Posted on 08/29/2007 10:21:01 AM PDT by Balt
I’m getting tired of the Craig toilet story. Can’t we just do a courtesy flush and move onto the Clintons hooking up with some chinese $$$?
I like how Craig’s water carriers like to mention only the toe tapping and not the hand under the partition into the stall where the cop was.
C’mon folks.
How many men on this forum, ever, even once in their lives have
a) stared so intently at a guy in a stall that he knew the color of your eyes, and
b) played footsie with the guy in the next stall by accident, and
c) placed your hand in a stall known to be occupied (by virtue of the earlier footsie incident), not once or twice but 3 times, and
d) pled guilty to a disorderly conduct charge for these same events.
In a court of law, sure, we can go with the presumption of innocence. But while we’re all here shooting the breeze around the virtual water cooler, does this not strain credibility to the max?
Comments? Confessions?
A good point, but part of my point was: How do we know there was a hand under the partition? Because the cop says so? That's not good enough for me.
I can perhaps understand someone tapping his foot a few times, idly thinking to himself, “I need more salads for lunch”. I can even understand how someone’s foot *might* bump into the next guy’s foot (if he were hovering over the toilet, not wanting to sit), but beyond that, his story just swirls round the bowl.
Isn't it credulity that gets strained?
On the toilet, it's neither credibility nor credulity that gets strained.
A good point, but part of my point was: How do we know there was a hand under the partition? Because the cop says so? That’s not good enough for me.
Stop quoting the facts. He pled guilty, but he said he was not guilty and not gay. You need to drink the Kool-Aid.
Did I say “strained?” I meant “stained.”
How about, because he pled guilty? That good enough for you?
Just watch this clip of Craig. The Gaydar goes off the meter here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0_Vs5570pKw
Look, the toe tapping and hand under the partition are still not enough to prove anything. I am not defending the man, I just think that he was stupid to admit to anything. It’s not a crime to be gay, and they actually have no proof of any illegal behavior.
Point #1. According to the policeman, there was considerably more going on than toe tapping.
Point #2. At this time there is no reason to disbelieve the policeman.
Point #3. Mr. Craig has a history of homosexual allegatiions being made against him.
Point #4. At the time of the airport incident an Idaho newspaper was running an onging campaign to out Mr. Craig as a homosexual. If I were him I would have been dang sure no one could misconstrue my behavior anywhere.
Point #5. Nothing that Mr. Craig did subsequent to his arrest makes any sense if he was innocent of the original charge—engaging in lewd conduct. Quite the contrary, everything he did is something a guilty person would do in the desperate hope the incident could be hushed up and go away.
That said, I think Mr. Craig is a sick man. His press conference yesterday demonstrated the depth of the denial he is in. As a human being I feel sorry for the man. I expecially feel sorry for his family. His out-of-control promiscuity has probably destroyed all that he loved. So sad.
You’re right on.
Many illegal activities are observed only by policemen. Sometimes these may be documentable (video or tape recording, for example) and sometimes they’re not. However, when a policeman/woman testifies it is considered factual so long as there is no reason to believe otherwise. In the end, juries must make judgements as to the varasity of all the evidence presented—both prosecution and defense. As a general rule a policeman’s testimony carries significant weight with the judge and/or a jury.
Understanding, as someone said earlier, we are around the virtual watercooler here, there is no reason yet given to mistrust the policeman.
There are several ways the policeman’s account could be impeached. 1. He or she has a history of lying under oath. That’s gonna be a rare bird, because a policeman who lies in his oral or written reports— or court room testimony—is likely to be fired as soon after the review board hearing as possible. 2. It could be proven that the police officer was looking to entrap Mr. Craig. There is no evidence so far that such is the case. I’m sure there are other scenarios, buy you get the drift.
usually it’s my knees that are strained. I believe the expression I used is appropriate under the circumstances. But I’m sure credulity can be strained as well.
Look, the toe tapping and hand under the partition are still not enough to prove anything.
__________
Is the guilty plea enough to prove something?
Maybe things are different in the ladies room, Eva, but on no planet, ever, under any circumstances does a man put his hand underneath the partition into another occupied stall without a really good reason.
And the only good reason I can think of off the top of my head is if the 2 guys are deaf, and are continuing an earlier conversation using sign language.
I’d be interested in hearing what possible, innocent reasons you can come up with for the hand under the partition.
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.