One more > for Family Values??? - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-30-2007, 02:13 PM   #121
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy
I just don't get the guys that assult people in toilets. Do they honestly think taking a swipe at another man's junk is gonna turn into everyone getting their freak on in the toilet? lol

Also, im not 100% sure what the story is here? Did he actually touch another man in the toot? Or did he get an eyeful when "picking up a piece of paper" (ewww on that who would touch paper on a toilet floor?)
i canna read between the lines?


this article in Slate does a good job explaining this stuff.

it also sounds like the Senator was guilty of not very much, so wtf did he plead guilty? it also sounds like police officers are a bit overeager with this stuff and certainly border on entrapment -- remember the George Michael thing? he said the police officer was looking at him and masturbating with the whole "come hither" look, and when George approached, he slapped a pair of cuffs on him.

these "vice patrols" are dodgey to begin with. i don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to enter a toilet and have it free of public sex, but so many of these cases seem to involve a sort of frat boy glee, and they are certainly much harder on two gay guys than they'd be on two hetero teenagers, that it all still stinks of prejudice. not that there aren't legitimately guilty parties, but like trolling for Johns in red light districts, i think my tax dollars could be better spent somewhere else.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:22 PM   #122
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:20 PM
The Senator approached the under cover officer by peeking through the cracks of his stall a few times.

The Senator was on the hunt for some action, and just as if a Senator was soliciting a hooker, and were to get busted-this is the same difference.

He got caught red handed and needs to leave office.

dbs
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:27 PM   #123
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:20 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...l?iref=topnews

Support for the serial pervert is is diminishing.

dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:29 PM   #124
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 07:20 PM
Actually if this were a male on female solicitation it would not stand up.


When the police use female police decoys they get much more evidence than just looking at fake street walkers or tapping their feet or I guess honking car horns or flashing head lights, etc.

The John has to verbally offer to engage in sex.

I guess if Craig said something, or if he exposed himself that would be sufficient.
deep is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:33 PM   #125
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Actually if this were a male on female solicitation it would not stand up.




I guess if Craig said something, or if he exposed himself that would be sufficient.
He did say plenty non verbally, where most people and experts recognize that 90% of communication is non verbal.

dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:43 PM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 07:20 PM
If people were always convicted for non-verbal acts,
how much time would you be doing?
deep is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:46 PM   #127
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:20 PM
If ppl were convicted for what they were thinking how much time would you be serving?

dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 02:48 PM   #128
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 07:20 PM
I don't support it

but you seem to

so it is a question you should consider.
deep is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:01 PM   #129
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by deep
I don't support it

but you seem to

so it is a question you should consider.
Well you couldn't unless you wanted to be locked up for a very long time.



dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:03 PM   #130
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:20 AM
I don't get the impression that verbal offers are typically involved in this sort of thing at all, so short of saying 'only if you catch people in the act,' I'm not sure how else you'd go about policing stuff like this.

Dunno...I can see Irvine's point that this is arguably a waste of policing funds and manpower--we're really talking nuisance issues here, not security issues. On the other hand, like he said, "I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to enter a toilet and have it free of public sex" either.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:07 PM   #131
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
"I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to enter a toilet and have it free of public sex" either.
I think this is the crux of it, plus consevatives hold their leaders to a higher standard.

In other words don't be crusing on our tax dollar time, and if you do and get caught, please step aside, as we didn't elect you to represent the ppl this way.

It's an accountability issue.



dbs
diamond is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:21 PM   #132
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

i'd probably do the same thing as Tucker.

Really?

An unwanted sexual advance is an unwanted sexual advance. In Tucker's case, assuming he's straight-would he ever react in that way to an unwanted sexual advance of a similar nature from a woman? So what is really behind his rage and dealing with it in that way?

Maybe Dan and Joe were just laughing at the thought of Tucker Carlson being able to physically overpower anyone, I don't know. I expect more from Dan Abrams other than frat boy sort of nonsense.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:21 PM   #133
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


I think this is the crux of it, plus consevatives hold their leaders to a higher standard.

In other words don't be crusing on our tax dollar time, and if you do and get caught, please step aside, as we didn't elect you to represent the ppl this way.

It's an accountability issue.



dbs


erm, while i admire your attempt to spin this event as some sort of proof that "conservatives" are more virtuous than liberals, the fact remains that it's "conservatives" who seem to need all the ethics lessons they can get.

party of morality my ass.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:24 PM   #134
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

plus consevatives hold their leaders to a higher standard.

dbs
Hahahahaha!

Good one, diamond! You are a real cut up.
indra is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:24 PM   #135
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,392
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen


Really?

An unwanted sexual advance is an unwanted sexual advance. In Tucker's case, assuming he's straight-would he ever react in that way to an unwanted sexual advance of a similar nature from a woman? So what is really behind his rage and dealing with it in that way?

Maybe Dan and Joe were just laughing at the thought of Tucker Carlson being able to physically overpower anyone, I don't know. I expect more from Dan Abrams other than frat boy sort of nonsense.

in Prague late one night, i once had a woman touch my crotch as she slipped her hand into my jacket pocket -- it was a pickpocketing technique -- and i grabbed her by the shoulders and shoved her across the street. she didn't fall to the ground, but the message was sent and i was left alone. if a man were to make a similar unwanted advance on me in a public place, i'd like to think i'd just walk away, but if i felt threatened in any way, like i did in Prague, then yes, i'd use a degree of physical force.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:28 PM   #136
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 11:20 PM
GLAAD Calls on Tucker Carlson, MSNBC to Apologize for Insensitive Remarks Condoning Violence

August 29, 2007

New York, Wednesday, August 29 - The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today called on Tucker Carlson, NBC News and MSNBC to apologize for remarks made on Tuesday night that appear to condone violent assault.

On the Tuesday, Aug. 28 edition of "MSNBC Live with Dan Abrams" MSNBC host Tucker Carlson referenced an incident from his past when he was the recipient of an unwanted advance from another man. Carlson told program host (and MSNBC General Manager) Dan Abrams and fellow MSNBC host Joe Scarborough that after being "bothered" by a man in a restroom in a Washington, D.C., mall, Carlson returned "with someone [he] knew and grabbed the guy... and hit him against the stall with his head, actually. And then the cops came and arrested him." Abrams and Scarborough are seen chuckling throughout Carlson's telling of the story.

Earlier today, GLAAD called Abrams' office to discuss NBC News and MSNBC's response to Carlson's behavior. Abrams' office responded with an e-mailed statement attributed to Carlson, which read:

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

The statement is not only a failed attempt to justify Carlson's advocacy of violence, but also changes key details of the previous night's on-air story. First, Carlson does not repeat his assertion that he "hit him against the stall with his head," instead changing his story to say that he "seized the man and held him down until a security guard arrived." The security guard element is also newly invented. In his on-air statement, Carlson said that "the cops came and arrested him."

"Carlson's story was difficult to watch on two levels," said GLAAD Senior Director of Media Programs Rashad Robinson. "To see someone brag on national television of returning, with an accomplice, to the scene of an unwanted advance to violently attack the person who made it is incredibly disturbing. But it was also hard to watch because of the sheer absurdity of most of what Carlson was saying."

"Whether Abrams and Scarborough were laughing with Carlson or laughing at him, the fact remains that MSNBC and NBC News have some explaining to do about their standards and practices," Robinson said. "They need to explain whether bragging about physically assaulting a man in response to an unwanted advance is appropriate on-air behavior for one of their employees, and whether laughter by two others is an appropriate on-air response."



GLSEN Outraged by MSNBC Host Tucker Carlson's Comments About Assaulting Gay Man


GLSEN, or the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is outraged and horrified by MSNBC host Tucker Carlson's revelation Tuesday night insinuating that as a high school student he once assaulted a man for a perceived sexual advance. GLSEN is calling on Carlson to issue an apology and disavow violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people as reprehensible and unacceptable.

"Tucker Carlson's casual acknowledgment perpetrating such a violent act is shocking and sends a dangerous message to youth that physical assault based on actual or perceived sexual orientation is acceptable," said GLSEN Deputy Executive Director Eliza Byard. "Countless lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth are bullied, harassed and assaulted at school every day. MSNBC and Carlson need to make it clear that violence in this case was an unacceptable reaction."

More than a third of LGBT students (37.8%) reported being physically harassed (being pushed, shoved, etc.) at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation in GLSEN's 2005 National School Climate Survey. Additionally, 17.6% of LGBT students reported being physically assaulted (punched, kicked or injured with a weapon) in school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.

To watch the clip of Carlson's comments or learn more about the incident and others like it, visit Media Matters for America at www.mediamatters.org.

About GLSEN GLSEN, or the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is the leading national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. Established nationally in 1995, GLSEN envisions a world in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. For more information on GLSEN's educational resources, public policy agenda, student organizing programs or development initiatives, visit www.glsen.org.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:28 PM   #137
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,146
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Vincent Vega
As the officer said, there wasn't even a piece of paper on the floor.
Do you have a square to spare ???

Bluer White is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:28 PM   #138
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
The Senator approached the under cover officer by peeking through the cracks of his stall a few times.

dbs
Wouldn't any normal person just say "what the fuck do you think you're doing?!" and that would be the end of that? I know I sure as hell would if I saw someone peering through the cracks in the stall.
indra is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:34 PM   #139
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

if a man were to make a similar unwanted advance on me in a public place, i'd like to think i'd just walk away, but if i felt threatened in any way, like i did in Prague, then yes, i'd use a degree of physical force.
The woman you described, well you were protecting your property and person. Tucker says he was "bothered". When exactly does a sexual advance become a physical threat? Couldn't he just say he wasn't interested and walk away? There was nothing said that the man was aggressive or violent towards him. He was in high school so I suppose his age and maturity were a factor. His retelling of the tale frankly reeks of bragging in a disturbing way.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 08-30-2007, 03:36 PM   #140
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


Wouldn't any normal person just say "what the fuck do you think you're doing?!" and that would be the end of that? I know I sure as hell would if I saw someone peering through the cracks in the stall.
Not an officer trying to enforce the law.

Maybe you should take a look at the law, and if you don't like it you and your cohorts in Minn should rally to try and change it

609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY.
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of
a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or
place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the
household.
(b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) enters upon another's property;
(2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording,
amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house
or place of dwelling of another; and
(3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the
household.
(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping
room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place
where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to
expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering
the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.
(d) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording,
amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a sleeping
room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place
where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to
expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering
the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.
(e) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than
two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both, if the person:
(1) violates this subdivision after a previous conviction under this subdivision or section
609.749; or
(2) violates this subdivision against a minor under the age of 18, knowing or having reason
to know that the minor is present.
(f) Paragraphs (b) and (d) do not apply to law enforcement officers or corrections
investigators, or to those acting under their direction, while engaged in the performance of their
lawful duties. Paragraphs (c) and (d) do not apply to conduct in: (1) a medical facility; or (2) a
commercial establishment if the owner of the establishment has posted conspicuous signs warning
that the premises are under surveillance by the owner or the owner's employees.
Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1993 c 326 art 2 s 34]
Subd. 3.[Repealed, 1993 c 326 art 2 s 34]
History: 1979 c 258 s 19; 1987 c 307 s 4; 1989 c 261 s 6; 1992 c 571 art 6 s 14;
__________________

diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×