disorderly conduct?

PeterL wrote:
On Sep 2, 3:10 pm, Rumsy wrote:
PeterL wrote
oups.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?


Again, not what he was thinking. But what he was doing. He was not
"sliding" his shoe, nor "waving" his hand.

Are you saying that the police report falsified his actions?

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

Calif Bill wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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.

I certainly wouldn't know if someone was waving his hand under the
partition that he wanted some paper. What's wrong with "Hey, mate,
couldja pass me some bumwipe?"

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?

Because the body politic has decided that sex in public washrooms
is
socially unacceptable. We live in something that is trying hard to
become a democracy--in that system one is only as free as the
majority wants one to be.

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.

Uh, where in the US is it unlawful to smoke in a private residence?

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



Several cities in the San Francisco Area are attempting to ban
smoking in a detached home if a minor lives there.

Politicians attempt to pass all sorts of loony legislation, usually to
give the appearance of Doing Something or to pay off a campaign debt.
It only counts if they succeed.

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

Calif Bill wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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 yet Craig was peeping into the cop's stall, so they don't seem
to
be all _that_ closed.

And maybe the cop
ignored the plea for paper.

If so then howcum Craig never mentioned that he asked the cop for
paper?

Tell me where in the Constitution it
gives those powers to the government to control private actions.

Tell us where in the Constitution the states are prohibited from
doing so. The Constitution limits the powers of the Federal
government--it only limits the states to the degree that the courts
have decided to extend it.

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 cities are those? The closest I can find is a ban in
Citronelle, AL, on smoking in private residences used as commercial
day care facilities.

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



Most state constitutions are patterned on the US constitution.

Is the state constitution in the state in question so patterned? Does
it in fact deny to the government all powers not specifically
enumerated?

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

Calif Bill wrote:
"PeterL" wrote in message
ps.com...
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?


http://www.nysun.com/article/60516 refers to cars.

A car is not a house, so that is irrelevant to the question posed. In
any case if you read the article you will find that the originator of
the legislation "said he is planning to introduce the smoking bill
next week", which is a long way from being law.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articl...w.php?id=66988 Condos
are not detached homes, so you are banned from smoking in them.

What part of "The actual language of the law still needs to be drafted
and will likely come back to the council either in December or early
next year" are you having trouble with?

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

Calif Bill wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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)



And footsie is public sex?

Footsie with someone who doesn't want to play footsie is at the very
least harassment. The charges were "gross misdemeanor interference to
privacy" and "disorderly conduct", he plead to "disorderly conduct"
and the court dismissed "interference to privacy". "Public sex" is
not an element of either offense.

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

Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
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.


So making a sexual advance in a public place is against the law?

There was no element of "sexual advance" in the charges.

Damn, amazing I did not go to jail for my years of chasing women in
bars during my early 20's. Arrested for what he was thinking
(maybe)
and not for an action. Maybe he was arranging a tryst, but they may
have gone to the Red Carpet room to make their version of the "beast
with two backs". You whistle at a good looking women, so you think
it is OK to be arrested for sexual advances in public!

In how many of those bars did you follow a woman into the bathroom,
peep into the stall to check her out, then sit down in the next stall
and try to play footsie with her?

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

Shawn Hirn wrote:
In article ,
"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.

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

The senator is accused of peeking into a shower

Shower? There was no mention of a shower.

stall and observing a
complete stranger. That sure sounds like an invasion of privacy to
me
if the story is true.

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

So making a sexual advance in a public place is against the law?

No, but disorderly conduct laws typically make it illegal in public
rest rooms.

(Actually having sex is generally illegal in any public place.)

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:06:00 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Most state constitutions are patterned on the US constitution.

In what way? They generally specify the state will have
judicial-executive-legislative separation of powers and two
houses of the legislature (save Nebraska), but other than that
they don't look much like the US constitution.

See, for instance, the table of contents for the Califonia
constitution at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html which
goes into a great deal of detail compared to the federal
constitution.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Runge4 wrote:

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


Another gay sex thread by scRunge...yaaaaaawn...

--
Best
Greg



"Carole Allen" a écrit dans le 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.

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?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -