2007-08-30 15:55:39 · 12 answers · asked by bboy244 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Only people who hear the tape please. Thanks in advance.
2007-08-30 15:56:53 · update #1
I see a problem and I am not a fan of Craig.May I add 3 problems.He did not say a word or expose himself to the cop.If he went to court win or lose the many people would have already have asked to resign before the trail.He could not have faired well win or lose.We all know cop under the gun to find warm bodies to please the brass.The action of Craig may not mean the same as the action of others he took i.
2007-08-30 18:55:56 · update #2
It doesn't sound much different to any other interrogation I've heard. They want the person to admit guilt and don't like having to admit they may have made a mistake arresting them. I don't even understand what Craig is guilty of. All I heard he did was tap his foot, move his foot and put his hand on the bottom of the stall wall. I didn't know that was illegal. I thought solicitation of prostitution had to involve a verbal offer to exchange money for sex. There were no claims he did that. Now people are being arrested for non-verbal gestures and body movements. This is ridiculous because these things can be easily misperceived. He didn't expose himself or ask the officer for sex. If I look at a guy, bat my eyes, lick my lips and push my chest out can I get arrested for "soliciting sex"? If a guy asks a woman in a bar to go home with him should he be arrested for soliciting sex? It sounds like the most he's guilty of is possibly hitting on someone. If this is the case we better put a bunch of undercover cops in bars all over to arrest everybody that hits on them.
2007-08-30 18:24:09 · answer #1 · answered by DawnDavenport 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although he was charged with two crimes, if you read the police report, no crime was committed.
Given that, either Senator Craig is profoundly unlucky, or he knows an awful lot about secret signals to hook up with gay men.
Listening to the tape, it sounds like a typical police interrogation, no more, no less. The cop seems to think that he had a clean bust, and (as is the goal in all interrogations) was trying to get the suspect to confess. You could say he "had it in" for Craig to the extent that all police officers who think they have a case "have it in" for the principle suspect.
Craig has just enough plausible deniability that he probably could have convinced a jury to let him off, had he had sense enough to go to trial. My thoughts are that the officer had probably gotten so accustomed to creeps propositioning him and then pleading out to save themselves the embarrassment that he'd gotten lax in waiting for an actual violation to occur. I suspect that Craig was up to no good, and that if the cop had just played along for a few more minutes there wouldn't have been any doubt, one way or the other.
2007-08-30 16:44:24 · answer #2 · answered by El Jefe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I viewed the tape--Senator Craig is in denial, he thinks by lying everything will be forgiven (such as-business as usual) and all is well. This man is guilty as sin-He confessed because he is guilty and kept it hush hush for some 77 days until the truth was exposed. Enough is enough already--The American people will not tolerate this type of behavior no longer from her elected officials. He should retire, what a shame an entire career ruin for a few seconds of stupidity.
2007-08-30 17:58:24 · answer #3 · answered by Joan J 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that SAME cop had pulled Craig over for Speeding- would you have felt the same way? That Cop was doing his job- & Craig wasn't owning up to his. He's getting what he "asked for".
2007-08-30 16:32:22 · answer #4 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard it on the news tonight and no, I think Craig was guilty. Before he had a chance to lawyer-up he confessed he was guilty. Now he thinks he can bluff his way out of it. Note however how many Republicans are backing away from him based on what they know about him.
2007-08-30 16:00:23 · answer #5 · answered by Rich Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sure sounded like he did, though cops are typically more interested in convicting and closing the books on an alleged crime as opposed to caring whether or not they have the correct criminal...they don't care about someones story, only how they can re-butt it in court to get a conviction and another notch on their badge...
2007-08-30 16:00:29 · answer #6 · answered by createaclick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a bit. He is is "deny everything" mode right now and is desperately trying to save his credibility and career as a right wing and anti-gay Republican. His actions right after the arrest are not the actions of an innocent man and his actions right now are the actions of a guilty man.
2007-08-30 16:00:38 · answer #7 · answered by SterlingThorne 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It was obvious that Craig was being less than truthful with the officer. If you listen to the tape you can clearly see that he was offended by this.
2007-08-30 15:59:55 · answer #8 · answered by Dreams 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know but the governor of Idaho is still standing behind Craig.... and that just takes on a whole new meaning!!!
2007-08-30 16:26:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The cop was probably disappointed that Craig was so small, so he arrested him to get off instead..
2007-08-30 16:00:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋