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.