Craig did what??? Did my deputy miss somethin'?
Posted on 08/31/2007 12:02:25 AM PDT by davidosborne
Craig did what??? Did my deputy miss somethin'?
In fact let me make you an offer... After my tour in Iraq, you are welcome to come visit me in Tallahassee and come on a “ride-a-long” with me. Or visit your local police department and go on ride-a-long, and ask to ride with a training officer if possible.. I suspect you will get a better impression about how things work in the real world..
FReegards,
David
I think that's an important point. Anyone arrested on such flimsy grounds would no doubt easily beat the charge with a good lawyer. But as yourself this: supposing you were genuinely innocent, would you really want to go to court and make your arrest public knowledge? Or might you be tempted simply to plead guilty, get a slap on the wrist, and keep things quiet?
Could that be called “blackmail”?
This sucks.
The argument upholding his innocence says that he didn’t actually engage in sex in a public restroom.
In a sting operation against internet predators targeting children, they need only get the perp to make a date and show up at the agreed location. The plan apparently has to involve sexual activity of some sort. That perp also has not engaged in sex with the minor. However, it appears that the person is guilty because they have acted out the pattern of those who will actually engage in sex with a minor.
Police nets that catch men soliciting undercover cop’s pretending to be hookers also seem to rely on a behavior pattern. The men agree to a deal and they either go with the woman or have her go with them. They never engage in actual sex, either, and it’s possible that they would never have gone through with it. However, the pattern would normally lead to sex.
I can’t imagine what Craig and another man would have done in that public restroom if it had not been a police officer. Apparently, they would have somehow devised just enough privacy to engage in restroom sex. Apparently, also, the police had seen it enough to know how the pattern develop and is consummated.
I would say what a GREAT job the officer was doing in aggressively pursing sexual preditors, and thank him for his public service. I would then say that I understand how my actions could have been interpreted as such, however the officer simply misinterpreted them, and that his desire to protect the public is very much appreciated.. I would then state that I would be happy to have the officer present his case to a jury who I am certain would agree that my actions in the bathroom were just simply misinterpreted by the officer... and then I would make a public offer to pay for the arresting officer to attend a "refresher class" on sexual preditors so that he could be more effective at his job....
HOWEVER, on the other hand IF I WAS GUILTY.. I would plead guilty and HOPE the public believes me when I say "I LIED to the judge when I plead guilty..." which is VERY unlikely..
its reassuring that youre exercizing your charge to enforce the written law by using such deductive reasoning (/sarcasm)
I dont know about the rest of the freepers here - but regardless of the charge - If Im wrongly accused - Im going to howl, if only for the reason an injustice (ostensibly based on your gut feeling) has just been perpetrated
It was a case of the officers word against his. If he had gone to trial he could well have been convicted and have a sex crime on his record. What defense can a person offer up? The judge - and many juries - will most likely take the officers word as gospel.
That’s possible - but the tape of this interrogation was close to it. It was hardly “friendly”.
It depends on the situation.. I was simply addressing THIS situation and how I would “hand”le it if I were in Sen. Craigs shoes.. ahh stall... ahhh situation..
I suspect you will get a better impression about how things work in the real world..
I am very familiar with the Real World. I’ve had friends and aquentences who were LEOs, some were civilized others were real Matt Dillons. I am also familiar with the seamy side of the streets. I drove a cab for a number of years.
The “Real World” is not composed of only cops and low life criminals. There are those - the vast majority - who are not cops or criminals.
FReegards,
David
You seem to be a little hostile towards LEO's -- likely stemming from your experience in 1968 as stated in post#37
But you haven’t done anything to prove your innocence. Your wife, your children, your relatives, and the community in which you live will now know that you’ve been charged with an act of indecency that bears upon the essence of your character. The fact that you might escape the charge on a technical detail doesn’t prove your innocence in their eyes, and doubt will always exist; your name and reputation will remain inextricably married to the idea that you went out soliciting gay sex in a public restroom.
You might be willing and able to tolerate that situation. Many people wouldn’t, and would opt for what they considered the lesser of two evils. My point is that it gives the authorities immense power over the citizenry; not that it makes Senator Craig any less worthy of condemnation. Although I think it’s plain to see that he’s going to receive that condemnation, whether he’s worthy of it or not—and that reinforces my point.
Sorry.. just not the case.. most juries really look at the evidence.. I have LOST some cases.. not because the jury didn't think the guy was guilty.. but because the jury just did not think "The State" presented a strong enough case... Juries are a LOT tougher on the prosecution (and RIGHTLY so) than most people think.... PROBABLE CAUSE <-- required for an arrest -- is a FAR CRY from BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT <--- required for CONVICTION... again if I was in Mr. Craigs sitution....
I would assure the arresting officer that his "probable cause" was VALID... this let's the officer know that you are NOT questioning his integrity and judgement... and that he was doing his job just a little too aggressively.. and as such misinterpreted my actions.. had he done this even if he WAS guilty. the PUBLIC would likely be sympathetic......
What do Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, the Duke Lacrosse players and this Craig guy have in common? They all have been brought in to the criminal justice system by law enforcement after they broke no specific law but because they were presumed to have lied to law enforcement. This is nothing new except in this case Craig AGREED that he was guilty. IMHO that was not a smart thing for him to do but now he must deal with it. But that only applies to what he agreed he was guilty of and to nothing else. He is innocent of anything else but unfortunately unlike Martha, Libby and the Duke kids he is in politics and the rules are different. The bottom line is that he is toast and his political career is over. And that’s his fault. He is a US Senator and MAKES laws. He should know better than to do what he did in even speaking with the cops after the “incident”.
Which is PRECISELY the reason I would take the approach that I stated.. This would be a WIN/WIN.... Mr Craig would be seen as a supporter of law enforcement efforts.. and the public would likely be sympathetic.. and put themselves in HIS shoes.. ah hands.. ah stall.. ah.... you know what I mean..
The officer claims he saw Craig do a lot more than the hand thing (like peeping through the stall door while he was "waiting" for the next stall to free up). If the officer is being the least bit truthful it is a slam dunk and Craig on tape is just trying to negotiate down to the least charge, and no publicity.
Possibility 2 is that the officer is entrapping people and happened to hook a big one (a related possibility is that this was an elaborate conspiracy to bring down Craig). If it were that possibility, and Craig was truly innocent, there's no way he would have protested the minutia of whether his hand was down picking up paper or not.
An innocent man would have no idea what the officer was talking about and would not be negotiating to save his public hide by copping to a private plea.
Occam's razor points to this particular bathroom being a gay sex spot, most likely due to the public complaining about it (or the police could have simply read about it online). Occam's razor does not tell us whether Craig stumbled into a trap or went there willingly, but his reaction, basically prevaricating and negotiating, tells us either he was guilty or the elaborate sting had him tongue tied and up against the wall.
Those are good points and it is far removed from my own perspecive since my career would not be instantly over if I were in that situation. But unless there is some evidence that the police were beyond their bounds in patrolling the restroom, I don't accept that the officers actions were illegitimate in any way.
If I were a regular person using that restroom and I heard clear evidence of gay behavior on more than one occasion, I would report it and expect that the police would do something about it.
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.