Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The cop was sitting in a (stall) waiting for someone to do something "wrong". That's not entrapment?" Don't know why you insist on vulgar language, but no, it's not entrapment. That's how these surveillances are conducted. "And what about the interview. The cop was clearly being an aggressive, scary person over and over and over..." As I've said elsewhere in this thread, not that was not all aggressive. I've conducted hundreds of interviews, I've taught interrogation to the police and private sector. If anything, he wasn't aggressive enough. "It was, most CERTAINLY, entrapment. I'm not kidding in the least." It doesn't appear you know what entrapment entails. For that defense to work, Craig would have to show the police induced an otherwise unwilling Craig to commit a criminal act. Given the facts available, that's no where to be found. Moreover,let's keep inmind the crime he pled guilty to was disorderly conduct. Typically that's a misdemeanor, and defined by each state. I'm willing to bet Minnesota (hence the police) used it in this instance as it relates to loitering in an area with the purpose of committing an unlawful act. "You people are ignoring the fact that the cop acted outside the boundries of the law." Wrong. As I said, you appear not to know the law in this area. The officer did no such thing. "And it's another reason to hate cops (did ANYONE read the interrogation? Did anyone care about the harrassment involved? The threats that cop threw out such as "I'd expect better from a senator", and "you are lying to me")..." "And another reason to hate the system, and another reason I hate the country of my birth (and will only return to visit, cautiously to boot since the gestapo is firmly in charge)..." And herein lies your problem. You hate cops. Fine. It's irrational to be sure, but you're entitled. Be that as it may, I'd suggest your hatred is coloring you're judgment here. Actually, more than suggest it, I'd say it definitely is. Further, the officer did not threaten Craig. Your examples are rather tame in the context of interrogations, and here, appropriate for the situation. As for your comments about hating the country of your birth, we'll just let them stand alone.
Originally Posted By Mr X **Why do YOU think Craig's not lying?** I do think he lied. That's my personal opinion. But that doesn't mean he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (though at this point public opinion has damned him). **The cop was just sitting there, as someone might be just sitting in a stall. Craig initiated everything.** Or so the cop says. Why is everyone so quick to believe the cop was completely correct? That's my question. After reading the transcript, I have concluded that the cop was an agressive, nasty human being trying to humiliate the guy and force him to "confess" (which, to his credit, he never did). Has everyone read the transcript of the interrogation? It is pretty nasty...and I wonder how any of us would have held up under such pressure, with a cop saying over and over and over and over "JUST TELL THE TRUTH, and it'll all be finished". THAT, I think, is my point, and my outrage. I am not defending the senator, nor do I believe that he is heterosexual in the LEAST (he's totally gay imo). BUT, my opinion of the matter is irrelevant...I can totally understand that he was harrassed and pressured into appearing before a judge to pay the fine after reading that harrassment in the transcript. But hey, harrassing fags is okay right?
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By wonderingalice I don't care if he's gay either, but I also don't believe that he was harrassed. Yes, unfortunately it happens... Just not in this case. And yes, I read the transcript and listened to it more than once. Bottomline... No amount of pressure from the police would get me to plead guilty to something I didn't do.
Originally Posted By Mr X **It's irrational to be sure** LOL... Keep telling yourself that, til your on the other side of the fence. (I'm sure plenty of Germans told the Jews it was "irrational" to worry about the cops)
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By wonderingalice Oh my gosh... This has gotten completely out of control. I'm gone from this thread.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But hey, harrassing fags is okay right?" "I know harrassment in those areas, and you cops do it all the time. I really, REALLY hate the fact that everyone is okay with gay harrassment, but I guess that's the way things are in America. And you, obviously, are very cool with that fact (no big surprise...you must have harrassed plenty of gays in your time)." "Keep telling yourself that, til your on the other side of the fence. (I'm sure plenty of Germans told the Jews it was "irrational" to worry about the cops)" I'm not going to be drawn into the type of ignorant shouting match you seem to want here. You've got some deep seated prejudices and then decided to make it personal by saying I must have harassed plenty of gays in my time. My positions on gay issues here are well known. You take on this type of persona far too often here. You're not worth the time.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But that doesn't mean he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt> Well, newsflash - he doesn't have to be... he pled guilty. <Why is everyone so quick to believe the cop was completely correct? That's my question.> Okay... let's link that statement with this one: <I am not defending the senator, nor do I believe that he is heterosexual in the LEAST (he's totally gay imo> So... if you believe Craig is totally gay, you must believe he at the very least engaged in some of the behavior described. If he was straight, presumably he wouldn't have done any of that. So the only thing that makes sense here is if you think the cop initiated the "footsie." But that doesn't make sense. Craig never says anywhere "hey, you bumped my foot first," which certainly he would have, had that happened. And there's no good reason for the cop to initiate any of this; since 90% of the people sitting next to him are going to be straight, if he played footsie with everyone in the next stall in an attempt to entrap, probably he'd invite a lot of straight guys to do something ugly to HIM. Sure, he could explain, as somebody's fist is about to strike, "hey, hey, I'm a cop, it's okay," but why invite those sorts of confrontations (which would certainly occur)? No - the only thing that makes sense for this type of operation is to sit there and wait for the other guy to initiate. I do think your hatred of the police has led you to assume certain things both not in evidence, and highly unlikely. <But hey, harrassing fags is okay right?> I'm a gay man. No, it's not okay. And I think this sort of thing is a poor use of police. But that doesn't make it entrapment, because it wasn't.
Originally Posted By mele I'm sure SPP has interrogated many gay people since he interrogated people as part of his job but to imply that he purposefully harassed "fags" is out of line. Have you ever read any of his posts on WE? He is not against homosexuals in the slightest way and to accuse him of it is irrational and only makes you look more hysterical. (We get it, you hate cops and think religion is a scam.) Your definition of entrapment, X, would be a cop sitting by the freeway catching speeders. Are cops only supposed to sit in donut shops or the police department? Craig wasn't tricked into doing anything, he initiated it. I'm not sure what you'd expect an interrogation to be like. Police ask questions once and then have a tea party? People being interrogated have this pesky habit of lying their butts off. Their excuses are so cliche that it's humorous. Of course a cop (who knows the truth) is going to continually ask the same questions until he gets the correct answer. It happens everyday, in every police department. I don't care about guys cruising and having anonymous sex but it shouldn't be in a public space where any child could walk in and see it. I don't really feel sorry for anyone who gets caught doing it. Get a freaking room.
Originally Posted By ecdc Mr. X, why do you insist on being a complete tool, sometimes? You've treated me, SPP, and others who have never attacked or criticized you like garbage recently on this thread. Grow up.
Originally Posted By Mr X **My positions on gay issues here are well known.** Haven't heard them. What are they? All I know is your positions on harrassing teen petty theives into suicide... That's been documented, and it's very, very sad. (but I'm sure you treated the poor girl with UTMOST compassion, right?)
Originally Posted By Mr X **Of course a cop (who knows the truth) is going to continually ask the same questions until he gets the correct answer.** Wow. The "correct" answer. It is amazing to me what Americans will tolorate these days, and yes, it makes me hate, hate, HATE my own country. I am so sad to say that, but it's the truth.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 (Mr. x): <ECDC, I hate prejudice. What else can I say?> Well, Mr. X, so do I, but frankly you have exhibited your own on this thread towards policemen. (mele): <Your definition of entrapment, X, would be a cop sitting by the freeway catching speeders. > Good analogy, mele.
Originally Posted By mele Yes, correct answer as in he was a present in the bathroom, he knew what had happened. Haven't you ever had someone lie to you when you darn well know that they are lying? Most people don't just accept a lie and let it go, especially when their jobs might be on the line. Have you ever been accused of lying before? Most people wouldn't change their stories after being asked a few times if they were truly innocent. Sometimes the cops can get mentally handicapped or people with really low IQs or no education to change their stories but a SENATOR isn't so naive or easily fooled. You don't think the senator had any legal advice? You think a senator doesn't understand the difference between guilty and not guilty? Please.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Does NO ONE else see this? << I don't see it. In george michael's case, he claimed entrapment too. He also claimed that the cop exposed himself and "wagged" - thereby initiating a sequence of events that wouldn't have occured without the provocative behavior on the part of the cop. He lost. The cop was in there in the first place because of several complaints about nefarious activity within the men's room. It's safe to say that larry craig was in there for the same reason, and had possibly been one of the people stirring up trouble in the past - prompting the complaints. The interrogation was designed to extract a confession, so some pressure (not much) was applied. No surprise there. If there's a kernel of truth to your views, it's that the cop could have allowed the sting to proceed a bit further, letting craig do something more overt than just the preliminary tapping and waving. The biggest problem with this case is that it's "he said-he said". There are only two witnesses - the cop and the "perp". And you're right about "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". Any competent attorney to inject reasonable doubt into this case. If only craig had fought the charges, he very well might have been able to beat them. But the result would likely be the same - he's exposed for the pathetic creep that he is, his name is ruined and his senate career over. For all of this to transpire, it would have been better if the cop had allowed the incident to progress a little further, but he couldn't know that craig was a US senator and the whole situation would blow up as big as it has. I'm surprised we haven't seen the cop making the rounds of news and interview shows. It's bound to happen eventually - give the guy his fifteen minutes - why are they waiting?
Originally Posted By Mr X **Well, Mr. X, so do I, but frankly you have exhibited your own on this thread towards policemen.** That's an occupation. It has nothing to do with prejudice. If I can't stand crack whores, does that make me "prejudiced" towards people of that profession? Is it okay for me to hate door to door salesmen? If I don't entertain them at my door, does that make me prejudiced towards those people? I hate cops and all they stand for. I find it a disgusting profession, full of people that live to create misery and stress. Why anyone would want that job is beyond me. I can only assume it's for the money, the power, and the early retirement (or whatever else they consider a "benefit"). I also hate debt collectors and IRS agents. I think they are only working for the money, or the power, and they enjoy causing other people misery. I think that sort of karma will only hurt those people in the long run, and I can't fathom why anyone would really "want" to do such a thing with their lives. Can you?
