1
    38
    :censored: you mean when I am at the movies afterwards and I have that really long pee, that if I tap my foot in boredom I'm really looking for gay sex?


    :eeek:
     
  7. M249

    M249 New Member

    3,033
    0
    0
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    I think he touched the cop. Battery.
     
  9. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    Actually there appears to be more according to the police report than just "mistaken gestures"
    this is a little comical, but it does show sections of the police report re-enacted.
    CNN

    and here is the arrest report with officer's statement
    PDF warning
    Didn't anyone ever teach Craig male bathroom etiquette? if you need toilet paper, you cough loudly until someone say "Hey buddy are you OK?
     
  10. luke0927

    luke0927 New Member

    754
    0
    0
    He also slid his foot under the stall and was touching the cops foot with his.
     
  11. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    That and he was peering into the cops stall for 2 minutes, enough that the cop could tell that he had blue eyes.

    Read the complaint and arrest report

    He pled guilty to 1 count of Peeping, and 1 count of disorderly conduct.
     
  12. Ashe

    Ashe Active Member

    4,864
    1
    38
    he was checking to see if the cop had a license to carry :p
     
  13. luke0927

    luke0927 New Member

    754
    0
    0
    What the hell was he thinking the guy would come over in is stall and they could do their business? what the hell is wrong with people
     
  14. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,400
    459
    83
    Minnesota does not have a crime of "battery." Like many states, it has degrees and classifications of "assaults" that include the common law crime of battery. Unwelcome touching that is not sexual does not appear to fit any of those degrees or classifications.
     
  15. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,400
    459
    83
    He was charged with disorderly conduct:

    and interference with privacy:

    Disorderly conduct statutes generally, including this one, are a bane of our civilization. Distilled down, it is a crime to do something that somebody else doesn't like. That's BS.

    I underlined the portion of the interference with privacy statute most likely to apply. It is a specific intent crime, meaning the state would have to prove what his intentions were, and those intentions would have to be to interfere with the privacy of the stall occupant (LEO).

    A lot of inferences would have to be drawn to get there.
     
  16. Thorsen

    Thorsen New Member

    4,226
    0
    0
    I have now listened to the arresting officer's taped interview a few times, as well as Senator Craig's version of events.

    Both agree that Craig's foot touched the officers. Craig claims that happened because of his "wide stance" while on the potty and that the officer also must have had a wide stance as well. The officer claims intent. Craig claims accident.

    Both agree that Craig's hand was below the stall divider. Craig saying that he was picking up a piece of paper with his right hand (yuck! who touches an item on a public restroom floor?). The officer claims it was Craig's left hand, meaning Craig would have had to cross his hand over his body to have it under the stall divider. The officer also claims Craig made multiple passes under the stall divider with his left hand.

    That's pretty much it. And was evidently enough for the officer to arrest Craig.

    Now my take on it.

    For one, I really don't see how two men could "accidently" touch their feet together while sitting in adjacent stalls, "wide stances" or not. I'm not saying it couldn't have happened accidently as I suppose it could, but for it to be an accidental occurence, I think it would have to be placed in the ultra-rare category of events.

    Secondly, if Craig was picking up a piece of paper with his right hand, I can see his hand being visible once. If, as the officer states, Craig was using his left hand to wave under the stall and did so multiple times, then I think it shows intent. Two different stories here, and with no audio or video, you have to choose whom to believe.

    So, with the evidence the state had, if Craig had simply exercised the first rule of being a defendent and SHUT UP, only speaking to demand a lawyer frequently and often, I think he would have walked on the charges.

    I think Craig didn't do this for a variety of reasons. First I think he was guilty of soliciting the officer. I think so, because I can not wrap my mind around the concept that two men could accidently touch their feet together under a stall divider. Additionally, in the interview Craig did not appear to be righteously indignant as I think most innocently charged people would be. Also, Craig at one point in the interview did attack the officer for "entrapping" him, a turn of phrase that to my mind indicates guilt but shows the guilty persons anger with how he was caught. Finally, I think Craig didn't fight the charges because he hoped to quietly plead guilty, which he did, not telling anyone about this incident, even his family, and by doing so keep it out of the media and public eye.

    So, my opinion is that he is guilty of soliciting but would have beat the charge if he took it to court with an appropriately aggressive shark (read attorney).

    Now, should he resign? To be honest, since his crime, while sordid, does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, I think he should resign only if he is no longer able to effectively represent the people of his state. The republican party is attempting to force the issue by pulling his leadership roles in committee, but I think that is something that should really be between Craig and the people of Idaho.
     
  17. slabertooch

    slabertooch New Member

    4,322
    0
    0
    I just listened to it too, The thing that caught my attention, like Thorsen, was the "entrapment".

    I don't care how "wide" of a stance a guy has, your foot should not be touching (different from bumping) another person's foot in their stall.

    I'll post more later, but I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this one :?
     
  18. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    4,400
    459
    83
    What does that mean? It's not a crime to ask a man if he wants to have sex.
     
  19. Rammstein

    Rammstein New Member

    5,798
    0
    0
    The bottom line is that he did nothing wrong. People bump into people all the time. Ever been to a bar?

    Furthermore, how much money and time is expended on putting a cop in a bathroom with a recording device? Way to save America...
     
  20. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,427
    113
    Hannity played the interview last night. I have to say, based on my experience, that Sen. Craig sounded like an intelligent man trying to talk his way out of something he had done. In other words, he just plain sounded guilty.

    Had he plead "not guilty," however, I am thinking there would have been some reasonable doubt here.

    I cannot imagine the press circus of a jury trial on this!