[Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Paul,

Craig was offered a one-for-one: Plead to one, the other goes away.  It's a 
standard offer here too.  I'm inclined to agree with you that the conduct 
involved in the charge he pled to is not particularly egregious; if you came 
to me and had been charged with only that one count, we might well want to 
fight it on a number of grounds.  And yes, the cop could have built a 
stronger case by waiting it out.  Perhaps he was tired of sitting there with 
his pants down.

But you're looking at it in a vacuum; you can't ignore the other charge, 
which is the more dangerous one for Craig.  Yes, it's possible that one 
stares into space.  I do it too, but not through a crack between toilet 
partitions behind which sits a man I would assume to be defecating, or at 
least half-naked.  I'll bet you don't do that often either.

The officer's testimony would contradict that explanation; he says Craig was 
deliberately staring at him.  It's possible he's wrong, but if Craig gets 
his plea back and goes to trial, seems to me he would have to take the stand 
to refute the cop's testimony.  Does he really want to be cross-examined on 
that point?  I don't think so.

Sunil


>From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>To: Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com>
>CC: 'Donovan Arnold' <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>,  'Sunil Ramalingam' 
><sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>,  vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea
>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:00:46 -0700
>
>I've posted on this before, but I might as well do it again, I guess.
>
>I don't think that Senator Craig should be punished by the law for 
>something as stupid as bumping another man's foot, looking through a crack 
>in a door, or moving his hand under the partition. Couldn't the officer 
>have done whatever was expected next, which I presume is to come over to 
>his stall, and wait for him to make an undeniable request for sex (verbally 
>or bodily) before arresting him?
>
>As for the peeping through the door thing, am I the only person around here 
>that will sometimes stare into space when I'm thinking about something 
>deeply, only to "come to" with the realization that I've been staring at 
>someone the entire time? I'm not saying I do this every day, but I've done 
>it before. I can't be the only one. I'm not saying that is what happened to 
>Craig, but it's definitely possible.
>
>I can also see an occasion where someone might want to plead guilty to 
>something they didn't do in an attempt to avoid certain people finding out 
>about it. That doesn't speak too highly of him if he did that, but a guilty 
>plea to a misdemeanor doesn't mean the person did it absolutely. If you 
>think he is the kind of guy that solicits sex in a public bathroom, why is 
>it so unbelievable that he might have lied to gain a perceived advantage?
>
>Paul
>