Posted on 10/04/2007 11:07:35 AM PDT by yorkie
Dear God! What a nag-I’d hate to be your husband.
No he didn't. He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct. Stop adding your own two cents. lol
He pled guilty to Disorderly Conduct and signed a document accepting what the particular charge was.
It had to do with acts in a restroom that any normal person would find disturbing.
All one has to do is read the charge he agreed to and the details of it.
His pleading guilty of disorderly conduct doesn't eliminate what the particular charge was, it only gives what category of crimes it falls under.
So your attempts to grant him a legal shield to hide his self-confessed deviance fail.
Craig, 62, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct after an undercover officer said he exhibited behavior consistent with that of someone seeking a sexual encounter. Craig, insisting repeatedly that he was not gay and that his arrest had been the result of a misunderstanding, unsuccessfully sought to withdraw his plea last week.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21297210/
No he didn't. And rewording things, and trying to interject your own opinion into it will not change the facts. He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct.
You can twist perceptions .. reality will not budge!
Apparently Craig is going to appeal the judges ruling. Larry Craig, the gift that keeps on giving.
No he didn't. And rewording things, and trying to interject your own opinion into it will not change the facts. He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct. You can twist perceptions .. reality will not budge!
Stop your lying.
He pled guilty to the lesser misdemenor which stated very clearly what he was doing in the men's restroom.
It is you who refuses to face the reality that the police reports are not wiped clean after one pleads guilty.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html
And what conduct was Craig admitting to in the guilty plea-putting his feet next to other men's feet and his hands under the stall.
Thus, Craig admitted that his actions were deviant since they could have caused alarm or resentment of others.
It would seem that you have a hard time grasping that simple fact and why Craig is so anxious to have this 'mere' disorderly conduct removed from his record.
All one has to do to see what he pled guilty to is check the police record and his own guilty plea.
Don't plead guilty to anything unless you are prepared to have what you pled guilty come out.
If you go to a potential employer and he asks if you have any criminal convictions and you say, 'yes one for disorderly conduct', he is going to ask, and has a right to ask you the next logical question-what did you do.
Pleading guilty does not remove the record of the particular crime that constituted disorderly conduct one was guilty of.
And obscene behavior is the basis of Craig being charged with Disorderly Conduct, as is made very clear in the Minn. statues on that crime and Craig's own actions.
Stop denying reality-you sound like a defender of Bill Clinton.
Why are you getting so angry? I agree the report stated very clearly what Craig plead guilty to .. and there is no mention of the words "Deviant Behavior", anywhere. You have simply re-worded the report so that it better reflects your bias. Why can't you just admit that the words "Deviant Behavior" never appear in the report? You can't honestly expect the rest of the world to pretend the words are in there, just to appease your EGO, do you?
Calm down! Relax! Chill out! You don't need to get so angry just because a woman is right and you are wrong. The best thing you can do is admit when you're wrong .. the real tragedy in making mistakes is denying them, and getting angry and abusive towards the person who is right.
Why are you getting so angry? I agree the report stated very clearly what Craig plead guilty to .. and there is no mention of the words "Deviant Behavior", anywhere. You have simply re-worded the report so that it better reflects your bias. Why can't you just admit that the words "Deviant Behavior" never appear in the report? You can't honestly expect the rest of the world to pretend the words are in there, just to appease your EGO, do you? Calm down! Relax! Chill out! You don't need to get so angry just because a woman is right and you are wrong. The best thing you can do is admit when you're wrong .. the real tragedy in making mistakes is denying them, and getting angry and abusive towards the person who is right.
No, it is not I who am wrong.
Craig pled to guilt to doing something that would be considered deviant or obscene.
Those words do not have to be in the statement, just as they were not in the original charges filed.
Craig pled guilty, thus he admitted that those acts he did in the men's restroom would have caused a negative reaction in a normal person.
And those acts were those used for the solication for sex.
So, once again, stop being obstinate and denying that Craig is a self-confessed deviant.
All one has to do is read what Craig pled guilty to and he would know it was for obscene behavior.
The acts speak for themselves, the words 'deviant' or 'obscene' do not have to appear in the actual statement.
So, stop the sophistry, and admit the truth, that Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct, conduct that was obscene in nature-as made very clear by the charges themselves.
That is the Judge's comment when he denied Craig's appeal to remove his guilty plea.
So what do you consider Craig's actions to be, which he admitted to?
To any reasonable, honest person they would be considered obscene and deviant.
So, stop the sophistry, and admit the truth, that Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct
In your first sentence you claimed he plead guilty to "Deviant Behavior" and in the second one, you FINALLY ADMIT that I was right, and he plead guilty to nothing more than "Disorderly Conduct".
I'm so glad you have finally seen the light and decided to read the charges and admit that "deviant behavior" was no place to be found in them.
I have to admit, I thought you would do almost anything in order to avoid being wrong .. and experiencing that that hurt ego, again. But you rose above it, and can finally admit that I was right, and he plead guilty to nothing more than Disorderly Conduct. Good boy!
In your first sentence you claimed he plead guilty to "Deviant Behavior" and in the second one, you FINALLY ADMIT that I was right, and he plead guilty to nothing more than "Disorderly Conduct". I'm so glad you have finally seen the light and decided to read the charges and admit that "deviant behavior" was no place to be found in them.
Here is exactly what I said, without the clever editing.
[ So, stop the sophistry, and admit the truth, that Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct, conduct that was obscene in nature-as made very clear by the charges themselves.]
Stop trying to weasel out.
I never denied that Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct, but that the disorderly conduct was due to obscene acts on his part which he admitted to in his plea.
I have to admit, I thought you would do almost anything in order to avoid being wrong .. and experiencing that that hurt ego, again. But you rose above it, and can finally admit that I was right, and he plead guilty to nothing more than Disorderly Conduct. Good boy!
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct (which was never in dispute) but in doing so, he was a self-confessed deviant, which you stated was only an opinion on my part.
His confession of the acts that he committed make him a self-confessed deviant.
... The evidence that the Defendant intentionally entered into Sgt. Karsnia’s stall with his eyes, hand, and foot, establishes that the Defendant violated the right to privacy in an offensive way that would reasonably tend to cause anger, alarm, or resentment in the stall’s occupant.
So, what part of the Judges' statement on what Craig did (and admitted doing) do you not understand or regard as deviant?
Unless you think that putting one's hands under the bathroom stall and touching another persons feet in the next stall (which Craig admitted to doing) do not constitute deviant behavior.
I can only surmise from your constant defense of his self-admitted actions that you do not regard those acts as being deviant or perverse.
Stop defending the acts of a pervert who admitted doing what was charged.
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct because of his acts which (he admitted doing) were deviant ones.
What you are doing is simply what every ACLU lawyer does, try to use the law to hide the truth.
So, if a woman put her hands and feet into your bathroom stall you would not regard those acts as being that of a deviant?
That is what Craig admitted doing.
Stop stonewalling and admit that you are wrong, Craig is a self-confessed deviant, who pled guilty to disorderly conduct.
In your first sentence you claimed he plead guilty to "Deviant Behavior" and in the second one, you FINALLY ADMIT that I was right, and he plead guilty to nothing more than "Disorderly Conduct". I'm so glad you have finally seen the light and decided to read the charges and admit that "deviant behavior" was no place to be found in them.
Here is exactly what I said, without the clever editing.
[ So, stop the sophistry, and admit the truth, that Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct, conduct that was obscene in nature-as made very clear by the charges themselves.]
Stop trying to weasel out.
I never denied that Craig pled guilty to disorderly conduct, but that the disorderly conduct was due to obscene acts on his part which he admitted to in his plea.
I have to admit, I thought you would do almost anything in order to avoid being wrong .. and experiencing that that hurt ego, again. But you rose above it, and can finally admit that I was right, and he plead guilty to nothing more than Disorderly Conduct. Good boy!
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct (which was never in dispute) but in doing so, he was a self-confessed deviant, which you stated was only an opinion on my part.
His confession of the acts that he committed make him a self-confessed deviant.
... The evidence that the Defendant intentionally entered into Sgt. Karsnia’s stall with his eyes, hand, and foot, establishes that the Defendant violated the right to privacy in an offensive way that would reasonably tend to cause anger, alarm, or resentment in the stall’s occupant.
So, what part of the Judges' statement on what Craig did (and admitted doing) do you not understand or regard as deviant?
Unless you think that putting one's hands under the bathroom stall and touching another persons feet in the next stall (which Craig admitted to doing) do not constitute deviant behavior.
I can only surmise from your constant defense of his self-admitted actions that you do not regard those acts as being deviant or perverse.
Stop defending the acts of a pervert who admitted doing what was charged.
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct because of his acts which (he admitted doing) were deviant ones.
What you are doing is simply what every ACLU lawyer does, try to use the law to hide the truth.
So, if a woman put her hands and feet into your bathroom stall you would not regard those acts as being that of a deviant?
That is what Craig admitted doing.
Stop stonewalling and admit that you are wrong, Craig is a self-confessed deviant, who pled guilty to disorderly conduct.
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.