What happened to common decency?
1 posted on
01/16/2008 5:05:46 AM PST by
IronKros
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
To: IronKros
2 posted on
01/16/2008 5:06:46 AM PST by
Edgerunner
(If you won't let the military fight your battles, you will have to. Keep your powder dry...)
To: IronKros
The ACLU shows its true colors, once again.
Gays, child molesters, commies and traitors. Those are the only people with civil rights in the eyes of the ACLU.
3 posted on
01/16/2008 5:08:40 AM PST by
samtheman
To: IronKros
4 posted on
01/16/2008 5:09:18 AM PST by
day10
(Rules cannot substitute for character.)
To: IronKros
And some folks wonder why moms bring their little boys into the ladies’ room with them...
5 posted on
01/16/2008 5:10:02 AM PST by
mewzilla
(In politics the middle way is none at all. John Adams)
To: IronKros
How 'bout the folks who want to use this public facility for its intended purpose? What sort of reasonable expectations do they have?
ML/NJ
6 posted on
01/16/2008 5:10:57 AM PST by
ml/nj
To: IronKros
What happens in a toilet stall should stay in a toilet stall? The ACLU has finally settled at its true level.
9 posted on
01/16/2008 5:12:29 AM PST by
ConorMacNessa
(HM/2 USN, 3rd Bn. 5th Marines, RVN 1969. St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle!)
To: IronKros
What happened to common decency?The ACLU declared war on it.
11 posted on
01/16/2008 5:14:53 AM PST by
lonestar
To: IronKros
He didn’t have sex, nor was he PLANNING to have sex, IN THE STALLS. That was simply where the alleged SOLICITATION to have sex took place.
I think the ACLU would have a better shot at arguing that returning a solicitation from someone for sex has an expectation of privacy, rather than arguing that actually putting two people in a stall raises an expectation of privacy.
To: IronKros
I'll tap my foot against sex in the bathrooms.
However, I will tap my foot for use a toilet stall for its original purpose - elimination of human waste and redoing bathroom stalls to have basically full length doors and partitions and no cracks between the door and partition. The full length partition/door prevents the playing of footsie and no cracks prevents someone from peeking in.
To: IronKros
16 posted on
01/16/2008 5:19:33 AM PST by
sauropod
(Fred Reed: "Without men, civilization would last until the oil needed changing.")
To: IronKros
people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.pubÃÂÃÂÃÂ÷lic /ˈpʌblɪk/
1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.
2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution.
3. open to all persons: a public meeting.
4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, esp. as a government officer: a public official.
5. maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.
6. generally known: The fact became public.
7. familiar to the public; prominent: public figures.
8. open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public: a public dispute.
9. pertaining or devoted to the welfare or well-being of the community:
Am I missing something here ?????
17 posted on
01/16/2008 5:19:47 AM PST by
Robe
(Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)
To: IronKros
All participants in this are disgusting: Craig, the ACLU, and the undercover cop.
To: IronKros
So if this is a private thing does that mean I can go into the private area and shot the perverts since that would be private to me..
Folks this is getting way out of control we have to figure out how to out smart the commie ACLU..People have a problem letting their little boys go into these restrooms alone as it is..
26 posted on
01/16/2008 5:54:32 AM PST by
PLD
To: IronKros
one wonders if the aclu would ever stand up for the principal that income is private property which should not be subject to seizure by the government.
28 posted on
01/16/2008 6:01:04 AM PST by
ripley
To: IronKros
I'm no fan of the ACLU, and I find this argument outrageous,
BUT, their brief isn't coming up with this argument out of the blue, they are merely citing a previously decided MN Supreme Court case and asking that Craig be judged under that precedent. As the story notes:
It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
Sound legal strategy. What's really outrageous is that the MN Supreme Court, in 1970 made the ruling being referenced!
29 posted on
01/16/2008 6:02:39 AM PST by
cschroe
To: IronKros
Yeah, that's the ticket.
To: IronKros
But I’m confused. Is Craig now claiming that he intended to have sex in the men’s room at MSP airport?
To: IronKros
It's reasonable to argue that there should be an expectation of privacy
in the stall you're occupying but he wasn't arrested for having sex in the stall with the officer: he was arrested for soliciting sex from within his stall to someone outside his stall.
Objection circumvented.
To: IronKros
I strongly disagree. People should have no expectation of privacy when engaging in sexual activity in public bathrooms, parks, etc. Get a room if you have to!
To: IronKros
From the article
...public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy
hmmmm...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-39 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson