• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ACLU: Decries bathroom Sting

Didn't the guy plead guilty? Why is there a protest? Because some guy got caught, admitted his guilt, and now wants to get a "do-over" in court? Or because the consequences of his actions have been devastating to him? Maybe, and here's a crazy idea, he should have gone to a bar to pick up guys, or met them on the Internet. Trying to have sex in bathrooms is illegal, and he knew it was illegal, and he attempted to do it anyway.

The ACLU is wrong on this one, as far as I'm concerned. They are demanding an unreasonable burden on the police. Or, should the policeman have to actually engage in the public sex act in order to make the arrest?
 
JoeEllison said:
The ACLU is wrong on this one, as far as I'm concerned. They are demanding an unreasonable burden on the police. Or, should the policeman have to actually engage in the public sex act in order to make the arrest?
Click to expand...

They are only asking that the police be able to show that the act was going to occur in public.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Demonstrate that those signals mean that it was intended to happen anywhere other than the bathroom.
Click to expand...

I think you meant "in the bathroom" rather than "anywhere other than the bathroom." But then, demonstrate that saying to someone "Will you have sex with me in this bathroom?" means that it was intended to happen in the bathroom. It is communication. Saying the words states your intent but there are ways of stating intent other than saying words. I don't know what the etiquette for picking up people to have sex in bathrooms is but if the ways it's done is how Craig was doing it then it's equivalent to him simply flat out asking someone.

But even if the intent was to pick someone up and then go elsewhere to have sex I still don't think that should be allowed. I mean, I don't know if that's against the law or not but it should be IMO. I think that someone sitting in a public restroom stall answering nature's call should not have to deal with sexual advances. Call me a prude if you like but I think it's a matter of public decency, especially since there is no shortage of ways and places for people to pick each other up for sex in our society.

If they're allowed to pick each other up for sex there then why should they not be allowed to have sex there? And why should they have to do it in a stall instead of out in the open? There's a line and granted that it may ultimately be subjective but I think people should be allowed to poop in public in peace (a public restroom that is).
 
Number Six said:
But even if the intent was to pick someone up and then go elsewhere to have sex I still don't think that should be allowed. I mean, I don't know if that's against the law or not but it should be IMO.
Click to expand...

So you've said. Fortunately you don't get to make those laws.
 
tsg said:
So you've said. Fortunately you don't get to make those laws.
Click to expand...

Not directly but I do get as much input as the average citizen in terms of voting for lawmakers or whatever. I suspect that the more input the public in general has on this the more likely that the laws will become more strict because most people don't want public restrooms used as places where people solicit sex.
 
Number Six said:
Not directly but I do get as much input as the average citizen in terms of voting for lawmakers or whatever. I suspect that the more input the public in general has on this the more likely that the laws will become more strict because most people don't want public restrooms used as places where people solicit sex.
Click to expand...

Until it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which is what the ACLU claims it does.

Because something makes you uncomfortable is not sufficient reason to make it illegal.
 
tsg said:
Offhand, I don't know. But that doesn't make it an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that it is unreasonable to assume that someone soliciting sex in a public restroom is planning on having the sex right there. It certainly doesn't seem like the hand under the stall is a signal for "would you like to have dinner a week from Friday?"
 
tsg said:
Until it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which is what the ACLU claims it does.

Because something makes you uncomfortable is not sufficient reason to make it illegal.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment is interpreted by humans, who in turn are affected and appointed by other humans.

It's true that just because something makes me uncomfortable isn't sufficient reason to make it illegal but OTOH the sum total of what people think should be legal and illegal often determines what is ultimately legal and illegal.
 
tsg said:
Offhand, I don't know. But that doesn't make it an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...
If a majority of people who use this code subsequently engage in public sex, then it is reasonable to assume Craig would have as well. All the prosecutor has to prove is that in the majority of cases this code leads to public sex. They will probably do so using the arresting officer or some other police official possessing a number of years of proven experience in the area, along with accompanying documentation, witness testimonies, confessions, etc.
 
JoeEllison said:
I'm not sure that it is unreasonable to assume that someone soliciting sex in a public restroom is planning on having the sex right there. It certainly doesn't seem like the hand under the stall is a signal for "would you like to have dinner a week from Friday?"
Click to expand...

Invidious said:
If a majority of people who use this code subsequently engage in public sex, then it is reasonable to assume Craig would have as well. All the prosecutor has to prove is that in the majority of cases this code leads to public sex. They will probably do so using the arresting officer or some other police official possessing a number of years of proven experience in the area, along with accompanying documentation, witness testimonies, confessions, etc.
Click to expand...

The question is not whether it is reasonable to assume he would have. According to the ACLU (and I am not saying they are necessarily right) there can't be any reasonable doubt that he wouldn't have. The burden of proof is on the police. That this code leads to public sex in the majority of cases is not proof that it would have in this instance. People shouldn't be convicted of crimes based on the actions of other people.
 
Number Six said:
The First Amendment is interpreted by humans, who in turn are affected and appointed by other humans.

It's true that just because something makes me uncomfortable isn't sufficient reason to make it illegal but OTOH the sum total of what people think should be legal and illegal often determines what is ultimately legal and illegal.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that. I think you will find, however, that most people don't want to give the government the ability to put you in jail just for asking for sex.
 
tsg said:
The question is not whether it is reasonable to assume he would have. According to the ACLU (and I am not saying they are necessarily right) there can't be any reasonable doubt that he wouldn't have. The burden of proof is on the police. That this code leads to public sex in the majority of cases is not proof that it would have in this instance. People shouldn't be convicted of crimes based on the actions of other people.
Click to expand...
Again, that is an unfair burden on police. It also seems to reject the idea that experience is valid and useful to the police. Since no one can ever know anything absolutely, the police should now wait for crimes to be committed, and never stop a criminal before the crime is committed?
If I walk into a bank with a shotgun, a ski mask, and an empty duffle bag, and there is a cop there, he cannot arrest me for attempted bank robbery until I point the shotgun at a cashier and demand the cash? Can't stop me at the door?
 
JoeEllison said:
Again, that is an unfair burden on police.
Click to expand...

It is only unfair, if the ACLU is right, because the police made the arrest before they had enough evidence to show the solicitation was for public sex. They got sloppy.

It also seems to reject the idea that experience is valid and useful to the police. Since no one can ever know anything absolutely, the police should now wait for crimes to be committed, and never stop a criminal before the crime is committed?
If I walk into a bank with a shotgun, a ski mask, and an empty duffle bag, and there is a cop there, he cannot arrest me for attempted bank robbery until I point the shotgun at a cashier and demand the cash? Can't stop me at the door?
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware, walking into a bank with a shotgun, ski mask and empty duffel bag isn't a constitutionally protected right.

But beyond that, it depends on whether or not the cop can show your intention was to rob the bank beyond a reasonable doubt. If the bank was in the middle of New York City during summer, he probably can. If it was in a rural area during winter hunting season, possibly not.

Ultimately it's up to a jury to decide whether or not there is reasonable doubt. The ACLU seems to think there is.
 
tsg said:
Until it runs afoul of the First Amendment, which is what the ACLU claims it does.
Click to expand...

So saying "I want to have sex with you in this bathroom right now" is legal because of the first amendment? Add in actions to support that they are serious about this.
 
tsg said:
The question is not whether it is reasonable to assume he would have. According to the ACLU (and I am not saying they are necessarily right) there can't be any reasonable doubt that he wouldn't have. The burden of proof is on the police. That this code leads to public sex in the majority of cases is not proof that it would have in this instance. People shouldn't be convicted of crimes based on the actions of other people.
Click to expand...

So why do you infer what the ACLU means and not what others mean? You infer that they meant reasonable doubt when they only said doubt, but any small omission by anyone else is something to jump on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom