ACLU: Decries bathroom Sting

[ponderingturtle]

I think the phrase you're looking for is "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Nope, the ACLU did not use the word reasonable.

They seem to also have edited the page so that the page that was up yesterday talking about signs and uniformed patrolmen is no longer there.

So to quote you quoting the ACLU

According the ACLU, "the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public."

Note the lack of the word reasonable.

It doesn't have to be. The burden of proof is on the accuser and they have to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it wouldn't have.

Again the word reasonable did and does not appear in the web page mentioned. It is also strange that they changed their article so much in 24 hours.

So what is the doubt that Craig claims? His claims certainly do not seem reasonable.

 

[strathmeyer]

Nope, they are saying both. They are claiming it was unconstitutional, and that if he had propositioned someone like that no crime would have been committed as propositioning people for sex is generally legal, and you can't be absolutely certain that they would have had their sex in the bathroom.

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal. If he had said to the officer, "I would like to have sex with you in this bathroom", would you be arguing the same thing? Why should it be different because the method he used was non-verbal?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal. If he had said to the officer, "I would like to have sex with you in this bathroom", would you be arguing the same thing? Why should it be different because the method he used was non-verbal?

I agree with this, and argued about it quite a bit. The thing is that if you arrest him after the comment, there is always the "I was just screwing around" now we can debate if that is reasonable, but the ACLU omitted the word reasonable in their descriptions. They just said "beyond doubt".

So while it is not reasonable to think that they did not mean that, it is certainly conceivable that they did not mean that.

Nothing I have heard about this case is anything I find particularly troubling. Well other than people buying the Wide Stance theory. If he was really going to the bathroom his pants would not have been around his waist and would seriously limit the width of his stance.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In this case, solicitation for sex in public (that is, soliciting to engage in public sex as opposed to publicly soliciting for sex) is also a crime, which is the main point of the ACLU's argument.

If the sex act is to occur in private, then the solicitation is protected speech. If the sex act is to occur in public then it is not. The sting failed to differentiate between the two. As a means of making their point, public solicitation for sex in private happens all the time in bars between members of the opposite sex.

As far as I know, with few exceptions, solicitation of sex for pay is illegal regardless of where the act is to take place.

In this case, it is illegal in that the act is to occur in a public place. Had the first person said, "back to my hotel" rather than "over to that little spot, around the corner past the partition near gate 7", it would not be.

As far as I know, this is illegal regardless of whether it is to be done in public or private. But it is a different law than what Craig was arrested for.

Being that the aim of the law is to prevent sex in public places, they recommend putting a sign in the restroom indicating that it is being monitored and send a uniformed officer in every so often.

Thank you for lifting the fog of legal confusion from my eyes.

DR

 

[tsg]

Nope, the ACLU did not use the word reasonable.

They seem to also have edited the page so that the page that was up yesterday talking about signs and uniformed patrolmen is no longer there.

So to quote you quoting the ACLU



Note the lack of the word reasonable.



Again the word reasonable did and does not appear in the web page mentioned. It is also strange that they changed their article so much in 24 hours.

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has been established as a legal tenet of the US since Coffin v US in 1895 and a concept well before that.

So what is the doubt that Craig claims? His claims certainly do not seem reasonable.

Again, Craig doesn't have to show there is a doubt, the police have to show there isn't.

 

[tsg]

Propositioning people in public to have sex in public is illegal. If he had said to the officer, "I would like to have sex with you in this bathroom", would you be arguing the same thing? Why should it be different because the method he used was non-verbal?

If you can show that his non-verbal method of communication leaves no room for reasonable doubt, then have at it. The ACLU is saying they can't.

 

[tsg]

Let me clarify my position. I don't know whether what the cops did is unconstituional nor if it was illegal. I'm saying that what the cops did should be allowed. If it's technichally illegal what the cops did then okay, it's illegal, and maybe that gets whoever was caught by those means up until now off the hook on a technichality, but then we should change the law or the interpretation of the law so that it's not illegal for the cops to do that in the future.

Or if what the cops did is considered a violation of civil rights then we should change how civil rights are defined in that context because by common sense standards IMO the cops are doing nothing wrong by sitting in a public bathroom stall and waiting for someone to propostion them for sex and then arresting them.

I do find it absurd that the ACLU would spend time on this and say that instead of the cops doing this they should put up signs and have cops just patrol more often. And how many signs are you going to put up in public restrooms? Are you going to put one up warning against any of the thousand potential crimes that could theoretically occur in a public restroom? Are you going to put them in braille too for the blind people? How about putting them in 100 different languages because after all, not everybody speaks English? So let's put up 1000 signs each in 100 different languages (plus braille) in every public restroom in the USA, otherwise we're limiting civil rights.

The whole thing is ridiculous and is a prime reason why some just reflexively go against the ACLU, which ironically ends up inhibiting civil rights.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, as uninformed as it may be. Personally I prefer living in a country where you don't get thrown in jail for asking someone if they want to do something that isn't illegal.

 

[fishbob]

I'm not saying that the ACLU is necessarily correct, but even if they are it doesn't necessarily defend Craig's behavior. All they are saying is that the manner in which he was caught is unconstitutional. It means the police got sloppy. It doesn't mean Craig did nothing wrong.

From the linked article in the OP:

Senator Craig has not always been a great friend of civil liberties, but you shouldn’t have to endorse the civil liberties of others to keep your own," said Romero.

And this is why I support the ACLU, no matter how distasteful individual cases may be.

And let there be no doubt - Craig is a sorry excuse for a Senator precisely because of his oath to defend the constitution while not being a 'great friend of civil liberties'.

 

[ponderingturtle]

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has been established as a legal tenet of the US since Coffin v US in 1895 and a concept well before that.

Sure, but that is not the argument that they made.

Again, Craig doesn't have to show there is a doubt, the police have to show there isn't.

And marksman was quite clear that your own hypothesis is not the doubt you can use in an other thread on this.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If you can show that his non-verbal method of communication leaves no room for reasonable doubt, then have at it. The ACLU is saying they can't.

Stop putting words in their mouth. Or would you rather show beyond a reasonable doubt that they ment to have reasonable in there but put the first version of the press release together too fast.

Anyone have a link to the orrigional version?

 

[Michael Redman]

It doesn't make any sense that arrests are the end goal of a sting operation. What value do arrests have? What the police are trying to do is make arrests that they can publicize to put the community on notice that the prohibition on such behavior is being enforced (and boy did they ever succeed in this case). It is a deterrent. You can argue all you want about how effective it is, but the arrests themselves are obviously not the end for which they are working.

"Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" has been established as a legal tenet of the US since Coffin v US in 1895 and a concept well before that.

Oh, I hate this. It isn't "innocent until proven guilty", it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

 

[tsg]

Sure, but that is not the argument that they made.

How do you figure? They're talking about the bloody Constitution. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the central tenet of our judicial system. It is implied in every single discussion about it. That they didn't specifically state it changes nothing.

And marksman was quite clear that your own hypothesis is not the doubt you can use in an other thread on this.

I haven't read any other thread. You'll have to point it out.

Stop putting words in their mouth. Or would you rather show beyond a reasonable doubt that they ment to have reasonable in there but put the first version of the press release together too fast.

Our legal system is putting words in their mouth. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

 

[tsg]

Oh, I hate this. It isn't "innocent until proven guilty", it's "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

I fail to see your point.

 

[ponderingturtle]

How do you figure? They're talking about the bloody Constitution. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the central tenet of our judicial system. It is implied in every single discussion about it. That they didn't specifically state it changes nothing.

Because that is not what they said. They made no comment at all on what ammount of doubt was needed to make it a free speech issue.

Our legal system is putting words in their mouth. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

No you are. You are trying to make their claim fit your ideas of our legal system.

 

[tsg]

Because that is not what they said. They made no comment at all on what ammount of doubt was needed to make it a free speech issue.

Because it is well known within our legal system. Do they need to specifically state grass is green?

ETA: It's the ACLU. Do you honestly believe they are demanding proof beyond a level of doubt required by law? If you're only argument is based on an unreasonable interpretation of what they said in a press release, you have no argument.

 

[Michael Redman]

I fail to see your point.

Do you really, or do you just disagree with me? I'm saying there is a difference between being innocent, and being presumed innocent, and that people shouldn't say one when they mean the other.

 

[tsg]

Do you really, or do you just disagree with me? I'm saying there is a difference between being innocent, and being presumed innocent, and that people shouldn't say one when they mean the other.

I don't see any difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "presumed innocent until proven guilty" considering the context in which I was using the phrase was about the burden of proof in a criminal trial, especially since the discussion was focused on "reasonable doubt", and the fact that I specifically said Craig may be 100% guilty.

It seemed to me you were implying I said something I did not, or being needlessly pedantic.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I agree with them.

As my favorite columnist, Richard Roeper, wrote, "If things happened as the officer described, it definitely sounds as if something funky was going on -- but where's the crime? Is it against the law to play footsie and engage in some type of cryptic hand gesturing? (Maybe it's the peering into the stall. That SHOULD be a crime.)"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/540811,CST-NWS-roep04.article

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with them.

As my favorite columnist, Richard Roeper, wrote, "If things happened as the officer described, it definitely sounds as if something funky was going on -- but where's the crime? Is it against the law to play footsie and engage in some type of cryptic hand gesturing? (Maybe it's the peering into the stall. That SHOULD be a crime.)"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/roeper/540811,CST-NWS-roep04.article

So propositioning for illegal sex becomes legal if you do it in an obscure enough fashion? He comunicated, and it seems that it was as clear as saying "I want to suck on your penis"

 

[tsg]

So propositioning for illegal sex becomes legal if you do it in an obscure enough fashion? He comunicated, and it seems that it was as clear as saying "I want to suck on your penis"

What is, or should be, illegal about wanting to suck on someone's penis?