disorderly conduct?

On Sep 1, 10:56 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"PeterL" wrote in message

ups.com...





On Sep 1, 5:24 pm, "Mike V." wrote:
Can someone explain to me why sliding your hand along the edge of a
bathroom
stall is a criminal offense, but offering to buy a woman a drink in a bar
is
not? I am a traveler and just trying to understand USA law. Thank you.

Obviously there is a set of secret hand signals you know nothing
about.

Ask yourself this question. If you are in a public toilet stall and
there is another guy in next stall, would you extend your foot to
touch his? Would you put your hand under the partition to signal
him? Therein lies your answer.

Put your hand under to signal him you need some paper.


To a total stranger in the next stall?


Besides, we are
supposed to be the "land of the free". Getting less so all the time.


That part I agree.


Why
should the government get involved in something between consenting adults?


Well, actually had the good senator gone to a bar, propositioned
another patron, male or female, and the two of them went to a hotel
room and did their business, the government would not have gotten
involved.

But using a public toilet to allegedly solicit and consumate sex acts
crosses the line.



F'n government keeps extending it's tentacles in to lots of places it should
not. Why should any government entity in the USA have a right to say you
can not smoke inside your own house? Just one example

Where in the US does the government say you can't smoke inside your
own house?

On Sep 1, 11:33 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"Carole Allen" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:56:08 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
Put your hand under to signal him you need some paper.

If the guy in the next stall didn't have a clue about these hand
signals (i.e., he was straight or not a cop), how would he know you
need paper just because he saw your hand waving around? How about
ASKING for some paper? Besides, the hand waving followed the shoe
rubbing. Wide stance? ROFLMAO.

Besides, we are
supposed to be the "land of the free". Getting less so all the time. Why
should the government get involved in something between consenting adults?

This was in public, not someone's private home. If he wanted to bonk
some guy all night in his home, the gov't wouldn't care (unless he was
in the deep south that is). His wife might be a bit put out though.

F'n government keeps extending it's tentacles in to lots of places it
should
not. Why should any government entity in the USA have a right to say you
can not smoke inside your own house? Just one example.
Non-smoking laws do not bar smoking in private homes.

But the stalls were closed to the outside viewers. And maybe the cop
ignored the plea for paper. Tell me where in the Constitution it gives
those powers to the government to control private actions.

Governments have always had the power to control private actions. Try
smoking a joint in public. The government certainly has the power to
arrest you.

You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one should
bother you?



And there are cities that have banned smoking in your own house if there is
a possibility of a child being in the building.-

Which ones?

Lol the US pipi stalls...
No privacy, anyone can check door closed if Ben laden is in one of them

"Carole Allen" a écrit dans le message de
...
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 23:33:44 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
But the stalls were closed to the outside viewers. And maybe the cop
ignored the plea for paper. Tell me where in the Constitution it gives
those powers to the government to control private actions.

The stalls were located in a public building. Closed, oh please, you
can see right into most stalls via the door frame gaps with little
effort. Besides, most of us learned long ago to CHECK to make sure
we have paper before we get down to business. He'd have been better
off going to a gay bar and getting a room.

And there are cities that have banned smoking in your own house if there
is
a possibility of a child being in the building.

Such as?

Sarah Banick wrote:
"Carole Allen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 23:33:44 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:
But the stalls were closed to the outside viewers. And maybe the
cop ignored the plea for paper. Tell me where in the Constitution
it gives those powers to the government to control private
actions.

The stalls were located in a public building. Closed, oh please,
you
can see right into most stalls via the door frame gaps with little
effort. Besides, most of us learned long ago to CHECK to make
sure
we have paper before we get down to business. He'd have been
better
off going to a gay bar and getting a room.


Yep.

"Freedom" doesn't mean we can do anything we want anywhere. If you
were the parent or grandparent of a 7-year-old, would you want him
using the stall next door? What would you say if he ask you about
it?
("daddy, why were those two men in the same stall making those
noises?")

And, although I can't say in this case, certain facilities get a
reputation for meeting up, which is probably why the cop was there
in
the first place, trying to stop the practice.

According to the news stories the cop was there looking for drug
dealers. The police actually seemed kind of embarassed about having
to bust gays who attempt to solicit them while they're patrolling for
drug dealers. Police have the latitude to ignore quite a lot, but an
unlawful act directed at the officer they pretty much _have_ to deal
with.

They need a signal for
"meet me in room 365 at the Holiday Inn". That's legal.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Can someone explain to me why sliding your hand along
the edge of a bathroom stall is a criminal offense

It's illegal to have sex in public places, including public rest
rooms, and it's also illegal to make sexual advances to someone else
in a public rest room, since the intent is usually to have sex there
in the public rest room.

PeterL wrote in
ups.com:
You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one should
bother you?

He was not arrested for having sex. He was arrested for sliding his shoe and
hand along the edge of the stall. I can understand arresting someone for
having sex in public, but arresting someone for waving his hand sounds more
like harrassment.

Mikey wrote:
PeterL wrote in
ups.com:
You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one
should
bother you?

He was not arrested for having sex. He was arrested for sliding his
shoe and hand along the edge of the stall. I can understand
arresting someone for having sex in public, but arresting someone
for
waving his hand sounds more like harrassment.

Not just "sliding his shoe along the edge of the stall", sliding it
_under_ and trying to play footsie with the cop.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sep 2, 11:44 am, Mikey wrote:
PeterL wrote roups.com:

You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one should
bother you?

He was not arrested for having sex. He was arrested for sliding his shoe and
hand along the edge of the stall. I can understand arresting someone for
having sex in public, but arresting someone for waving his hand sounds more
like harrassment.


It's not "sliding his shoe" or "waving his hand". You misunderstood
what he was allegedly doing there.

PeterL wrote in
ps.com:
It's not "sliding his shoe" or "waving his hand". You misunderstood
what he was allegedly doing there.

Are you talking about arresting someone for what he is thinking instead of
what he is doing or saying?

PeterL wrote:
On Sep 2, 11:44 am, Mikey wrote:
PeterL wrote
roups.com:

You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one
should
bother you?

He was not arrested for having sex. He was arrested for sliding
his
shoe and
hand along the edge of the stall. I can understand arresting
someone for
having sex in public, but arresting someone for waving his hand
sounds more
like harrassment.


It's not "sliding his shoe" or "waving his hand". You misunderstood
what he was allegedly doing there.

According to Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20547150...wsweek/page/0/ he did
three things, he peeped into the crack around the door, he tapped his
foot, brushing it against the officer's, and he waved his hand under
the stall divider three times. Now whether that was some kind of
"signal" or not I don't know, I certainly wouldn't have recognized it
as such and would likely have come down on the twit's instep with my
250 pounds in a size 13 motorcycle boot at step 2.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)