[Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea

david sarff davesway at hotmail.com
Sat Sep 29 08:47:39 PDT 2007

With all due respect to North Idaho rules. My question has to do with the right to privacy of the person in the stall that the cop represented. In other words. If some fellow peered though the door crack at me, tried a little footsy and then started methodically stroking the bottom rail of the stall...Is he being a nuisance to the degree that I can defend my zone by pinning his hand with one of my cork boots?


> From: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:45:02 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea
> 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 
>>To: Tom Hansen 
>>CC: 'Donovan Arnold' , 'Sunil Ramalingam'
>>, 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?
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

Discover the new Windows Vista

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list