disorderly conduct?

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.



are you retarded? With the number of dogs in aiports(few of which are
trained for drugs), do you think people slip into the bathroom to make
last minute adjustments to their stash?

Do dealers tell their customers, meet me at the aiport, yeah, thats a
good place to move drugs....sheesh


Chuck

J. Clarke wrote:
Icono Clast wrote:
Banging your wife with the shades up is "indecent exposure",

Why? The violator is the person peeping. Looking in to other people's
private space isn't done by decent passersby.

The ability of the public to see into the place . . .

.. . . does not have to be exercised. One can choose to not "see into
the place"

J. Clarke wrote:
I guess it's cool with you that some moron goes around peeping
into bathroom stalls and playing footsie with some poor *******
who's just trying to take a crap in peace.
It takes two to play. Someone's foot gets too close to mine, I move
it. What's the big deal?

So you've moved it as far as you can and they're still reaching for
it. Now what?

That simply doesn't happen. Even perverts know when someone doesn't
want to play.

When someone peeps into a bathroom stall, I presume an empty one's
being sought. Sometimes the closed doors don't reveal vacancy.

One can look under the door to see if there are feet,

Uh, that constitutes "peeping into a bathroom stall".

to peek through the crack. I've never found it necessary to peek
through the crack to see if a stall was occupied.

Me, too, but I've often seen through a crack that it was. Just this
evening, while washing my hands in a public facility, I glanced into
the mirror and happened to notice through a stall's crack that it was
occupied.

Hatunen wrote:
Icono Clast wrote:
other than the Constitution, there is basically no "USA law".
Are you saying that the United States Code doesn't exist?
Nope. Thus the word "basically".

In the context of offenses to privacy and sex offenses, there is no
uniform "USA law",

That's what I thought I said upon which Hatunen commented.

--
__________________________________________________ _________________

http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
TouringSFO: http://geocities.com/touringsfo/ - IClast @ Gmail.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:
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.



are you retarded?

plonk

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

On Sep 6, 7:31 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
wrote:
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.

are you retarded?

plonk



no realy, John, are you retarded? You think airport police are
patrollign bathrooms to catch drug dealers? Thats what you siad isnt
it?

Chuck

Icono Clast wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Icono Clast wrote:
Banging your wife with the shades up is "indecent exposure",

Why? The violator is the person peeping. Looking in to other
people's
private space isn't done by decent passersby.

Kind of hard to miss somebody's butt bobbing up and down through a
picture window.

There's a difference between "peeping" and having to make a conscious
effort to avoid looking.

The ability of the public to see into the place . . .

. . . does not have to be exercised. One can choose to not "see into
the place"

So we are all supposed to go around with our eyes averted so as to
avoid seeing your ugly butt bobbing up and down?

J. Clarke wrote:
I guess it's cool with you that some moron goes around peeping
into bathroom stalls and playing footsie with some poor *******
who's just trying to take a crap in peace.
It takes two to play. Someone's foot gets too close to mine, I
move
it. What's the big deal?

So you've moved it as far as you can and they're still reaching for
it. Now what?

That simply doesn't happen. Even perverts know when someone doesn't
want to play.

You seem to be remarkably knowledgeable about the behavior exhibited
by perverts in bathroom stalls. How did you come by this knowledge?

When someone peeps into a bathroom stall, I presume an empty one's
being sought. Sometimes the closed doors don't reveal vacancy.

One can look under the door to see if there are feet,

Uh, that constitutes "peeping into a bathroom stall".

Not in the sense that there is any likelihood of seeing someone's
privates. You seem to be using a very broad definition of "peeping".
By your definition it appears that someone sitting in a theater
watching a movie would be "peeping at the screen".

to peek through the crack. I've never found it necessary to peek
through the crack to see if a stall was occupied.

Me, too, but I've often seen through a crack that it was. Just this
evening, while washing my hands in a public facility, I glanced into
the mirror and happened to notice through a stall's crack that it
was
occupied.

That's nice. Mighty big crack. Could the person in the stall
determine your eye color from his view through the crack from where he
was sitting?

Hatunen wrote:
Icono Clast wrote:
other than the Constitution, there is basically no "USA law".
Are you saying that the United States Code doesn't exist?
Nope. Thus the word "basically".

In the context of offenses to privacy and sex offenses, there is no
uniform "USA law",

That's what I thought I said upon which Hatunen commented.

Geez, someone _agrees_ with you and you _still_ find something to
complain about.

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

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




But it was the basis for the bust. Homosexual liaisons.

Neither homesexuality nor "liaisons" were an element of the charges
levied.

I guess it's cool with you that some moron goes around peeping into
bathroom stalls and playing footsie with some poor ******* who's just
trying to take a crap in peace.

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


"
Neither homesexuality nor "liaisons" were an element of the charges
levied."
Only because they could not get them to stick. You going to bust somebody
looking for feet in a stall? He was not busted for looking at the door of
the stall, he was busted for waving under the stall. I guess you are for
less freedom. Putting up with some crap like this may just be part of
living in a free nation.

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



But sex was the basis for the bust! I guess if the cops bust
someone, then it is always true and the law must be good. People
like your ilk are why we are becoming a much less free country.

So tell us with what sex offense he was charged if "sex was the basis
for the bust".

I don't know about you, but I prefer to live in a country where people
don't peep into my stall when I'm taking a dump. If you think that
doing so is OK then maybe you ought to petition to outlaw doors on
bathroom stalls.

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



Hell, in Europe, the women in some places have to walk by the male urinals
to get to their section. Does not seem to have harmed anyone. Some things
you may have to put up with that upset you if you want to live in a "Free
Society".

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Calif Bill" wrote:


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

What they attempt to do and what they succeed in doing are not
always
the same thing.

Attempt to bust someone for soliciting sex by tapping their foot,
seems far fetched also.

Please be kind enough to show me where the words "solicit" and/or
"sex" appear in the charges levied.

And why are you focussing on "tapping their foot" and ignoring
"peeping into the crack"?

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



Show where the bust was for peeking at the door. He was not busted until he
tapped his foot and slid his hand along the bottom of the stall. Craig is a
slimeball, just like a lot of the other US Legislators. But I get more
upset with the extremes to which those in control are going to control the
peoples lives. If it had not been a cop in the other stall, the person may
not have known what Craig was signaling and just said "what the hell,you
want?" and if they wanted a liaison, he could have agreed to go the Red
Carpet room and met. Did not hurt the public one iota!

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




But it was the basis for the bust. Homosexual liaisons.

Neither homesexuality nor "liaisons" were an element of the charges
levied.

I guess it's cool with you that some moron goes around peeping into
bathroom stalls and playing footsie with some poor ******* who's
just
trying to take a crap in peace.

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


"
Neither homesexuality nor "liaisons" were an element of the charges
levied."
Only because they could not get them to stick.

They didn't even try to "get them to stick".

You going to bust
somebody looking for feet in a stall? He was not busted for looking
at the door of the stall, he was busted for waving under the stall.
I guess you are for less freedom. Putting up with some crap like
this may just be part of living in a free nation.

He was not busted for waving under the door, he was not busted for
playing footsie, he was not busted for looking into the crack, he was
busted for doing all three. If he had only done one he wouldn't have
gotten busted.

You really ought to do some more research before you spout off.

--
--
--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:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
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)



But sex was the basis for the bust! I guess if the cops bust
someone, then it is always true and the law must be good. People
like your ilk are why we are becoming a much less free country.

So tell us with what sex offense he was charged if "sex was the
basis
for the bust".

I don't know about you, but I prefer to live in a country where
people don't peep into my stall when I'm taking a dump. If you
think that doing so is OK then maybe you ought to petition to
outlaw
doors on bathroom stalls.

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



Hell, in Europe, the women in some places have to walk by the male
urinals to get to their section. Does not seem to have harmed
anyone. Some things you may have to put up with that upset you if
you want to live in a "Free Society".

And in Japan thirteen year old girls can lawfully engage in
prostitution but any display of genitalia in a porno film has to be
blocked out. So what? Customs differ and the laws built around those
customs differ. If you want to live in a society where women walk
past the men's urinals to get to "their section" by all means move to
Europe.

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