Here's an example of Officer Karsnia's zeal for enforcing the law:

http://greencycles.blogspot.com/

Good thing he arrested a Rethuglican Senator, or libs might have gotten really mad about that.

Unfortunately, you have made the same mistake everyone in the media is making in slipshoddily reporting this story.

You assume that Mr. Craig was arrested, taken to the police station, immediately paid his fine, was released, and "blew town." (Pun intended.)

Except, that's not what happened.

He was arrested, booked, fingerprinted, and then released.

The Senator then left on his own recognizance.

He left town. He then had several weeks with which to ponder his situation. He had time to consult his lawyer. Do you know any Senators who don't have a flanx of lawyers at their beck and call?

He now claims not to have done so, but attorney-client privledge would preclude anyone from even knowing whether that statement is true or not.

After pondering his situation for weeks, knowing, he claims, that there's been a terrible mistake and that he's completely innocent of any crime, the Senator then returned to Minnesota and plead guilty to that crime.

He accepted a sentence of a $1,000 fine, which he paid a portion of, and accepted probation for 1 year and a 10-day suspended sentence.

Then, he sat quietly and waited. And waited. And waited. Never did he then, he claims, once the immediate rush of the problem was over, consult a lawyer to see if he did the right thing.

Only when the news breaks does he now proclaim his innocence.

You suggest in #7 above that the Senator made a blunder by pleading guilty immediately upon his arrest, but since that isn't what happened, that can't be true.

I appreciate that you think the Senator maybe shouldn't have been arrested, and you're free to have that opinion.

You aren't free to have your own facts, however.

7. If you have a choice between missing a flight and getting a lawyer to help you address the charges against you, heres a helpful bit of advice, get the lawyer – miss the flight.

Nice defense. But he was arrested in June and pled guilty in August. Plenty of time to get a lawyer.

So why did he plead guilty?

I would agree 100% with all of this except... he did plead guilty. And for that matter, he tried to use his Senate business card to get out of trouble.

If he had fought it, I would be on his side. But he surrendered, and you have to think it was for a reason.

Any single one of the actions wouldn't have been terribly persuasive individually. All of them together don't look good. Pleading guilty "to make it go away" when there are already rumors circulating about Senator Craig's bathroom behavior smells like someone out of control who deluded himself.

Bad judgment for pleading guilty instead of fighting the charge--and most likely, Senator Craig isn't telling us the truth.

He's my senator, and it hurts to see a strong defender of the right to keep and bear arms going down. But Idahoans deserve someone with more self-control, and better judgment. Even in California this wouldn't be acceptable.

In that case, I agree with everything you said and just wish I could have said it as well. (Er, does this meet the "questionable content" test?

I read the police report and I didnt see anything in it that i could say without question was clearly an overt attempt at lewd behavior. my only problem with what mr. craig did, was the utterly asinine way that he handled his own case. did he really think it would just go away or not be interpreted as worse that it appears to be? if youre 15 years old you think that but not full grown adults with experience in the world.

i read the report and what jumped out at me was the officers assurance that "in his experience, these were clear signs of lewd behavior", but i read them and came up with legitimate reaasons why the might not be interpreted that way.

the one piece of information that i would like to have is where the bathroom was in relation to his two flights, if it was right in between, then theres not much here. if it was far off from either of the two flights and somewhat difficult to get to and senator craig was hanging around the area, well ok, that seems like something odd.

I think you have to give the presumption of innocence to the defendant for as long as you can.

"If you enter the bathroom and all the stalls appear to be full, don’t stand outside and tap your foot. While in some cultures looking at your watch at tapping your foot is a way of showing that you are anxious and perhaps ready to explode your bowels all over the floor, in Minneapolis it means only one thing, you want anonymous..."

Except that's not what the police report says. He was in the stall and seated when he began tapping his toes. I don't ever recall tapping my toes when making a Number 2, but perhaps I'm strange.

The list obviously needs a lot of editing.

As to point #3, you're probably safe if you just swipe your head quickly past the gap in the door to see if you see someone inside. But you're likely to get into trouble if you move close enough that the occupant can see the color of your eyes, and then stand there for two minutes despite the fact that there's a vacant stall right next to you.

I suppose it's possible to breach one or two of the rules by accident, but it seems kind of far-fetched that someone would unknowingly break all of them at once, and randomly pick a restroom that's because so infamous as a cruising area that police have been assigned to patrol it.

That said, cruising public restrooms is rude and unhygenic, but at the same time it's only a misdemenor. It's not a horrible crime that justifies ruining someone's life.

If Sen. Craig would: (1) Come out of the closet, (2) Apologize for the homophobic legislation he's supported and the bigotry that he's spewed, and (3) Promise to do his future cruising in bars rather than public restrooms, then I for one will be glad to forgive him.

But I'm not seeing that. He's still trying to suck up to the homophobes by denying everything. It looks like this strategy is failing, though. (As well it should. Homophobes are *ignorant*, not *stupid*.)

I have to disagree with you on this one Frank. A worldly person, such as the Senator, should know by age 62, (kids even know all of this stuff) what is suspicious behavior. That old saying "He should have known better" really fits for this individual.

justareader,
Cool!
I want a flanx of lawyers.
A hurd of attorneys.
A flawk of litigators.
A bevvy of barristers.

Sorry dude/dudette, I couldn't resist;>)

Pleading guilty to make it go away. The guy is sooooooo guilty.

Is it possible the toe-tapping could have been a clever ruse to mask the audio of poop or wind? I suppose it might.

It's the guilty plea that convinced me he was guilty. After all, isn't it horrible to think that someone we hire to represent us and to not cave in when our interests are on the line would "go along to get along" when accused of a crime for himself? I mean, if he was innocent but entered a guilty plea, how hard will he fight for what's right with his constituents?

Whatever the case, this one stinks on hot frelling ice.