You posted:But then I get to the police actions here. The “signals” the cop relayed seem pretty subtle to me. Not that it isn’t true and maybe the senator really was soliciting the cop... but all those “signals” are pretty close to things that could have completely innocuous explanations. Standing outside a door peeping and standing outside a door waiting for one to come open might be difficult to distinguish from inside the stall. And foot-tapping or reaching down below the stall might also happen for reasons that are more innocent.
***
I confess (and celebrate) that I don’t know much about these gay pickup signals, but I am not sure I see the real issue. When I was dating (if I can recall correctly) I tried to use much LESS subtle signals to try and convince women to have sex with me, and I would have done the same with a female police officer if I found her attractive. I don’t see how that is any sort of violation of law, unless money or coercion were involved.
I think the guy is likely a creep, but I don’t see what the criminal violation is. And if it IS a violation, you bar cruisers better watch your act.
You're absolutely right. That's the problem with these types of "crimes". Craig may indeed be a pervert, creep and/or jerk, but what or who specifically did he "harm", and what specifically is it that makes flirtatious behavior intended to solicit sex acceptable in a bar but unacceptable in an airport bathroom. With all the genuinely dangerous and vicious criminals out there for law enforcement to be spending their time and our money on these morals entrapment policies is itself a moral outrage.
Craig's worst offense is his incredible stupidity. If the scenario is as we have seen it described, the only evidence against him appears to be the word of the cop. All Craig had to do was just deny everything (as a Democrat Senator would have done) and it would have been his word against the cop's. If the police still tried to push it, things would have been messy and unpleasant, but he would have eventually gotten through it.
Bathrooms are a convenience for everyone — male, female, infant, child, and adult to use. They serve an essential function. You remove clothing in a bathroom. So you need to have a reasonable expectation of privacy — not having to worry about people peering, leering, ogling, and staring or attempting to stalk you. Families with children go into the public bathrooms.
Adults go into bars. They peer, leer, ogle, and stare at one another all the time. A bar is not a public convenience since there is no public necessity involved. You don’t have to remove your clothes to use a bar. So, there is no need to be protected by an expectation of privacy. Any clothes removed are by consenting adults and you don’t usually find children in there.
A bathroom and a bar are not the same, so under a just law, you would not hold the bar to the same standards as a bathroom. Is it really that hard to comprehend?
Also if Larry Craig had gone into the airport Ladies’ room doing what he was doing — trolling for dates, he still would have ended up in police custody.
I find this absolutely unbelievable. Is not being able to tell the difference between a public bathroom and a bar a gen-x thing? I really would like to know. Is this is just some odd “group think” or do we have a whole generation of of people who think this way?