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!
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.
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