August 28, 2007
Toilet Patrol
Senator Larry Craig of Idaho, a Republican, was arrested in June on a charge of "disorderly conduct" for supposedly attempting to give an undercover cop signals that are normally used by gay men asking for an anonymous hook-up. Today, Craig came out swinging, claiming that he is not gay and that he only pleaded guilty to the charge in order to clear it up quickly. If that's true, it was a colossally stupid move on his part.
Some of you will say that if the senator was a Democrat, I would be calling for his head. That's true, because the media certainly would not bring as much heat down on a liberal (remember Barney Frank?). But I digress. My point is that I don't see a crime here. Let's assume that Craig really was soliciting sex from a stranger. Can we assume that they were going to do it right there? If he was caught in the act, I could understand the arrest because there are standards of conduct that the law enforces in public places. But Craig did not do that; he was supposedly sending signals with his foot.
Furthermore, do the cops in Minneapolis not have any serious crimes to pursue? As far as I'm concerned, two gay men meeting in a public restroom and then leaving to pursue their desires is a victim-less crime. DO NOT talk to me about the morality of the situation----of course it's despicable if true. But morality and law are not always on the same side.
One more question: do female cops stake out the womens' restrooms at the Minneapolis airport?
Posted by Matthew at August 28, 2007 09:31 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1209
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Toilet Patrol:
» annual credit report from annual credit report
[Read More]
I had read that the police officer was investigating complaints of "lewd behaviour" in the Airport restrooms, so obviously he was going to be hyper sensitive about such things.
Plus he was part of the "Airport Police" so it wasn't like a vindictive cop on the street left a homicide scene and drove in to investigate. So I think the "don't they have more serious crimes to pursue?" question may be a tad misguided.
I agree that if indeed he was not guilty, he shouldn't have pleaded as such. But I'm sure he panicked and didn't want this thing blown up. Unfortunately, when you live in the public eye, everything is a big deal.
Posted by: Hash![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 29, 2007 03:11 PM
There you go again Hash anti whatever. There are more important things the cop should have been doing like keeping the airport safe..Some guy signaling for sex and possibly taking the guy home... Who cares?
Posted by: Jomerica at August 29, 2007 08:25 PM
Jomerica,
Dude! What is your farking problem ?
Quit obsessing over every comment I make. Get a life - or visit a psychiatrist or something.
at August 30, 2007 08:20 AM
Psychiatrist? Read your post. Don't obsess over what I say. This is where people make comments. Do you know how this works? I guess in your little town people just let you run your mouth. Not here!
Posted by: Jomerica at August 30, 2007 10:05 AM
I will let the record speak for itself.
My comments have always been directed at Matt's original post - at least to begin with. Your comments have always been an ad hominem attack directed at me, my upbringing, the place I come from etc. I stated in a previous post that I would quit responding to these stupid personal attacks. My fault for getting drawn in one again.
If you wish to use this forum as a vehicle for personal attacks, be my guest. It's not my blog. I am not threatened or intimidated by you in any way.
Hash
Posted by: Hash at August 30, 2007 06:44 PM
Obviously you are intimidated or you wouldn't respond. Like I said they, let you run your mouth in your box..Looks like you have a problem when people don't believe the same way you do.
Posted by: Jomerica at August 30, 2007 07:21 PM