Larry Craig Epilogue (For Now)
I’ve had to leave the following comment, or something similar, at three blogs and in an email, so I might as well post it here:
Yes it is a proper function of government to criminalize Larry Craig’s conduct. Those who disagree are, based on what I’ve read, wilfully omitting key facts:
–Like how Craig peered into the stall through the door crack to the point where the sergeant could see that he had blue eyes.
–Like how Craig intentionally and offensively touched the sergeant’s foot. In another context that could be called “battery.”
–Like how Craig intentionally and offensively reached into the sergeant’s stall with his hand, to the point where he could see Craig’s wedding ring. In another context that could be called “assault.”
–Like how there is no duty for someone in a toilet stall to indicate non-consent. I should not have to say to a leering pervert, “Go away. I’m not interested.” (Compare: Does leaving my front door unlocked constitute “consent to be burglarized”?)
–Like how the “interference with privacy” charge was not “thrown out” but was dismissed as part of the plea bargain. Had Craig pleaded Not Guilty, then he would have indeed gone to trial on the Peeping Tom charge, not just the lesser Disorderly Conduct charge that is now on his record.
Bottom line: Craig was not “arrested for foot-tapping.” It’s inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
If the purest expression of libertarianism is the “right to be let alone,” then surely that includes “while in a toilet stall.” And if there is such a right, then there is at least some police power to guard that right.
Where every commentator I’ve read has been spot on, meanwhile, is in asking why the airport didn’t just hire a porter or steward to monitor the restrooms. Why a sting operation, even given the apparent history of lewd conduct there? A quest for fines? Anti-gay bigotry? This is a vital question that ought to be asked — and answered. In that I think we are all in agreement. I raised a similar question in my first post on the subject.
Similar Posts:
- More Thoughts on Larry Craig
- Craig Now Absurdly Claiming Constitutional Violations
- On the ACLU on Larry Craig
- Craig Resigns
- Republican Hypocrisy in the Craig Affair
Filed under: Uncategorized
Yeah – hire a porter or steward; upgrade the partitions to give users real privacy; or just have uniformed officers do much more frequent swings through . . . .
I've never been in favor of "vice" stings, but as you say – that's different from whether he committed a crime.
(On the "blue eyes and wedding ring" thing, though, there is a part of me that says "but the officer could certainly have noticed the blue eyes and wedding ring after the confrontation, and made up detail to make his report and the charge sound more convincing and definitive.)
Yes, and they could both be aliens from the planet Zoop trying to distract us while the invasion armada approaches. So what? That would have been an issue of credibility for the jurors to decide at the trial — had there been a trial. Go figure.
I realize that some more vocal libertarians feel a desperate need to loathe and mistrust police the way that I loathe and mistrust politicians. The difference is that my worldview, unlike theirs, is grounded in consistent empirical evidence, not paranoia and stray anecdotes.
I'd say it's less that I automatically mistrust police so much as I do not automatically trust them. Nothing to do with stray anecdotes. I just don't believe that the fact that anyone signed a statement means that the statement can automatically be taken as truth.
The guilty plea certainly indicates that the bulk of it is true – and I'm not arguing that it didn't happen.
I just have a hard time with the notion that the cop could see the eye color of the guy looking in the stall door.
I've been amazed at the comparisons on other sites that Craig's action was akin to cruising for sex at a bar. That's ludicrous. Ultimately, that sort of argument reduces consent to nothing more than consent by one party. Your "consent to be burglarized" is a perfect analogy.
Also, isn't the Minnesota airport, like most other airports, operated by the state? Right or wrong on running an airport, providing a bathroom for sex certainly isn't a government function in any sense. It's especially important since the government hasn't set it up for that.
The one that made me angry – I think it was on Reason's Hit&Run – was the comment that went something like "Democrats claim they like gays, but they're dumping him as soon as they found out he's gay." How do you even respond to someone that ignorant?
The interesting thing is that this activity, as alleged, wouldn't result in a prosecution if it was a woman doing the same activities in a woman's bathroom. In fact, stings of lesbian cruising almost never happen, and I suspect that the chorus of condemnation would be mute if we were talking about Senator Laura Craig instead.
That's not to excuse Craig's behavior or his obvious hypocrisy (and the fact that he perjured himself), but I can think of many, many things I'd rather see the police doing than hiding out in bathroom stalls.