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.
Yeah and if you pass gas you will be arrested for deviant behavior :-)
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!
Now, you just being obstinate.
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct and the reason for the charge for disorderly conduct were due to obscene actions on his part.
Obscenity is part of the Minn. statute for disorderly conduct and that was why he was being charged with the crime.
If one was to ask Craig why he was charged with disorderly conduct he would have to say for acting in an matter that may have caused resentment or hostilty for others.
And what how was he acting that would have caused such a reaction by others-in an obscene matter.
If someone behaves lewdly in a public setting, he is going to be arrested for disorderly conduct, but the reason he is being charged is for obscene behavior.
Disorderly conduct is a broad charge that includes all kinds of behavior and all one has to to is check out why the person was charged to see the basis for the charge.
If he has been acting in a violent manner, you would not be saying we could not say that Craig had a violent temper just because he pled guilty to a statute that includes many provisions.
We would find out why Craig pled guilty to the charge and if it were for violent behavior we would say that clearly Craig has a temper problem.
We can say the same thing for obscene acts.
Pleading guilty to disorderly conduct doesn't shield you from the actual act you were pleading guilty to, it only lessens it, since it is a misdemeanor.
So, Craig pled guilty to acts that others would be offended (obscene) and was charged with disorderly conduct.
Craig wanted to take back his plea since he understands what the implications of the charges.
He had no problem with the guilty plea until it was exposed to what he had pled guilty to.
If your husband were charged with disorderly conduct would you ask him what he was doing that resulted in the charge?
Would it make a difference to you if he were charged with it for getting in an argument with someone or if he were charged with lewd behavior, or would you just leave it at 'well it is just disorderly conduct' and thus, there is no reason to find what constituted the disorderly conduct.
If someone is guilty of disorderly conduct, he is guilty of an act that caused the disturbance, and that is what you trying to deny.
So when Craig pled guilty, he knew he was pleading guilty to acts that could be construed as obscene and took the lesser charge of disorderly conduct to 'make it all go away'.
That doesn't lessen Craig's guilt in what he pled guilty to, only the severity of the sentence.
I don’t care how you want to spin it. He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct. Nothing else. He was never charged with Indecent Behavior except in your imagination. You need to stick to the facts of the case .. and stop interjecting your *opinions* as facts. Your opinions are nothing but your opinions.
He pled guilty to disorderly conduct because he was engaged in lewd behavior.
That is not my opinion, that is a fact.
Diorderly Conduct. Minn.Stat.Sec 609.72 subd.1(3) by engaging in obscene, abusive...conduct....tending to arouse alarm, anger or resentment in others in a public, or private place that it will tend to alarm anger or disturb others...a Misdemeanor
That is what Craig pled guilty do, the Misdemeanor charge. http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/mn-larry-craig-70207cmp2.html
The peeping charge was a gross Misdemeanor charge.
I am pleading guilty to the charge of Disorderly Conduct as alleged....specifically in the restroom in the Crossing in the Lindbergh Terminal, I did the following, engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm in others which conduct was physical versus verbal in nature.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html
So Craig pled guilty to a Misdemeanor charge that constituted obscene conduct, as stated very clearly in the charge that he pled guilty to.
Now, that is not my opinion, that is the fact, no matter how much you want to continue to deny it.
Anyone can check out the plea agreement and see that he pled guilty to the lesser misdemeanor charge which included obscene conduct, to avoid the more serious gross misdemeanor charge.
Both charges were dealing with obscene conduct.
Facts are stubborn things.
Learn to do some research.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/mn-larry-craig-70207cmp2.html
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/crim/larry-craig-guilty-plea-agreement.html
Yeah and if you pass gas you will be arrested for deviant behavior :-)
Talk about growing up!
Disorderly conduct includes obscene conduct and that is what Craig pled guilty to.
Disorderly conduct CAN include obscene behavior ... as well as a long list of other possibilities. It does not make you guilty of every single possible reason you *could* be charged with it. If you refuse to leave a restaurant you could be charged with Disorderly Conduct because of uncooperative, but not obscene behavior.
Pleading guilty to Disorderly Conduct does not mean you are guilty of obscene behavior. It also does not mean you are guilty of "Deviant" behavior either. The mere fact that he plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct does not mean he is guilty of every single thing your *biased* opinion wants it to include.
He pled to disorderly conduct because he was guilty of an obscene act.
Those were the actual charges that were leveled against him, one a gross misdemeanor and the other which he pled guilty to, the misdemeanor.
He pled guilty to conduct that would a reasonable person would find offensive or threatening.
And what was that conduct?
It was obscene conduct.
So give it up.
He is a self-confessed deviant.
No 'opinion' about it, it is there in clear English.
The Evidence Supports the Conviction for Disorderly Conduct
... 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.
http://idahostatesman.com/politics/story/175453.html
While, depending on the facts of any particular case, that may be true, the acts alleged in this case are the solicitation, not the sex act, and the criminal behavior is the Defendant’s entry into an occupied stall with his eyes, hand, and foot.
http://idahostatesman.com/politics/story/175453.html
No, but it does make you guilty of a particular crime and in the case of Craig it was putting his feet and hands into another's man's stall, an act which any reasonable person would consider deviant behavior.
You think that pleading guilty to disorderly conduct, because it does include many possible acts, removes the actual act that the individual is pleading guilty to from the record!
It doesn't.
Craig pled guilty to acting in a deviant/obscene manner, by acknowledging that putting his feet and hands into another occupied stall would be viewed as such by a reasonable person.
No he didn't. He plead guilty to Disorderly Conduct. Stop adding your own two cents. lol
If congress members have to resign over disorderly conduct charges, then we ought to be able to get rid of quite a few more of them.
Two I wish would disappear immediately would be Vitter(or it it Vetter...who knows) and Craig. They both are negative for Republicans and especially conservatives. Vitter and Craig are a disgrace!!!
I’ve got no grief for Craig; but, I bet you $10 to a donut had he been a ‘rat the judge would have allowed him to withdraw the plea, meaning the judge is a ‘rat.
Where do you read that or have personal proof of this statement??
So what? You got proof that he wasn’t? If you got a reference, pass it along.
Wow, such intellect. You must be Harvard, or at least a Yalie.
Why would you say something so ignorant. It appears that you OBVIOUSLY did not graduate from high school. Sad!!!! However funny!!!
yawn.
Funny. What a loser. Sorry you can’t compete. Yawn is the best you got. Wow and most FREEPERS are smart. Oh well I guess we have to let the special ed in every now and again.
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.