Posted on 10/04/2007 11:07:35 AM PDT by yorkie
A Minnesota judge on Thursday rejected Sen. Larry Craig's bid to withdraw his guilty plea in an airport sex sting, a major setback in Craig's effort to clear his name and hang onto his Senate seat.
Do I think he is a homosexual? Probably. Could I prove it? No. And neither can you!
He pleaded guilty to Disturbing the Peace .. that's it! Anything else is just speculation on your part.
I believe he was there to find sex .. but there is no proof. Until there is proof, he is innocent. If you can't handle that .. then you don't believe in our Constitution .. and you can take that Kool-Aid and swallow it!
Lmao,The poofter needs to resign!
Do I think he is a homosexual? Probably. Could I prove it? No. And neither can you! He pleaded guilty to Disturbing the Peace .. that's it! Anything else is just speculation on your part. I believe he was there to find sex .. but there is no proof. Until there is proof, he is innocent. If you can't handle that .. then you don't believe in our Constitution .. and you can take that Kool-Aid and swallow it!
He pled guilty to a lesser offense to avoid being charged with deviant behavior.
He isn't 'innocent' of anything-he pled guilty.
And the next time you use a restroom and and someone touches your feet you can just assume he has a 'wide stance'.
The Constitution doesn't defend deviant behavior.
So, enjoy your kool aid.
You are correct.
Upon rereading your post, you could have been simply advocating that more Senators be removed.
The court dismissed a charge of gross misdemeanor interference to privacy. There was NEVER a charge of "deviant behavior". You cannot just make up stuff.
He isn't 'innocent' of anything-he pled guilty.
I said: "I believe he was there to find sex .. but there is no proof." You need to understand that what I *think* and what you *think* does not matter to the judge. Craig never admitted he was there for sex, and he was never charged with being there for sex. He pled guilty to Distubance and thats all.
I needed to make the distinction of what I *believed" happened .. and what could be *proven*. You need to do the same. And these charges of "Deviant Behavior" that you dreamed up, doesn't help your credibility.
And the next time you use a restroom... blah blah blah
Don't make it personal. Don't insert ME into some "what if" scenario. This is not about ME.
The Constitution doesn't defend deviant behavior.
No it doesn't .. and I NEVER claimed it did! Do you always just make stuff up?
What the Constitution DOES SAY, is that we are innocent until proven guilty. Guess you missed that part. Enjoy the kool-aid.
The court dismissed a charge of gross misdemeanor interference to privacy. There was NEVER a charge of "deviant behavior". You cannot just make up stuff.
The Court dismissed nothing.
He took a plea deal.
It is you are making things up.
[ He isn't 'innocent' of anything-he pled guilty. ]
I said: "I believe he was there to find sex .. but there is no proof." You need to understand that what I *think* and what you *think* does not matter to the judge. Craig never admitted he was there for sex, and he was never charged with being there for sex. He pled guilty to Distubance and thats all.
He admitted to disorderly conduct which was a lesser plea so he would not be charged with deviant behaviour.
He took the plea to make it go away.
I needed to make the distinction of what I *believed" happened .. and what could be *proven*. You need to do the same. And these charges of "Deviant Behavior" that you dreamed up, doesn't help your credibility.
There is no need to 'prove' anything.
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct to avoid the more serious charge.
And the next time you use a restroom... blah blah blah Don't make it personal. Don't insert ME into some "what if" scenario. This is not about ME.
It is about common sense.
So don't use the nonsense about what we can prove.
No one sits in a stall and touches another man's feet.
He knew he had been caught and that was why he pled out.
[ The Constitution doesn't defend deviant behavior. ]
No it doesn't .. and I NEVER claimed it did! Do you always just make stuff up? What the Constitution DOES SAY, is that we are innocent until proven guilty. Guess you missed that part. Enjoy the kool-aid.
This is not a Constitution issue, but you brought up the idea that some 'innocent' man was having his rights violated.
Craig got caught in deviant behavior and pled to a lesser charge.
The facts of the case would show to any reasonable person what Craig was up to and only pled guilty to a lesser offense to avoid the scandal.
No one is making up anything, but you are closing your eyes to what the truth is.
Clearly you have made a decision to ignore the protections offered to ALL of us by the U.S. Constitution .. "innocent until proven guily". I rest my case.
Clearly you have made a decision to ignore the protections offered to ALL of us by the U.S. Constitution .. "innocent until proven guily". I rest my case.
So once again you bring up the Constitution!
Craig had all the protections of the Constitution and he pled guilty to a lesser offense to avoid having to face a trial over a more serious offense.
Now, that makes him guilty of the charge that he pled to-which was disorderly conduct.
Disorderly conduct includes sexual misbehavior in that State.
As for 'resting your case' you have as much a case to rest as Craig did-zero!
EXACTLY. That and nothing else! Anything else is pure speculation on your part. All your other hysterical accusations about "guilty of deviant behavior" are just a bunch of *feelings*. Like Liberals, you think that how you *feel* and what you personally *believe* .. is the same thing as FACTS. LOL
He was guilty of disorderly conduct .. that's all! Nothing else! I'm glad you are finally ready to admit that.
EXACTLY. That and nothing else! Anything else is pure speculation on your part. All your other hysterical accusations about "guilty of deviant behavior" are just a bunch of *feelings*. Like Liberals, you think that how you *feel* and what you personally *believe* .. is the same thing as FACTS. LOL He was guilty of disorderly conduct .. that's all! Nothing else! I'm glad you are finally ready to admit that.
And you better check what is included in 'disorderly conduct', it includes sexual misbehavior.
For example, here is the disorderly conduct provision from Calif. (d) Who loiters in or about any toilet open to the public for the purpose of engaging in or soliciting any lewd or lascivious or any unlawful act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorderly_conduct
Craig pled guilty of engaging in physical activity that would 'arouse alarm or resentment in others
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html
He did so to avoid the more serious charge of 'peeping', since he was staring into the officer's stall.
Craig is a self-confessed deviant.
So get your head out of the sand!
Well, you can put it in your lawyer’s hands, but it’ll never stand up in court.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting;
or (2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.72&year=2006
So what part of 'obscene conduct' do you not understand?
I don't know where you got your definition of Disorderly Conduct because you did not cite your source. It appears to be nothing more than a list of MANY things that *could* be defined as Disorderly Conduct. The connection that you made to Epileptic Seizures, is mystifying. Furthermore, nothing you posted proves your claim that Craig was charged with "Deviant Behavior". You need to get a grip on yourself!
Here is a definition of Disorderly Conduct taken from Find Law, a universally accepted legal source .. and unlike you, I will provide the link to my source: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/disorderly_conduct.html
Disorderly Conduct
Almost every state has a disorderly conduct law that makes it a crime to be drunk in public, to "disturb the peace", or to loiter in certain areas. Many types of obnoxious or unruly conduct may fit the definition of disorderly conduct, as such statutes are often used as "catch-all" crimes. Police may use a disorderly conduct charge to keep the peace when a person is behaving in a disruptive manner, but presents no serious public danger.
Note: These definitions are nothing more than lists of possibilites that could lead to a charge of Disorderly Conduct. They do not prove deviant behavior. LOL
I guess playing gay footsie was conduct that was problematic.
Thank goodness playing footsie is not against the law. If it was, my husband and I would be in a lot of trouble. hehe
Personally, I think he is gay. Speculating is one thing .. proving it is quite another. He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct, nothing else.
I hope he goes away. He is an embarrassment to the GOP.
Now, if you will go the link you will see that is Minnesota's disorderly conduct statute.
And it includes obscene conduct.
That is what Craig was pleading to.
So, once again, stop denying that Craig was not pleading guilty of deviant behavior-he is.
Lets see now.
Craig wasn't involved in brawling or fighting, he wasn't disturbing an assembly or meeting so 1 and 2 are out.
He wasn't being being offensive, abusive, boisterous, or noisy in either his speech or conduct.
So what could be left?
Oh, obscene!
LOL!
Craig is a self-confessed deviant.
If Craig was asked for what he was found for disorderly conduct he would have to say for engaging in obscene behavior that would have caused resentement or anger in someone else.
So your attempts to defend a sexual deviant have failed.
do it in public and you will be charged with disorderly conduct.
Yep, doing questionable things in public will get you in trouble.
He plead guilty to disordly conduct .. nothing else. You must live in la la land where you think that you can just make up stuff and it becomes reality. Then you have the audacity to ORDER me to stop telling you that you are wrong? This is not Cuba and you are not Castro. GROW UP!
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.