Posted on 08/31/2007 12:02:25 AM PDT by davidosborne
I do when I don't want it stuck to my shoe. Other than that, I try to avoid touching anything on the floor of a public restroom, to include newspapers left behind by previous occupants.
The cop *announced his presence* by passing his own business card under the stall, so Craig's return of a card of his own was more of a reasonable response in that light. But too, who's to say that the cop wasn't cruising for gay pickupos himself? If he likes what he finds, they do their little thing; if not, he busts 'em and his arrest stats go up, a win-win situation.
Until more is known about the individual cop and his past record and character, it's too soon to condemn Craig, especially when the Democratic media and their fellow travellers are screaming for his head.
I believe he did meet the elements of an arrestable offense. He made contact with the undercover officer with his foot - which constitutes assault in most states if the contact is unwelcome. To do this, he had to have crossed under the stall partition, which constitutes something like an invasion of privacy violation, according to Idaho law. This would be disorderly conduct in Texas, an arrestable office if witnessed by a peace officer.
I would assure the arresting officer that his "probable cause" was VALID...
And many officers would immediately take this as an admission of guilt and press even harder. There are times when a suspect is subjected to intense interrogation for several hours (I call this “being grilled”). While it is borderline unconstitutional, it still happens. But that’s OK, if the “cop’s instinct” shows the suspect guilty.
Some juries do take their responsibility seriously. Others don’t By the tone of many posters here on this thread, the officer’s accusation is all that is needed for a guilty verdict.
That weas a real “Oops” for the poor guy!
“Craig blew this one.”
Well... not this one.
I seriously doubt any experienced officer would.. the fact is it would have the opposite effect.. it would show the officer that you are being coopertive and understand and respect his role.
IN FACT... in many cases I have had to explain to a coopertive suspect what actions raised the "probable cause" flag.. not only that, I often tell a suspect that personally I am not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is guilty, but that based on the "probable cause" rule I have to make a decision whether to arrest you or not.. often a coopertive suspect "explaining" their actions BEFORE a physical arrest takes place results in NO ARREST at all.. but I still write a report and in my report I simply state that the suspects explaination raised doubt of "probable cause"... not only that.... it shows the officer that you are NO "resisting arrest" in fact you WELCOME the arrest, if the officer really thinks his "probable cause" is that strong after your "explaination".....
HOWEVER, on the other hand.. if a person is not coopertive.... "resisting arrest"... etc.., I would be very likely to go with the physical arrest, even with the "weak" probable cause... and let the jury decide.....
David
I believe he’s on planet Iraq. Am I right Mr Osborne?
at the momment yes.. LOL
I thought so. Thanks for your service btw.
You may well be the exception to the rule. People tend to base their opinion on personal experience, with the exception of friends I’ve had (good people off duty) my experience has not been all that pleasant - with one exception. A motor officer challenged me to a drag race. I was riding an FXRT (P) and he wanted to check it out. I dusted his cookies. We stopped and he checked out the Harley. The FXRT (P) later became the FXRP. The next day he nailed me for doing 41 mph in a 35 zone. I had no problem with it. We were even talking and joking about it when I paid my fine.
I won’t list all other encounters. I was never a “suspect” except for that one time in the Army, but I never encountered “Officer Friendly”. I’ve always believed in smiling and maintaining my cool. It does no good to argue with a cop - save it for court if it goes that far.
The one encounter I will mention happened when I lived out in the County. The quickest police response time to our area was half an hour. Several of us saw two men breaking into the general store near us. We called the Sheriff and detained the bad guys. Deputies showed up half an hour later and the first question they asked us was “Why do you people have guns?” While one deputy arrested the burglars the other lectured us on the dangers of “civilians” (!! we were all career Army!) confronting criminals. He ordered us never to do it again. Several weeks later a car load of drunks pulled up to the store and tried to buy beer. The owner refused and they attempted a burn out - ending in a ditch. The Sheriff was called and we stood around watching the drunks dig their car out with an entrenching tool. An hour later the same deputies showed up. Their first question? “Why didn’t you detain them?”
When did Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, and the Duke LaCrosse players EVER admit they were guilty?
That’s a HUGH difference between Craig and them.
They knew they were innocent and would not budge.
I heard a defense lawyer on the radio yesterday say that the issue here is "public place." He said that if you get together with a hooker on a street corner, that that is a public area, and you've committed a public solicitation crime. Get with her inside the McDonalds on that same street corner, and you've done nothing wrong. It's a private place, then, and you're having a private conversation about your private lives.
I'm not sure if that has a ring of truth to it or not; what do you all think? Morally, of course not. Legally, I'm not sure.
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.