Anyone Think The Cop Who Arrested Craig Was A Raging Asshole?

[ludwigb]

Listen to the audio of the arrest here:
http://www.salon.com/ent/video_dog/politics/2007/08/30/craig_police/

I don't think much of Craig as a public servant, but Like Matt Yglesias, I'm inclined to believe this arrest was not justified.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/lewd_conduct.php

[mondo joe]

1. Actually, I thought he was very decent, and the arrest quite justified.

He gave Craig the space to come clean without humiliating or degrading him. He said he wouldn't call the media, and he didn't.

[ludwigb]

7. So it's ok to arrest a man for tapping someone's foot?

And the officer was quite verbally abusive--much more than the supposed "crime" could ever warrant. I prefer if cops just do their job and not pass judgement. Finally, there was an element of entrapment in the arrest.

[mondo joe]

16. That's not what he was arrested for. Try to read some before commenting. He was arrested

because he spent 2 minutes being a peeping tom, then put his foot and hand into the stall.

There was no element of entrapment, and your suggestion that there was just proves you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Blue_Roses]

55. exactly!

well said! :thumbsup:

[NashVegas]

89. If You're Going to Arrest Someone for Violtion of Expected Privacy ....

When there was a cop in the stall who was waiting and hoping someone would do exactly what Craig did, and behaving like someone who would wait and hope for someone like Craig to come along, there are better targets out there, don't you think?

[mondo joe]

97. I don't think simply sitting in the stall constitutes "behaving like someone

who would wait and hope for someone like Craig to come along".

I further think it is the point of any undercover operation to make the officer available as a target for those who would violate the law.

Lastly, the arresting officer is an airport officer, so as I understand it, the scope of his work is limited to the airport property.

[flyarm]

261. look... on "Craig's List" there were postings pointing out this bathroom

that said this was a place for this type of behavior to occur..

I heard this on either Ed Schultz show or Randi Rhodes show...this bathroom was posted about as a great place for this behavior to occur..

So someone was posting that a guy could go into that bathroom and do what the Senator was doing..

now i didn't read it on Craig's list so i do not know how the posting was framed..but this bathroom was known evidently as a place to get anonymous sex.

I don't know if the posting said there was a way to approach others..i just don't know..but i do know it was pointed out that there was a posting on Craig's List ( not same Craig)..that advertised this particular bathroom as a place for People to meet up with others to do this sort of thing.

And this was a sting..

and that is how stings are done..

there were complaints by someone about this behavior in this bathroom...

the police in my opinion did their job

if someone broke the law..that is not the cops fault..no one made that senator do what he did..

He just got caught breaking the law..

so no one should "blame" the cop who was doing his job..he had a job and he did it.

again..no one made Craig peep ..or try to solicit anonymous sex in a public airport bathroom

and as a mom of a son ..i would be mad if the police didn't do their job, if they had tips about this behavior going on ..how would any parent feel if their son walked into a bathroom and had someone do to their child what Craig did????????

if one does not have the sanctity of privacy while in a bathroom stall..then where would one expect to have it?

i would be furious at the police if they ignored this going on at any public bathroom..where my son could be victimized..by a peeper or someone soliciting sex ..in a damn bathroom!

ya know it is easy to take a boy into the lady's room, only to a certain age..at some point many moms have to stand back while their child goes into a mens room..and sometimes dad is not there to go in with them...

and i would be damn furious if the police had this info and didn't set up a sting to protect the PUBLIC..in a Public bathroom.

that cop was doing his job..it was a sting..because obviously there have been complaints about this behavior taking place in that PUBLIC bathroom

the public has the right to believe their privacy in a PUBLIC toilet will be protected..

unlike how the retugs believe..laws are in existence to protect the public at large

please stop blaming the cop..he was doing his job..

it was Craig who broke the law!

stings are put in place everyday in this country ..to protect society as a whole..not individuals who are predisposed to breaking the law.

I believe this cop was professional and respectful..but i do not believe Craig was either..he lied in the face of the cop..and he was trying to get away with breaking the law..by his position and by his so called power.

I for one am damn sick and tired of people breaking laws..and thinking they have that "right" to until they get caught.

so what if a cop hadn't been in that stall and it had been a 16 year old boy? or a 13 year old boy? at the airport ...

geezzz..Craig broke the law..there are no excuses good enough.

and no one is above the law..not even a senator.

fly

[hlthe2b]

99. what would you suggest?

surveillance cameras in the stalls?

[rucky]

260. How about arresting people for actual crimes

with actual victms.

Someone's peeping, you zip up and flag down a cop.

[flyarm]

262. thats easy for you to say..but many young boys or young men would be too embarassed to say anything

i know at a young age ( 10-16 yrs) my son would have been quiet about something like that happening...my son was very shy...

LOOK THE COPS WERE DOING THEIR JOB..THE COP DIDN'T BREAK THE DAMN LAW..CRAIG DID!

in a public bathroom..in a very public airport.

and you nor i know of how many complaints of this behavior the police may have gotten.

if the public does not have the right to privacy in a public toilet..then where the hell do they have the right to expect privacy from peepers and people soiliciting sex...

If Craig wanted sex so bad..there are other, better places to seek it besides a damn public bathroom! at the airport!


i have asked my son this week if anyone ever came onto him in a public bathroom..( my son is grown now) and he said yes a couple times..i asked him why didn't he ever tell me..and he rolled his eyes and said..mommmmmmmmmmm...i knew you would go into the bathroom and go after the guy..and make a scene...

i asked him what age he was ..he thought he was about 13...
and he said he couldn't prove the guy was coming onto him..but he sure got nervous..and was embarassed..and got out of the bathroom as fast as he could..

he said another time it happened to him..he was in college, i asked him if he told police and he said no.again he was too embarassed.

I asked him why he never told me .and he said..mommmmmmm it is not something a young guy says to his mom..
i pushed it and said ..why not..he just said..you just don't..

( and we talk about everything openly .always have )

fly

[redqueen]

168. People complained. The cop was there waiting to *do something about it*.

Where's the problem here?

[ludwigb]

112. These are all just signals

And there isn't any definite evidence he was a "peeping Tom" (sure, I believe the officer was probably right about this, but his interpretation does not consitute absolute truth!)

If Craig had contested these charges they would have been dismissed fairly easily.

[mondo joe]

116. If you reject the officer's testimony that Craig was looking in the stalll for 2 minutes

and then reaching in, then there's no evidence.

This isn't about interpretation of intent, but about actions.

[HughMoran]

268. I just hope nobody does those "signals" to me

I'll never forget how creepy it was when I became aware that someone was staring at me through the crack in the stall. If they had proceeded to tap my foot and wave their hand under the stall, I would have been extremely freaked out. This is extremely creepy behavior. I was 12 when this happened to me - it was very frightening to me and why I remember it clearly to this day.

[Matariki]

158. The question begs, what was the cop doing during those two minutes?

Acting like he didn't notice and was just doing his business, or acting like he was looking for some of what Craig had?

What would most people do who legitimately wanted privacy in a bathroom stall if the noticed someone peeping at them?

[mondo joe]

192. Some might just sit there and hope te peeper would stop. Some might yell at

him. Some might punch him. Some might be scared to death to do anything.

[HughMoran]

270. I know I was totally freaked when it happened to me

I was looking out of the corner of my eyes and darting them back and forth to check whether the person was indeed looking at me. They were - it was an extremely uncomfortable situation. I was trying to "go about my business", but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to have someone staring at my "stuff" when I go to pull up my pants!!!

[KansDem]

132. Craig was also peeping in on him...

Last I heard, Peeping Tomming was illegal.

Perhaps we should be thankful the officer didn't taser him...such has been done for less.

[hlthe2b]

12. I agree with mondo joe...

You may not agree that this (making advances toward another in a public place for the purposes of sexual encounter elsewhere) should be against the law... I'm having a bit of trouble with this somewhat vague law, although I certainly believe society has a stake in protecting privacy and preventing harassment.

Nonetheless, the officer was charged with enforcing existing law. He did so respectfully without apparent personal agendas of any kind coming into it (I do not think the officer gives reason to believe that he personally was homophobic). He was respectful to Craig, but enforced the law with him as he would a non-Senator, non-VIP.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. agreed.

also there were complaints that an older man was harassing men in the john.

[Clark2008]

37. You don't agree that peeking into bathroom stalls should be

against the law?

:wtf:

[hlthe2b]

50. Excuse me...

You are totally misreading what I am saying...

One could argue multiple points about privacy laws and how they should be written, narrowly categorized and enforced. This particular law is rather vague, which is why you see so many people picking apart aspects that have nothing to do with the wording of the law itself.

Your reply to me totally misrepresents what I am saying. You know full well that I never said it should NOT be against the law to peak into stalls. I stated that some may not feel that making an advance towards another in a public place to be inappropriate--not the sex act, nor acting in a way that invades the privacy of others-- but the approach of another to indicate interest... What you and I might find distasteful is one thing..... It is where one draws the line to promulgate law that is at issue.

Please leave the hyperbolic restatements to those who want to pick a fight. I don't think that was your real intent.

[redqueen]

170. The thing is, people were complaining about the activity.

So this isn't just innocent people meeting and arranging dates... this isn't people making 'normal' advances... this is exactly what you said, "acting in a way that invades the privacy of others".

[hlthe2b]

173. yes... exactly... n/t

[Labors of Hercules]

258. Craig was obviously lying... "Picking up a piece of toilet paper?"

The officer was attempting to clarify the truth of Craig's behavior, as it was obvious when he said he was "reaching down to pick up a piece of toilet paper" that he was making up bullshit to explain what he was doing. That's just nasty... who in their right mind would reach down beside their toilet to pick up a piece of shitty toilet paper someone else dropped there?

[Jed Dilligan]

134. Therein lies his assholeusness

He was trying to manipulate Craig into confessing ("come clean") even though that was not his role. He also used the semi-veiled threat of jailhouse beating/rape if he didn't confess. It's what all cops do and I'm disgusted.

[mondo joe]

193. What were the threats? I specifically heard him say to Craig he as going to

get to go home, that there was a fine, that he wouldn't call the press.

[youthere]

215. Your comment:

"It's what all cops do and I'm disgusted."

betrays your ability to be objective.

[Jed Dilligan]

242. Yep, and my judgment that someone is an asshole

is meant as an objective observation...

:sarcasm:

I find it useful to keep in mind that cops are assholes when talking to them. They will try to make you think they are advocates for you somehow, when their only agenda is to stick you with the most severe charges possible. No matter how friendly they come on to me, I find it useful to bear in mind that their only purpose in stopping me is to fuck up my life as much as possible. This helps me to remember to do the right thing--shut up, answer no questions--which Sen. Craig didn't do.

If someone is actually a "good cop," my assessment that he is an asshole should not affect him in the slightest. Good cops don't care what people think of them; they do their jobs. I've met one or two.

[youthere]

247. My experience has been just the opposite...

and I know a lot of police officers and sheriffs. I've found most of them to be good, decent people...there are some assholes, but I've found that to be the exception rather than the rule. Unfortunate that your experience has been otherwise.

[Jed Dilligan]

249. I was homeless for a while

You don't see the other side of cops when you merely socialize (or even work) with them. I've been on ridealongs during my thesis research and the cops were perfectly affable, though they were also very eager to tout their conservatism and Republicanism. It's when you are an "undesirable" or "scumbag" in their eyes that you see their ugly side.

[LanternWaste]

224. I'll ask my Brother-in-Law if he's threatened someone...

I'll ask my Brother-in-Law if he's threatened someone with getting beaten or raped in jail, but I seriously doubt he's done either.

(But then again, I do understand the "he's a cop and immediately guilty until proven otherwise" stance-- it's very popular these days as a passive-aggressive front for the trendy "anti-authoritarian" crowd...)

[Jed Dilligan]

239. I'm sure your bil does it every day

as sure as I am that he will lie to you about it.

[LanternWaste]

244. The phrase "sweeping generalization" comes to mind...

Because your own experience with cops far outweighs his or anyone else's opinion that doesn't validate your over-marketed, popular-amongst-the-angst-ridden-crowd, anti-authoritarianism. :sarcasm:

But to be honest, I'm going to have to believe my brother in law over a poster who calls people who calls someone they've never met and know nothing about a liar. It's the whole, "goes to credibility" thing, ya'know?


The phrase "sweeping generalization" comes to mind.

[Jed Dilligan]

245. You aren't going to change my mind about cops

or even make me feel insulted by your driveling string of insults. ("Angst-ridden"... pretty ad hominem if you think you've got the high ground. Have you been inside my head or something?)


I don't expect to change your mind either. So, whatever. All cops do this behavior because they are trained to do it, and in my opinion it is the behavior of an asshole.

[Flabbergasted]

145. Ditto. Decent and Justified.

[SIMPLYB1980]

203. Helps to remove stubborn Trolls!

[flyarm]

264. from May through June there were 41 arrests for similar behavior..41

and there was a post on Craigs List saying this was a great pick up (?) place..by someone that it was a good place for whatever Craig was looking for..i didn't read the post ..but Randi Rhodes or Ed Shultz talked about it. ( i can't remember which)

fly

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Nope.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1703865

[DemReadingDU]

8. Great article!

I was just going to post this. The officer was a decent cop, not offensive, yet doing his job.

[POAS]

3. I respectfully disagree!

[mod mom]

17. Agree. I believe he was astounded that this "distinguished" senator would so boldly bald face lie

He admits he doesn't care about preference. He keeps repeating "embarassing"-like he had an elevated view of a US senator and this incident woke him up to reality.

[POAS]

248. I wish he had questioned him further about the peeping

What was his closing comment? Something like, "No wonder we're in so much trouble!"

[LiberalinNC]

4. Craig's guilty plea speaks for it's self...imo! n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. How Would You Like To Have To Sit In A John All Day And Have People Peer At You As You Sit On The

Shitter?

[zanne]

6. I don't like this type of "sweep" by police.

It's so close to entrapment it's ridiculous. I know that cops pose as drug dealers and prostitutes; I think that's entrapment, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Do you think

Do you think discouraging folks from peering through into occupied restroom stalls while people are doing their business is part of legitimate law enforcement?


I am for decriminalizing prostitution but streetwalkers destroy the quality of life in the area they walk...For instance, Orlando's South Orange Blossom Trail is nationally know for its streetwalkers... It's a commercial-residential (mostly poor working folks) area and the prostitutes and their johns have sex in parked cars, throw their condoms onto the street, and create a horrible environment for the residents...

There are stings to discourage that behavior and I applaud them...

[zanne]

28. I just don't like the tactics they use sometimes. nt

[flyarm]

267. i don't like the tactics some law breakers use and could subject children to their behavior

in a public place.

the airport for goodness sake..the airport ..where children go into bathrooms..and could be subjected to this kind of behavior..

look..laws are for everyone..except it seems republicans who think they can break our laws with impunity.

no one has the right to break the law..that was a public bathroom..if that sob wanted sex ..he could go elsewhere..
he had no right to peep and he had no right by the laws on the book to try to solicit sex in a damn public airport bathroom!

fly

[karlrschneider]

27. The distinction between entrapment and enticement is subtle but clear.

Juries are pretty good at sorting it out. If Craig had been smarter he could have received that benefit. I agree the cop was a little snarky but Craig was under no compunction to endure any further questioning without a lawyer...there was no coercion.

[zanne]

31. But didn't he plead guilty....

For a lesser charge?

[karlrschneider]

63. Yes but that is a different issue. Actually, I agree that there is too much leeway given to 'sting'

operations but that is a matter for the legislatures to address (and the courts to a limited extent - that there is clear, to me, conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment.)

[blondeatlast]

199. Without a lawyer? Dumbest move I've seen ANY DC politico make--ever.

As Karl says, he pled of his own free--and un-effing-believably stupid will.

[WinkyDink]

33. Yeah, because sitting behind a toilet stall door is SOOOOOO inviting to others!!

[redqueen]

171. ahahahahahahahah... exactly! n/t

[goodhue]

120. It is nowhere near entrapment!

Entrapment is when police induce an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. Nothing here suggests that Craig or any of the 40 others similiarly arrested did something that they would have otherwise been unwilling to do.

[mondo joe]

123. Didn't you read? The officer was young and handsome, which appparently acts as some

sort of mind control and MAKES people break the law!

[SidDithers]

211. Good thing the officer wasn't black...

'cause Craig would have been so scared, he would have offered $20 to blow him.

Sid

[flyarm]

263. from May through June 41 people were arrested in that bathroom for similar behavior ..41..eom

[bleedingheart]

125. apparently the police were in that bathroom because of complaints

just like in my neighborhood...people complain about people speeding...so the cop parks his car in someone's driveway...and after about 5 tickets...word gets around and people stop speeding.

This cycle repeats itself at the beginning of every school year since some folks want to go 50 mph in a 25 mph zone with kids standing on street corners waiting for buses...

I bet that in the airport bathroom a few folks were solicited for sex...got upset ..called the cops to say..."do you know what is going on in that bathroom?"....and that is how a cop happened to be waiting on the toilet to see who happened to be soliciting sex...and lo and behold...it was a US Senator...

[Hamlette]

150. not even close to entrapment

the cop did nothing. He just sat there and returned signals. The worst he did was tap his foot. If the cop had approached Craig, if he had started the tapping, if he had put HIS hand under the stall...you might have something. No, all he did was sit in a stall.

Legally, its not entrapment.

Craig may not have intended anything by his behavior although I've never done anything close to that, but he pleaded guilty.

[zanne]

156. I see what you're saying.

So it isn't officially "entrapment". I still think that cops whp pose as something other than cops are being duplicitous.

[alcibiades_mystery]

180. Whaaaaa?

I still think that cops whp pose as something other than cops are being duplicitous.

Are you out of your fucking mind? You invalidate the entire tradition of undercover work? Jesus Christ. Some people ain't got no sense. Of course they're being "duplicitous." You see, genius, criminals will often try to hide their criminal activity from the fucking POLICE. Duh. Given this inconvenience, the police, in order to catch people breaking the law, often have to behave as if they are law-breakers themselves, so that the actual law-breakers will be more open about their previously existing law-breaking activity.

:rofl:

[zanne]

183. Get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, alcibiades?

I must be out of my "fucking mind" if I disagree with you. And I "ain't got no sense". So sorry. DUH.

[alcibiades_mystery]

185. Your statement demonstrates it

So, yes.

[zanne]

186. Are you always this much fun? nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

187. You know I am

chucklenuts.

:-)

[zanne]

216. LMAO! nt

[youthere]

219. NO No NO!

You see, the officer was supposed to post a sign on the door of the bathroom as well as the door of the stall, IN ADDITION to having another uniformed officer handing out flyers to everyone who entered the restroom that said :

"PUBLIC NOTICE:

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT WITHIN THESE PREMISES SITS AN UNDERCOVER OFFICER ATTEMPTING TO STOP THE SOLICITATION OF LEWD BEHAVIOR. WE'VE CHOSEN AN ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE, YOUNG AND NUBILE OFFICER FOR YOUR ENTICEMENT AND TO ENHANCE YOUR TROLLING PLEASURE

BY COURTESY OF THE MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH AIRPORT AUTHORITIES"

That how you avoid ëntrapment.

:bounce:

[Hamlette]

197. of course they are but sometimes you need to do that to stop "crime"

what you really object to is cops posing as something other than cops to arrest people for soliciting sex (or maybe just gay sex) or other victimless crimes.

I oppose it too BUT we either have to legalize and regulate prostitution or do something to enforce the laws. As someone mentioned down thread, illegal prostitution destroys the neighborhoods where it thrives.

As for gays in bathrooms, I don't care BUT I'm not a guy and if lesbians made it a practice to turn our bathrooms into tearooms I might. I wouldn't like people leering at me while I'm on the jon or playing footsie with me or reaching under the barrier. It is a violation of my expectation of privacy and would make me feel vulnerable. Maybe I'd get used to it but never having experienced it I'm sure it would freak me out.

I am completely symathetic to gays and understand why they do it. If Craig and his party did not make such a to-do out of being gay, Criag could have gone to a bar like everyone else. (Josh has had a couple of posts on gays using the internet including a post on a site from last June that said to basically stay away from the restroom by the shoe shine stand at the Minn/St Paul Airport cause they were arresting people there. If Craig were "out" and knew enough to use the Internet, he might have known to choose another bathroom or airport.)

I will give you that the cop "invited it" by being in the stall for 13 minutes. Maybe Craig or others wouldn't hit on someone who didn't "invite" it by being in a stall that long.

I don't oppose cops posing as someone they are not to stop real crime. If a cop had to pose as someone sh/e was not to catch the person who murdered my loved one, I'm all for it. But even then I'd not want an innocent person arrested so I want certain rules followed. Case law for many years has set out those rules. (Former public defended here.)

[northzax]

204. you've never spent 13 minutes in a bathroom?

heck, I spent 15 or so in the bathroom at the Albuquerque airport on Monday, damn airport food. 30 I could see, but 15? no biggie (for a guy, at least)

[SidDithers]

212. Depends on the book I'm reading...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[northzax]

220. it takes you 15 minutes...

to get through Forum? wow! :evilgrin:

[SidDithers]

254. Well, I do spend the first 10 minutes looking for pictures...nt

Sid

[blogslut]

9. Craig is the raging asshole

n/t

[ComerPerro]

237. got that right. You seen this comic yet? Captures his assholiness perfectly

[Javaman]

10. What I find interesting is that craig, comes out and says that he's not gay...

yet, was there any time during this whole arrest that was stated by the police or anyone that he was being accused of being gay?

I think Craig's rush to declare himself not gay paints a picture of him knowing exactly what he was doing.

Since this practice of toe tapping and hand signals is done predominately in the gay community, why was craig in a rush to declare his ungayness? How would he know that the various secret signals were a gay issue?

To quote Shakespeare, "me thinks he protests to much".

Frankly, I could care less if he was gay, it's his hypocrisy that pisses me off.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

30. like a kid with cookie crumbs on his lips

and mom asks, "How was school?"
"I didn't steal any cookies, mom. Honest!"

you are right. it was exactly that.

[Postman]

11. No. Craig and all the rest of the phony-assed conservatives are Raging Assholes.

Period.

[lonestarnot]

13. Nope.

Also this post tells us a little about you. Cop using an interrogation technique by the book.

[ludwigb]

20. Yikes People

I wonder how many would be saying this if a major Democratic Senator had been arrested on such flimsy grounds?

Either we stand up against the persecution of gay people, or we don't. It doesn't matter what we think of Senator Craig.

[mondo joe]

34. WTF? This is not "persecution of gay people". It is arresting people who are invading

the privacy of others in bathroom stalls, and having sex in public places.

I am gay and there's not a chance in hell this would amount to persecution of me.

[WinkyDink]

38. Maybe some men can stop peering through toilet stall door openings?

[lonestarnot]

39. This is not a stand up for gay people issue. This is a law on the books. Fight for repeal if

you don't think it's right. Don't blast the damn cop. He was just doing what tax payers are paying him to do.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

42. How is this persecuting someone who's gay? If he's peeping in somene else's stall and

putting his foot against the foot of someone in the next stall, how is that persecution?

I don't understand how cruising for sex in a public bathroom, whatever one's sexuality, is OK.

MKJ

on edit, he's against gay marriage, not so against gay sex.

What a f***ing hypocrite.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I'll Play

If there's a representative who arrogates to himself or herself the right to look at men or women engaged in intimate acts without their consent I want him or her gone yesterday.

What part of that don't you understand?

[MyNameGoesHere]

76. craig made several choices that day

most of them bad. to make this a gay issue smells to high heaven. he admitted guilt. ok let this sink again again for those who skip over the facts HE ADMITTED GUILT TO A CRIME. ok? i added caps in case your hearing was not so good. Then he chose not to tell ANYONE until it became clear it would be released to the media. as the cop stated and as i will i do not care about sexual orientation. the cop cared about a senator lying to him and i care about the big "H" word that seems to be ignored.

Borrowing from another slogan:

IT'S THE "HYPOCRISY" STUPID.

[TX-RAT]

96. HE ADMITTED GUILT TO A CRIME

Yes he did ( Disorderly Conduct ) a charge that can come from a variety of activities. I'm not a big fan of these type operations, where all the evidence is nothing more than an officers statement. Should he chose i think he could come back and fight it in court and win, but i don't think he has that much fight in him. It's my recommendation to any departments doing these type operations, that they have their officers wearing recorders and video surveillance.

[MyNameGoesHere]

106. And the fact remains he pled guilty

and was happy with that until it was going to come out. if you were in that scenario and was being accused would you just have said "ok i am guilty let's get this over with? I just can't see myself doing that. And by god i would have told someone that i was being railroaded after the fact. A senator is a very powerful person. He could have made a huge stink and really changed the situation to police entrapment he chose not to. why? well i am not a mind reader but this sure looks like a man trying to hide the truth. and he is a hypocrite to boot. he does NOT DESERVE to be defended period.

[TX-RAT]

129. "ok i am guilty let's get this over with?

People plead guilty to lesser charges all the time. Seems he had 2 options, a lewd conduct or a disorderly conduct. There's no doubt why he chose the latter.

[MyNameGoesHere]

142. no 3 options

you left out "i am not guilty and i am going to court." i think that is what innocent people would have chosen. He chose hiding, concealing and avoidance. this is what innocent people do? you really want me to believe if you were in the same situation you would have pled guilty to something you were innocent of?

[Minimus]

148. Exactly!!!

[redqueen]

174. Yup... he could have used it to make some hay, too...

"look, they're accusing me of something horrible that i didn't do!"

[dansolo]

266. That doesn't work for public figures

It's the old "How long have you been beating your wife?" scenario. If they ignore it, then they are assumed to be guilty, and publicly denying it only keeps the story in the headlines. The usual tactic is to hope that it quietly goes away, or is not salacious enough to garner any attention. That is why he would want to avoid even an accusation of lewd conduct.

[Beelzebud]

108. Persecution of gay people? Wow...

ANYONE would be busted for having sex in a public bathroom...

[renie408]

130. I do not stand up for the right of ANY people, gay or otherwise...

to have sex in a public bathroom. I don't want to have to deal with either of my kids walking in on something like that. Hell, I don't want to have to walk in on something like that. I would be just as creeped out if it had been a heterosexual encounter in a public bathroom. Ok, that would be even creepier because it would mean that somebody was in the wrong bathroom.

[Rockholm]

149. This is not persecution of gay people

Remember, Craig is not gay. People like him do not identify themselves as gay. I would hazard a guess that most of the people who pull off the road for quickies in bathrooms and rest stops are on their way home to the wife and kids. They are CLOSET CASES who are self persecuted. They hate gay people because they are out and doing what they themselves can not do. They cringe and vomit at the idea of gay marriage. They would beat the shit out of some guy who looked at them funny. They would preach hate about gay men. And then end up in the woods behind the bathroom of an interstate highway rest stop getting or giving a blowjob.

[LanternWaste]

225. I think you'll find that generally DU applies...

I think you'll find that generally DU applies both it's honesty and it's criticism equally and honestly...

You believe that there is no other possible explanation other than "the persecution of gay people"?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. He Was An Asshole - But Unless He Was A Lying Asshole, It Was Justified

The interesting thing is that if Craig had just continued to deny the thing, and it was only the cop's testimony against Craig's, Craig would have skated on this.

[acmavm]

15. No. Not at all.

[Philosoraptor]

18. Not EVEN.

He was just put off by larry's baronial attitude and attempt to debate him like he was another senator. I APPLAUD the officer.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. At Least He Didn't Reply To The Police Officer As His Distinguished Colleague

eom

[Maribelle]

19. No

But Matt Yglesias could be. Narrowing down the incident to merely "foot tapping" defies the statement by the fallen Senator crying "entrapment". His use of this term is a clear indication to me that the Senator knew the deal was a heck of a lot more than mere "foot tapping".

The cop was assigned the duty of cleaning up the mess in the airport's mens room. Women traveling with teenagers cannot go into the men's room there to ensure their sons are not propositioned by ugly old men, or worse.

[ludwigb]

24. OMG

EVIL GAY MEN ARE PRAYING ON LITTLE BOYS!!! HIDE THE CHILDREN!!!

[Maribelle]

29. Oh please. I never mentioned the word "gay". n/t

[mondo joe]

45. Time for some frank discussion here.

When I was about 15 and started running, I couldn't make it through the park on a run without being propositioned by some trolling adult men. And I stopped using the park restroom altogether for similar reasons.

It didn't pain me deeply - but it was a nuisance and I didn't like it. But I can see how others might be upset or troubled by it, and why parents wouldn't want it happening to their kids.

I am also a gay man, and I am a parent. I'm not naive about any of this, nor am I a hysteric. But in the end I really see no defense for someone breaking a very sane law.

[alcibiades_mystery]

184. That's about the speed of it...I'd estimate that 40-50% of DUers

are utterly comfortable with that viciously homophobic narrative. We have a long way to go, brother.

[Maribelle]

202. But "that viciously homophobic narrative" is truly a figment of your imagination.

Sorry for you.

[alcibiades_mystery]

207. No

You're a homophobe. You think that you're not, but you really truly are.

[Maribelle]

217. You're wrong.

And you're in denial, it seems.

[alcibiades_mystery]

230. Denial about what?

Your homophobia? Please. There was no mention of "teenage boys" here un til YOU brought it up, so who has the pedophilic obsession? And why does it come up at all? Why is it the default? Because it is the classic homophobic slander: gay = pedophile, regardless of the facts of the case, or the way activities actually circulate in gay culure. The homophonbe always only sees the chickenhawk, the "ugly old man" making unwanted advances to the boy. That's always how a homophobe sees the world of homosexuality, and you instantiate perfectly, even throwing in the poor helpless maternal figure, unable to save her son from the predators. You're a sicko, pure and simple, and a fucking bigot to boot.

[Maribelle]

235. Oh please

Sources close to the scandal and responsible members of the gay community have raised concerns over possible pedophilia behavior and wonder if Senator Larry Craig exposed children to lewd behavior during his romps in the stalls or solicited minors for sexual favors. While no victims have come forward to identify the republican senator, One wonders if its just a matter of time.

Public awareness and vigilant police enforcement of public restrooms in parks in the last couple decades drastically reduced the number of pedophilia related incidents. But have the perverts who for the most part were chased away from the city parks started frequenting the nations air ports?

http://www.bloggernews.net/19756

[alcibiades_mystery]

243. On homophobe citing another

Big deal.

[mondo joe]

25. Agreed. Matt Yglesias is misrepresenting the incident and exclusing very pertinent

details. I don't know why someone would do that intentionally, but he seems to have.

[ludwigb]

32. He's just trying to be fair

and analyze the incident the same way he would if Senator Craig was someone he cared about.

[mondo joe]

36. Trying to be fair by leaving out the pertinent details that lead to the charge?

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

182. The bizarre defaul to teenage boys as the unwilling target of "ugly old men"

Is perhaps the most pervasive and despicable homophobic narrative there is. Congratulations on importing that one into this discussion, though you are not the first, and won't be the last. Damn, the sexual politics of this thing is fascinating. Now we have "mothers" unable to defend their "teenage boys" from the "ugly old men."

People on this board should be ashamed of themselves, but they're not. This is the rough equivalent of blood libel for Jews translated into gay terms. And it is so fucking rampant here that DU qualifies as major statement of homophobia on the internet. Disgusting.

[Maribelle]

200. Have you ever heard of pedophiles before?

I'm truly sorry if you take offence, but you are so far over the top you've landed in Tibet.

[alcibiades_mystery]

206. Wow...it's surprising that that would come up

Oh wait, it's not. You default to the classic gay slander. Truly despicable.

[Maribelle]

218. I think many gays would disagree with you.

And your attempt to bash me is truly weak.

[alcibiades_mystery]

232. I'm sure many would

That proves nothing. Gay communities, like other groups of HUMANS, disagree about all kinds of things.

[WinkyDink]

23. Were he one, I'd think they'd have had an ASSignation. Haha!

[Ian David]

26. I have mixed feelings about the cop.

I think he was a little over-bearing in his insistence that waiving your fifth amendment rights and pleading guilty would be better for him than standing trial.

How many innocent people-- or, at least, people who could have been found not-guilty-- plead guilty out of shame and embarrassment?

How many other crimes are there where people would do that?

On the one hand, the officer was using "The Closet" as a weapon to shame people into pleading guilty.

On the other hand, he seemed courteous, respectful, and professional. I doubt he is they type to set-up innocent people. So far.

[closeupready]

35. the arresting LEO is an attractive young beefy guy, and I think they chose "bait" like that

in order to sting guys there. Craig is a hypocrite, but this whole operation stinks.

[mondo joe]

40. Because the sight of an attractive guy makes a man who would otherwise never

do so try to have sex in an airport bathroom?

Please.

[closeupready]

46. Please youself. Im not aware that Craig suggested intercourse at any time.

He admitted that he behaved lewdly, and for that he is a hypocrite, to say nothing of the fact that it was same-sex lewdness from a homophobic legislator.

No this was a sophisticated sting operation designed to essentially entrap gay men.

[mondo joe]

51. How does having an attractive young man entrap ANHYONE? Does the sight of him

make people do things they normally wouldn't do?

[closeupready]

56. Bait.

Pretty simple.

How are these types of duties assigned? How often do they send Officer Donut to do it? Probably never.

[mondo joe]

57. By your rationale, an attractive person who gets raped or harassed BAITED the

person who victimized them.

There is NOTHING about who the officer is that MADE Craig do anything.

For that matter, Craig shouldn't even know what the guy looks like because he has no business peeping into the stall.

[closeupready]

64. I disagree.

I would not say that an attractive person who gets raped or harassed baited the victimizer. This operation is substantively different than most of those situations, though.

[mondo joe]

67. But you're saying the attractiveness of the person iit happens to makes them bait.

Just by sitting there, being young and attractive he's bait. That's your position.

What do you think BAIT means?

[closeupready]

73. I may be technically wrong, but something just doesn't add up with this whole story.

They have quotas and stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm disturbed by how this unfolded.

Craig pled guilty, that's the salient thing, and he's a hypocrite. This is a side issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

You Are Hoisted On Your Own Petard

So while Senator Craig is looking for a sex partner he violates the privacy of every person in the restroom who chose to go in a bathroom stall and closed the door until he finds one he likes ...

[havocmom]

151. mondo joe, it seems we need to put handsome males in burkas

to make some happy ;) If those handsome men would just cover themselves all up and peek through a veil, there wouldn't be any temptation... Yeah, that's it! It's all the fault of the women men for being so damned luscious that sane men become lawbreakers in their presence.

Sad, isn't it, to see posters on DU trying to justify lawbreaking behavior in a public place as entrapment because the cop is young and attractive.

Burkas for everyone! That will eliminate crime. It's all those pretty people out there making people troll for encounters in public places. Why, there should some protection from pretty people! Only plain, or better yet, homely, cops on the beat where there have been complaints from the public!

Honest to pete, claiming entrapment because the of how the cop looked- the mind shudders.

mondo joe, I do thank you for the sanity you bring to this discussion. It saddens me that some here think so little of men that they argue entrapment on this one. I see it as just an extension of reasoning behind putting women in cloth cages because of a notion that men are mindless rutting animals who cannot channel inappropriate behaviors enough to maintain decorum in public.

America Taliban isn't pretty.

[mondo joe]

191. Thank you. For what it's worth, I think I have a somewhat unique

perspective. I'm a middle aged gay man, so I have a few decades of knowledge about what happens with regard to bathroom cruising, and I'm old enough to have a bit of a historic perspective as well.

I truly don't feel judgmental about it. I don't think it's disgusting or horrifying - it's just something people do.

At the same time, I know personally that when I was as young as 15 I was hit on in public restrooms, and though it didn't traumatize or upset me it was definitely unwelcome and as a result I avoided situations where it was likely to happen, though to my thinkingIshould not have had to avoid restrooms just because I wanted to feel my privacy was secure.

I'm also a dad of a 10 and 12 year old, so I do think about it from the perspective not only of what does this mean to me directly but what does it mean to parents and very young people. (Kids are certainly not the focus of bathroom cruising, and it should not be conflated with pedophilia in the least.)

None of this means my opinion is RIGHT just because of my perspective or experience. But that is what informs my opinion.

[havocmom]

213. Your perspective adds much to a civil and reasoned discussion of this issue

As a teen ager, I had to avoid restrooms at school because of allergies to cigarette smoke and violent attacks of nausea from the smell of pot smoke. Four friggin years of not being able to pee for seven and a half hours a day (plus the time walking 2 miles to and from school) was NOT healthy for me. I wish we had been able to get school administrators to do something about the unlawful activities in the restrooms so those of us who wanted to use the facilities for the intended purpose could have done so.

Annoyed me no end that I was punished so lawbreakers could have space to break the law in.

Having to deal with sexual harassment, or predation when minors are concerned, is not acceptable.

The fact that the police had that airport restroom staked indicates there was a known problem. Looks and sounds like law enforcement did what the community wanted done.

Also sounded like Craig was trying real hard to throw his weight around, intimidate the police officer. That was Senator Abuse, not police abuse ;)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. If Men Were Peering Into Female Occupied Restrooms The Revulsion Would Be The Same

Your logic is flawed.

[Tsiyu]

79. Sorry, but I can't see what you're saying

Are you saying all gay men troll for sex in public restrooms? I just don't think so. I think this guy is bi, anyway.

The role of law enforcement is protecting people. And yes, I want my 13-year-old to be able to go into a public restroom without his viewing or hearing adults having sex. If that is woo-woo, too far out there for you, you don't have kids.

Now, I wouldn't send my kid into a restroom in a nightclub, because there is always the possibility of drunk folks - hetero, homo or otherwise - engaging in adult fun. But a freaking airport restroom? Keep your damned junk to yourself!

[closeupready]

135. Did Craig engage in sexual relations in the bathroom?

Do you know if that is what was happening?

[Tsiyu]

157. Are you trying to say this was not his intent?

In the real world in which I live, having sex in a bathroom stall was his intent.

Had this been a female in the women's room or any adult in any unisex room, peeking through the stall gaps for a few minutes, etc., i would say the same thing.

Craig's gender or orientation have nothing to do with any of this.

[closeupready]

162. I think it's possible, but it's equally possible he's just a sex addict, and thinks

about sex 24/7. Common sense says that, given that he was probably in a suit, headed for a flight, he probably wouldn't have wanted to take the risk of getting messy Lewinsky-style.

Do you see how there are ambiguities about it? But I'm glad that he has been shown to be a hypocrite. I do not feel sorry for him at all.

[Tsiyu]

209. I agree

When I first read the police report I felt it was a bit nebulous regarding cues, but as I thought about Craig staring into the stall I said "That's invasion of someone else's privacy."

That alone is enough to book him in my mind, but now that i have been schooled on the "public toilet sex underworld" I understand his actions to be consistent with an intent to have some sort of quickie sex there.

I really want to feel sorry for people like Craig , but they have no sympathy for any other non-straight person. I hope he resigns and gets counseling and returns to public life as an advocate for GLBT folks, helping raise awareness so that people don't feel so isolated and ashamed they settle for quickie sex in bathroom stalls.

[WinkyDink]

43. Who would know what the cop looks like---without peeping?

Now a man's being half-way good-looking (my opinion of the policeman) is ENTICEMENT to others to solicit sex in men's rooms?
All-righty, then.

[closeupready]

49. I don't know.

n/t

[mondo joe]

52. His manly virility is like radio waves - it emanates through the stall door and then

MAKES the other man do crazy things.

[closeupready]

72. There was actually a film about this sort of thing, as I recall

Oh, yeah, it was that film about Joe Orton - Prick Up Your Ears.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Maybe When The Cops Run Prostitution Sting They Should Use The Most Unattractive Decoys They

Can Find


on edit changed prostitute to decoy

[closeupready]

61. Sting operations chill the free association of consenting adults.

If you're fine with letting the government dictate morality and when two consenting adults associate with each other, say so.

[mondo joe]

65. Total bullshit. Being a peeping tom is not "free association".

And though I strongly support decriminalization of prostitution and other matters that are purely between consenting adults, at present they are not legal and we all know that.

Lastly, PEERING INTO BATHROOM STALLS is not between consenting adults. Stop assuming everyone that it happens to consents.

[closeupready]

68. Obviously, what Craig did was wrong. That is not in dispute.

It's the larger issue of the nature of the sting operation and what it implies in terms of a free society. I presume you're liberal and read more books and think a lot, so think about that a little bit.

AND STOP SHOUTING AT ME! :mad:

[mondo joe]

71. Think? Here's what I think: Peering into bathroom stalls and reaching in is not

a matter of free association, or consent.

I don't think stings of this sort of thing have any negative implication in a free society. I think they are simply part of protecting the populace.

That is all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Way To Misrepresent My Position

Logic is not your friend...


They use stings to discourage "bathroom sex" because it occurs in restrooms that are used by the general public and members of the public complain ... My right to go to a public restroom, close the door, and move my bowels, supersedes your right to peer through a crack in the stall to see if I make a suitable sexual partner...

As to prostitution stings I favor the decriminalization of prostitution but not the decriminalization of streetwalking...Streetwalking occurs more often than not in working class neighborhoods and the residents end up seeing couples having sex in parked cars, condoms thrown on their streets, and scantily clad women parading in front of their children... There's a reason you see streetwalkers in downtown Detroit, West Palm Beach, and downtown LA and not in Grosse Pointe, Palm Beach, and Beverly Hills...

[Elidor]

82. They can 'consent' somewhere else

Anything that has a chilling effect on fucking in public bathrooms is fine by me.

It's amazing that anyone could think it their civil right to fuck freely in bathrooms.

[closeupready]

83. But did he actually have sex in the bathroom?

Did he solicit it? That's what I want to know. I don't believe that is what is being claimed, nor did he plead guilty to that.

???

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. It's Not As Much The Fucking That Bothers Me

But the fact that somebody can arrogate to himself or herself the right to evalauate whether I would be a suitable or unsuitable sexual partner by peering through a crack in a closed door as I do my business...

IMHO, that's more offensive than his handwaving and foot rubbing...

How fucking arrogant?

[closeupready]

91. If that's what happened, yes. But

from the tape I listened to, I'm not sure what happened. The officer asks leading questions, barks at Craig, essentially badgers him. Obviously, Craig pled guilty, so he was doing something wrong, but he wasn't engaging in sex nor did he verbally solicit sex.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. The Sex Doesn't Bother Me As Much As The Peeping

I don't see any different between what Craig did and if I went to my local Macys and spied on women as they tried on bathing suits...

[closeupready]

122. I agree with you on that.

n/t

[blondeatlast]

201. Oh, puh-lease. There's a time and a place for trying to pick up a sexual partner

but a public restroom is most assuredly neither one.

Good lord, he couldn't find sex anywhere near the airport? Give me a break.

[LanternWaste]

233. I'm afraid that I can't agree with implied premise...

I'm afraid that I can't agree with implied premise that peering into a stall in a public bathroom is a "dictation of morality" or the "free association of consenting adults".

Am I missing something? :shrug:

[NashVegas]

128. Here's the Guy

Ambiguous.

[slackmaster]

136. The cop probably got that assignment because he's a new guy

Or maybe he got wasted and blew chunks on the chief's wife's shoes at the last department cocktail party.

[johnfunk]

41. Full disclosure: have family in LE. That said,

... I think the cop did a pretty decent, respectful job. In fact, I think he was:

1) outraged that the perp was a US Senator trying to throw his weight around;
2) in just the right frame of mind in dealing with the clearly cornered Craig's weak attempts at "I don't recall" obfuscation, calling a lie a lie.

Craig is the very worst kind of hypocrite.

[global1]

44. Yeah Right - And Saddam Hussein Was Behind 911.......nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

47. BTW, when the police officer showed Craig his ID, Craig's response was

"NO!"

Hardly the exclamation of one who wasn't aware of their actions. MKJ





http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0828071craig1.html

[blondeatlast]

205. Good point. Deer, meet headlights... nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

48. He snagged a RW hypocrite - that's worth something right there.

[Blue_Roses]

54. I think that not only was he NOT an asshole,

he was pretty professional. The guy earned his Masters in Criminal Justice for God's sake. Sounds like someone who is serious about his work.

[Hangingon]

59. Can't say I admire him.

From the story I read, he has made sargent writing disorderly conduct tickets in the airport men's room. They did say he was considerate of the people he wrote tickets on (his victims?). What a cop.

[mondo joe]

60. "His victims"?

How is catching people violating others rights making them victims?????

[Hangingon]

228. Yeah, I'd say victims

The cop sounds like the Serpico of air port public restrooms.

[mondo joe]

229. If the peepers are victims, what do you call the people whose privacy

they are violating?

[Hangingon]

234. In this case, I'd call the person being peeped at...

a "revenue agent". His career seems to be setting himself up as a person to be peeped at so he can write tickets for disorderly conduct. Bet it brings in some good money to the city.

[mondo joe]

236. I don't mean the officer. I mean just a guy at their airport, taking a

shit. What do you call him when people like Craig monitor him in what should be the privacy of the bathroom stall?

Or do you not believe people in a bathroom stall have any reasonable expectation of a little privacy?

[DearAbby]

167. You consider a person

watching you take a shit a victim? Peering into the cracks along the doors of stalls...I dont care if they are gay, straight or swing all ways...that is sick and perverted. To think this is entrapment? Who forced the senator to look into that crack?

Natural encounters include peeking into a crack of a bathroom stall? Excuse me, I am not at my best appearance SITTING ON A CRAPPER.

This officer is probably very aware of the signals, sitting on a toilet is hardly entrapment. Most men not aware of the "signal" would simply do their business, wash their hands and leave the room. See no one forced the senator to peek into the stall, no one forced the senator to go into the next stall...so on and so on.

[Hangingon]

227. Thanks for your insight into how men act in public restrooms

[Jacobin]

62. No.

BTW, if you go to TPM, you will see a link to a website that rates men's bathrooms around the country for getting bj's. The Minneapolis airport bathroom (next to the shoe shine place) has a very high rating. I'm not really thrilled with taking my kids to the bathroom in an airport and having this kind of shit going on.

If you don't mind, good on you.

[shain from kane]

84. Do you have any knowledge that Craig bypassed other restrooms in a direct line from the waiting area

in an effort to use this particular restroom?

[soothsayer]

95. It wasn't near his gate or flights, from what I heard

[shain from kane]

105. That was my understanding. I just wanted to confirm whether anyone else had heard the same. Then, I

don't think we should blame the cop for being an asshole, because it is apparent that both knew the score.

[supernova]

66. Complete codswallop!

The cop was completely professional. It's bogus to say he was "a raging asshole." The cop was doing his assigned job of enforcing an existing law. In this culture, we don't have sex in public places. That is neither a straight nor a gay issue.

I think the cop got rightly exasperated with Sen. Craig for trying to dominate the situation and trying to tell the cop how they were going to "spin" the situation. That is completely evident on the audio tape of that interview.

[madrchsod]

69. the cop was justified

he was giving the senator a break at the beginning then got pissed off because the senator would`t admit to what he did.. the senator should have just agreed with the cop and got the hell out of there.

[Liberal Veteran]

70. I'm gay and I don't want to be hit on in the bathroom.

It's not a gay bar or a gay bath house....it's a public restroom.

I have no problem with police cracking down on this when there were prior complaints about that bathroom.

That's their job.

[H2O Man]

74. Nope.

Not at all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. He's On My List Of Favorite Cops

Up there in the pantheon with Elliot Ness and Frank Serpico,

[Dr. Strange]

78. Raging asshole? Probably not...

but this quote bothered me a little:

I just, I just, I guess, I guess I'm gonna say I'm just disappointed in you sir. I'm just really am. I expect this from the guy that we get out of the hood. I mean, people vote for you.

Wonder what other behavior he expects from these guys out of the hood?

[closeupready]

80. Did Craig engage in sexual relations in the bathroom, or

did he verbally solicit it? I think he admitted to behaving lewdly (peeping), but not as far as I know to the charge of soliciting sex.

[shain from kane]

100. I admit that I am completely ignorant, but what did Craig hope to accomplish if he had been

soliciting sex, and found a consenting adult? I mean, that he was supposedly waiting for a connecting flight, and would soon be leaving the airport. Would the couple have sex in a crowded restroom, constantly in use, with 2 men in the stall? Would he have postponed his flight because he got lucky? And here's what I am completely ignorant about, what kind of lovemaking would be enjoyable with all the pissing and shitting going on, without taking a bath, or shower?

[closeupready]

121. I know that ORD has hotels within the airport, I don't know about MSP.

Also, it's possible that if he found a guy who was receptive to his advances, there could have simply been an exchange of numbers. After all, Craig probably travels a lot during the course of his government business. Just speculating.

I don't know how enjoyable lovemaking would be there, nor is it relevant to the discussion of what actually happened. It seems obvious to me (and probably you) that those other activities would hinder enjoyment of lovemaking. And to continue on that note, if so, does that not make the claim (that Craig was looking for sex) less believable, esp. in the absence of evidence in the affirmative?

[shain from kane]

140. Thanks. I couldn't focus on the thought of 2 grown men, grunting and sweating, in a crowded, in

constant use, airport restroom. That being the circumstances, and although it was a known location for these activities, I would expect that there would need to be more overt actions to warrant an arrest. Otherwise, it has the appearance of being a money-making scheme by the police.

But I also want to say that the cop being termed an asshole was for reactions outside the restroom, based on Craig attitude to being questioned.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. NO

"And to continue on that note, if so, does that not make the claim (that Craig was looking for sex) less believable, esp. in the absence of evidence in the affirmative?"

That is not exculpatory because the cop was there in response to public complaints about sexual activity in that restroom and history is replete with accounts of just that behavior occuring ....

[mondo joe]

124. Could have been a few things, including a quick BJ or hand job right in the stall.

That's the point of putting the brief case in the front of the stall, to obscure the view from the outside.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

147. I Have Seen With My Own Eyes The Aftermath Of Two People Having Sex In A Public Restroom

I saw two men come out of a stall at a Maison Blanche in Altamonte Springs Florida and one man was wiping his mouth. There was also a third man, a lookout in the vicinity...

And, geez, you can consummate the act of oral sex in a minute....

[shain from kane]

163. Now I understand why it was in a restroom. Just another means to relieve a person of a bodily

waste, shit, piss, or sperm, or a combination of the three. Where is the love? I'll probably be condemned for saying it, but this kind of behavior does not help the gay agenda.
Craig and others do not consider themselves to be gay, if they see the act as merely relieving themselves. Any knothole will do.

Other than handicapped situations,

If a person encountered another man aiming another man's penis while he took a piss, should that person condemn it?
If a person encountered another man wiping another man's ass when he finished a shit, should that person condemn it?
Or if a person encounters two men having knothole sex, should that person condemn it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. There Are Websites That Tell You What Restrooms Those Activities Are Available

eom

[DemocratSinceBirth]

176. I'm Getting The Hell Out Of There

Like I did in the instance I described...

[WinkyDink]

160. Um, I don't think "lovemaking" is the accurate term.

[shain from kane]

223. I read an article about Laud Humphreys' tearoom sex study in the paper at noon today.

Here's one reference, but there are many others through Google.

http://web.missouri.edu/~bondesonw/Laud.html

And from Wikipedia --------

Because Humphreys was able to confirm that over 50% of his subjects were outwardly heterosexual men with unsuspecting wives at home, a primary thesis of Tearoom Trade is the incongruence between the private self and the social self for many of the men engaging in this form of homosexual activity. Specifically, they put on a "breastplate of righteousness" (social and political conservatism) in an effort to conceal their deviant behavior and prevent being exposed as deviant. Humphreys tapped into a theme of incongruence between one's words and deeds that has become a primary methodological and theoretical concern in sociology throughout the 20th and 21st centuries (Deutscher, 1966).

[eFriendly]

81. I don't think the cop was an asshole...

Considering the fact that Craig had already lied to the officer about the events that took place in the bathroom and then accused the officer of entrapment, I can understand the officer becoming a little irritated with Craig and raising his voice during the interview.

The officer, who is familiar with the signals used by people who engage in this type of activity, was in that particular bathroom because of previous complaints of lewd activity taking place in there. Craig initiated the contact between the stalls with the officer, in a manner consistent with people who troll bathrooms for this kind of stuff, and he was busted. Case closed.

[Sparkly]

86. No, not at all.

I think he was frustrated that Craig was accusing him of lying.

[NNN0LHI]

87. Fuck that

Most police officers I know would have let a US Senator slide after Craig identified himself as one.

That is what Craig expected to happen this time. And I bet it has happened before that way.

More than likely this officer has children and wants to feel safe letting them use a public bathroom without them being propositioned by some Republican freak. I feel the same way.

Don

[Balbus]

90. All cops are assholes,

albeit necessary assholes. Only an asshole (or a child under the age of 12) would ever want to be a cop.

[hlthe2b]

109. bullshit...

Some are... Some are not.... Just like the general population....

Now, Corporate CEOs pulling in 2000x more than their employees? That broad swath comment might be closer to true.

[nini]

143. sorry.. you're wrong. My dad was a cop..

.. and for all the right reasons. He was not an asshole.

Yes, there are plenty who are but that broad brush is incorrect and insulting to every man and woman who honestly risk their lives every day to help people stay safe.

[cherokeeprogressive]

222. I'm guessing you're being sarcastic again, right?

Like you were when you made the comment that people should be forced to take a test before being allowed to vote?

[soothsayer]

92. I think they teach cops that "I'm disappointed" and then yelling tactic

First I thought he lost his cool,but now I think it's a strategy

[H2O Man]

94. Of course it is.

It's part of his job.

[ludwigb]

117. Yeah

if it was an actual crime, then I can understand it. But a closeted gay man looking for a blow job does not deserve that sort of verbal abuse. The cop may have been doing his job but he still behaved like an a-hole.

[Beelzebud]

119. He behaved like a cop being lied to about something he witnessed.

[beastieboy]

93. What is he supposed to do, feed him grapes?

Hes' a cop, he just busted the guy for trying to solicit sex in a bathroom stall, and Craig wouldn't own up to it, so he was doing what he should have done and chastised Craig for lying.

[mdmc]

98. I think men should be able to hit on other men in a restroom

so I am not sure what to think about this whole deal.
Just glad some homophobe GOP scum is in the middle of it all.

[mondo joe]

107. Really? Do you really think men don't have the right to expect a little privacy

in the bathroom stall, free of being watched by other people while taking a shit, and free of other people reaching into the stall?

[mdmc]

161. depends on the bathroom

I think that you should be able to have privacy.
I hated bathrooms at summer camp or college that didn't have doors or walls around the "stalls". It sucked and I hated it.

[blondeatlast]

214. "depends on the bathroom?" Look, if he were trolling the red light district

or a gay club I'd give the man a pass for the most part.

But when I need the facilities, I want to use them without any thought of someone peeping on me or me witnessing the kind of act that needs to go on away from, oh, what'e the word--oh, yeah...

the PUBLIC that doesn't care to see that at that particular time and that particular place...

Sheesh...

[goodhue]

111. well 40 other people were similarly arrested

and they were not all homophobe GOP scum
however they all engaged in illegal conduct

[hlthe2b]

113. In Japan, women can't ride the trains without being mauled by

men making physical sexual advances. Is that where we are headed--i.e., no right of privacy or freedom from sexual harrassment, no matter your sexual orientation? Does one person's desire to achieve sexual orgasm exceed all other rights of those with whom they come in contact?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. Wow

So if I go into a stall and close the door to move my bowels you arrogate to yourself the right to look through a crack in it for two minutes while you evaluate if I'm a suitable sexual partner.

I have to go to the mall... Can I go in the woman's restroom at Macys and do that?

[mdmc]

165. I rarely use public restrooms because I value my privacy.

I would hate to be solicited like that.

[hlthe2b]

172. Rather ironic and contradictory, don't you think?

You defend Craig's right to solicit in the bathroom, yet admit you are bothered by it and rarely use public restrooms for this reason--that you don't want your privacy violated. How do you reconcile the contradiction? Do you think your rights to privacy count less than the ability to "connect" if one is so inclined?

[mdmc]

177. free speech trumps personal privacy in a public place

If two dudes want to talk about hooking up in a bathroom, I don't see the crime.

I would have said, "Get the fuck away from the door" and "keep to your own stall" if he had done this to me.

The only thing that is worse then having your privacy violated is to have your 1st am. rights violated.

[hlthe2b]

181. I don't believe a single word was spoken by Craig...

His actions spoke volumes, apparently. No one is interfering with Craig's free speech. I find your contradictions from the issue to be amazing. :shrug:


Even taking your comments at face value. You say that free speech trumps privacy rights? So, one is free to say anything--threatening, hateful, or whatever while peering into the stall of someone trying to defocate? Good God....

[mondo joe]

195. There is no first amendment right to violate another individual's privacy.

There really isn't.

[shain from kane]

226. The cop became suspicious, when Craig yelled "Fire" while sitting in the next stall.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

246. The Violation Of Privacy Preceded Everything...

And there are limits on free speech... One of them is I cant' solicit (ask) a person to commit a crime....

[The Stranger]

101. Holy shit -- now we're defending raging hateful hypocrite closeted Republican homophobic criminals?

No wonder the Democrats are so fucked.

[Beelzebud]

118. My thoughts exactly...

[in_cog_ni_to]

102. No. Craig was though. n/t

[Beelzebud]

103. He sounded like most cops when they're being lied to.

[goodhue]

110. not at all

I think he handled the situation very well.

[cgrindley]

115. I don't think so... Craig just finally got caught

has anyone bothered to read about Craig's long string of cruisey behavior--dating back to the early 1990s. This guy knew what he was doing. He knew all the codes and signs. He's just trying to fool middle America and it frustrates the cop.

[Strawman]

126. What was the hand activity again?

didn't the cop say he reached under the stall multiple times with his left hand (saw his gold wedding ring) while Craig says he picked up some piece of toilet paper with his right? Craig seems to be caught in a lie about that.

This is what I think:

- Apparently there has been a problem with people being bothered and harassed in this airport men's room. People have a right to use public restroom facilities without being subjected to sexual harassment. So I think the stakeout is legitimate activity. If he is being honest in his interview with Craig, this cop has caught multiple perps who have admitted to sexual trolling in airport mens rooms. I don't doubt that people have complained and that is what prompted the stakeout and I think that is fair.

-Body language is a subtle thing. This cop has had enough practice observing this activity that he knows the lingo and seemed sincerely convinced beyond a doubt that Senator Craig did as well. If this kind of body language isn't considered a legit instance of "propositioning," that limits the ability of police to prevent this kind of activity. One could say that arrests should be limited to those actually caught in the act in a public restroom, and that the Senator didn't actually do anything lewd. If I were on a jury, I would have to think hard about whether or not my doubts about the officer's interpretation of Craig's body language were reasonable or not. As an observer, I'm inclined to believe the officer, but that's a much lower burden of proof. But Larry Craig has no "rights" in the court of public opinion. If we think he is probably a liar and someone inclined to abuse his power to be above the law, that's enough for him to lose his job.

And Larry Craig, a man who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, didn't choose to fight what he supposedly believed to be entrapment. He was fine with it as long as it didn't harm him. In fact he tried to play his Senator card to place himself above being punished. He expressed no outrage at the cops behavior toward other men. If felt himself to be a victim, wasn't it likely others were too? Either he was guilty and wanted it to go away, or he didn't care about unjust prosecution of other victims. Either way, that is wrong.


-Craig lied about what he did with his hands. He sounded like someone who was lying on that tape. He lied about what hand he used and possibly the number of times he reached under the stall, but he did admit to both touching feet and reaching under the divider once. One of those things would be highly unusual, both are very suspicious. I can't think of an instance where I've ever done either let alone both. That and the inconsistency make him less credible and the officer more credible. I will say I did get the feeling that the officer kind of pounced on him in the interrogation and seemed schooled in the kinds of cheap rhetorical gimmicks that can impugn the credibility of the accused. Just because a flustered person says something inconsistent in an embarrassing interrogation doesn't always mean they are lying. But the inconsistencies and the oddness of the combination of actions he admitted to make it seem like there are too many coincidences once has to accept to believe Craig's version of events.

[The Backlash Cometh]

127. No way to spin this. The arrest was justified.

[Jed Dilligan]

137. The arrest was justified,

the officer's post-arrest behavior (manipulating a confession out of the suspect) was not.

[H2O Man]

139. Sure it was.

Police use manipulation to get incriminating evidence and/or confessions all the time. It's part of their job.

[Jed Dilligan]

141. Yeah, if they're detectives looking for real criminals

It's when blue suits writing a ticket do it that it irks me. Yeah, they are "doing their job"--and in fact, the citizens who don't do their job, which is telling the cop to fuck himself and I'll see you in court, piss me off more than the cops.

[H2O Man]

144. Best thing to do

is to not talk to anyone before you have an attorney to represent you. And that is equally true for if you are being charged with something you are innocent or guilty of. Be polite, but don't discuss anything beyond identifying yourself. Not the weather, not the Yankees' chances of beating the Red Sox, not anything. Lawyer up.

[Jed Dilligan]

189. Absolutely.

I don't believe people fall for the same tricks over and over and over and over and over again.

[H2O Man]

198. It's interesting to note

that even police officers who are trained in using the art of "good cop/bad cop" are prone to respond to the friendly fellow when they are themselves being questioned for possible wrong-doing. That raises an interesting question about if people are simply falling for a trick, or if it indicates another psychological process.

[Jed Dilligan]

241. Usually the person in front of you trumps whatever training you've had

unless you're very, very good. I find it useful to keep in mind that the cop is an asshole, and that his one and only agenda is to stick me with the most serious/highest penalty crime that he possibly can. Anything he says to the contrary of that is a lie, and all friendly overtures are in the service of his agenda. That keeps me quiet, or asking, rather than answering questions. Avoiding the snares of the prison state is a fine, fine art--much finer than the games they play IMO.

[FredScuttle]

131. No...he did his job and snared a criminal

n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

133. It goes without saying.

A cop who is not a raging asshole is... an ex-cop. You have to have this prick's personality to do the "job" as it's constructed in this sick society.

[WinkyDink]

159. Karma might have you need one some day---and there won't be one around.

[Jed Dilligan]

188. I thank God when one is not around to make

a bad situation worse, which is generally what happens.

Your adulation for the goons of the fascist state has been noted and logged.

[Marr]

138. Craig said he was 'picking up a piece of toilet paper from the floor'.

Jesus Christ-- nobody does that. If you sit down in a stall and need some toilet paper, you don't reach behind the damn toilet to pick up a piece that someone happened to drop there. That's where his line became obvious bullshit.

You think he was telling the truth...? Give me a break.

[Vinca]

146. The cop did everything right. He was polite and respectful,

read Craig his rights, and attempted to get a truthful story out of the accused. When his first attempt to get the statement ended in Craig lying, the cop ratcheted up his methods a bit to let Craig know he meant business. I'm betting other cops, after seeing Craig's business card, have cut him a break. This cop stood his ground and did his job. Good for him.

[TwilightGardener]

152. The cop knew Craig was bullshitting--they were both there, for chrissakes.

He was deferential and respectful--and the comment about "now I know why we're going down the tubes" made him my hero! (He's a cutie, too.)

[dysfunctional press]

154. it seems to me that larry craig must have had the raging asshole...

:evilgrin:

[backscatter712]

155. Straight or gay, Craig solicited sex in a public restroom.

I'm sorry, but that's just gross. There are kids around, they don't need to be around that. Yes, the arrest was justified - basic public lewdness.

Get as kinky and nasty as you want with consenting adults, but please find a room!

[LisaL]

272. How did Graig solicit sex?

He was arrested basically for foot tapping and hand gestures. There was no claims that Graig actually solicited sex.
Now, maybe foot tapping is normally followed by sex solicitation, but why didn't the cop wait to see if sex solicitation was going to be made?

[Greyhound]

164. Raging asshole... Cop...

Redundant...

[redqueen]

166. Pfft... that's frickin RIDICULOUS.

Why's he an asshole? Oh, you don't care to say why?

Gee, that seems... odd.

[WI_DEM]

175. No, he was doing his job and the Senator was lying up the wazoo

[AlCzervik]

178. and don't forget "what do you think about that?". Nice way to use your position

as a US senator, trying to intimidate a cop to leave you alone.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

179. No.

But I think people who defend Larry Craig are raging assholes.

[Kingshakabobo]

190. I don't think the cop was an asshole per se.

He was just playing the "just admit what you did and I'll be your pal" bullshit. It's Cop 101. When that didn't work, he got feigned outrage and got a little heavy handed. Par for the course. When he was playing "good cop", he was quite respectful.

[backscatter712]

194. Why didn't Craig lawyer up?

If there's one thing I learned over the years, it's that when you're accused of a crime, or even suspected, you don't just have a chat with the cops like he did. When you're read your Miranda rights (or even if you're not read your Miranda rights,) you assert those rights and tell the cops "I'm sorry, but I do not wish to answer questions without an attorney present."

Craig should have lawyered up. If he did we probably would not be having this discussion - the cops would ask some questions, the lawyer would stop Craig from answering, and very likely, the cops would have insufficient evidence and drop the charges.

[DrunkenMaster]

196. Craig Wanted A Flaming Dick

not a raging asshole...

Seriously, are you for real? Who cares if the cop was an asshole? Craig was cruising a notorious gloryhole and he got busted, then pleaded guilty.

Your post is a joke.

[libodem]

208. No

He sounded very professional and respectful on the tape. He repeated over and over that he was 'disappointed' with Craig's reluctance to accept responsibility and quit distorting the facts. The cop was decent and just doing his job, as far as I'm concerned.

[youthere]

210. Nope. I don't.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

221. No

I think he showed great restraint.

[blondeatlast]

231. No. nt

[MrSlayer]

238. Not at all.

He was respectful and totally professional. Some people will take any opportunity to bash police officers. What the fuck did he do wrong?

[iverglas]

240. I tend to think the arrest was justified, but yes, he was an asshole

I'll just quote what I said yesterday on the subject ;)

frankly, the cop's behaviour was unacceptable

Cops don't get to demand respect, cops don't get to demand that people agree with them, cops don't get to lecture people under arrest about how badly they've behaved or what cops expect from them. Cops don't even get to get all uppity if they think somebody isn't telling them the truth. Cops need to realize it ain't about them, and not pretend it is or try to make it about them.

Cops detect criminal behaviour, arrest people they believe have committed it, and charge them. Sometimes they don't charge them, and it's reasonable to expect a cop to hold some discussion with the person who could be charged to determine whether it is necessary or wise to charge them. Once the charge is laid, if cops need evidence, it is reasonable for them to use interrogation techniques that will elicit it.

Neither one was the case here. The cop had decided to charge, and the cop didn't need evidence. He might have liked a confession, but the things he said didn't really seemed designed to elicit a confession. He was simply berating the person under arrest, while demanding respect from him. If cops want to berate people, they should get a job in a pulpit somewhere; if they want respect, ditto. Cops are not moral authorities, they are public servants, and ought to behave as such. If a person under arrest lies to them, that's part of the job; ditto if a person under arrest calls them names, or does anything else the cops might be offended by. Tough. Suck it up and do the job.

[ecstatic]

250. I agree completely

I feel that much of the cop's snark (regarding the hood, the state of the country) was unnecessary. I would be PISSED if some cop talked to me that way, and looking back, I have experienced that same type of mean snark from traffic cops.

[iverglas]

251. I got a ticket from a couple once

because I called them fucking morons. They were. It was about 15 years ago. I had made a mistake, a genuine mistake, and they wanted me to make a U-turn in the middle of a very busy six-lane intersection to correct it. They said if I did, they wouldn't ticket me for what I had done.

I'd pulled out of a parking space on a little side street with no traffic and made a U to go the other way. I don't really think that this in itself was illegal. Turned out that the other way was buses only. Since I'd never approached the block from the direction where that sign is posted, I had no idea. But in fact, they were telling me I was going the wrong way on a one-way street, and I was looking in my rear-view at the yellow line down the middle of the road, and the traffic lights facing me and obviously intended for traffic going the direction I was going, and knowing it was not a one-way street, so I couldn't for the life of me figure out what they were talking about. And if I'd just continued on my way, the world would have been at peace. But no -- they were actually going to punish me for what I had done, by making me do something hugely inconvenient and very obviously dangerous. It is not cops' job to punish people. Ticket, or don't.

So they said if I made the second U I wouldn't get a ticket, and I called them fucking morons and made the U. And they made a U, and followed me two blocks, and pulled me over and ticketed me.

I ignored the ticket. And that was the last I heard of it. They'd obviously got their pissiness out of their system, and shredded it.

If I'd thought that whether or not I called them fucking morons would have meant the difference between getting a ticket and not getting a ticket, I probably wouldn't have done it. I was lucky that because of what they'd said, they were in a weak position. But whether someone gets charged with an offence should never depend on whether a cop's feelings are hurt.


This isn't all just bumph. It's what we call the rule of law. The law is no respecter of persons.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respecter

In even, icy tones the judge continued: "And it is well they should remember that the law is no respecter of persons and that the dignity of this court will be enforced, no matter who the offender may happen to be.
A Wasted Day by Davis, Richard

The law, gentlemen, is no respecter of persons in a free country.
The Pioneers by Cooper, James Fenimore

The law is no respecter of persons - so Craig gets charged when he a cop finds him committing a crime. He doesn't get off because of who he is.

But he also doesn't have to listen to the cop berate him and argue with him because of who he is, or for any reason at all.

[Johnny Appleseed]

252. not justified?!

you could be arrested for simply staring through the crack for 2 whole minutes the way Craig did, much less the other stuff he did. The cop was a pro... he knows what he's doing.

[bridgit]

253. no, ultimately frustrated...

[Liberal_in_LA]

255. I think there was a bit of entrapment involved.

[Vidar]

256. Yes.

[JVS]

257. No.

If I hung out in a ladies room and did what Craig did, I'd be arrested and sent to jail. I don't understand why men shouldn't have the right to be able to use the bathroom without peeping toms like craig lurking around and reaching under the stall. We shouldn't have to tolerate lewd behavior either.

[lynne]

259. He was charged with peeping & disorderly but only pled on disorderly - was the peeping dropped?

It appears that the peeping charge was dropped which indicates that the cop didn't have enough evidence to make it stick. The cop further encouraged Craig by tapping and sliding his own foot. I think Craig is guilty as they come but I also think that the cop was baiting anyone that came his way. If you happened to be crapping while listening to your Ipod and tapping your foot to the music, you could be in for a big surprise!!

:hurts:

[sendero]

265. About half the cops..

... I've had the pleasure or otherwise to deal with have been major league assholes on a power trip, in fact my very first experience with the police was negative, with the son of a bitch callling me a liar when I was NOT.

I try to stay away from the police, especially the small-town and suburban variety who seem to be 75% dickheads. Nothing good can come of dealing with them at all.

[flyarm]

269. nope..i think he did his job respectfully and responsibly. I think Craig was not respectful

by lying to the policeman!

it was obvious Craig was trying to deflect and twist and turn everything..and he was bold faced lying.

fly

[LisaL]

271. I can't help but wonder why the cop didn't actually wait

for something more obvious than foot tapping before making an arrest? As far as I know, in prostitution stings cops wait until someone actually offers a hooker (or police officer playing a hooker) money in exchange for sex. If in Graig's case the foot tapping was going to be followed by sex solicitation, why not then wait for the actual sex solicitation before making an arrest?