News Craig and Entrapment
posted by on August 29 at 13:44 PM
In the comments thread attached to this post, some Slog readers are arguing that poor Larry Craig was the victim of police entrapment. He was arrested for “lewd conduct” and all he did was tap his little foot, peer through the crack in a stall door at undercover cop, rub his little foot against the undercover cop’s foot, and make hand signals—basically, Craig did everything short of waving his BVDs over his head to indicate his sexual interest in the officer. Since when is it illegal for one man to hit on another—and isn’t that, after all, what Craig is accused of doing? Do undercover officers in Minnesota police airport bars and arrest men that hit on women?
Well, first off…
Does anyone doubt that if a bill to decriminalize men hitting on other men in airport toilets—or anywhere else—had come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Larry “Wide Stance” Craig would have voted against it? So even if Craig is the victim of a homophobic double standard, as some are arguing, it’s hard to feel much sympathy for him knowing that he would have supported that double standard.
As to the straight-men-in-bars comparison, people that flirt in bars don’t have sex in bars, as one commenter beat me to pointing out. They retire to a hotel rooms or, if they’re on the same flight, the privacy of an airplane toilet. I’m sure Sen. Craig would not have been arrested for sending a man a drink in a bar, or for hitting on a man in a bar. It was hitting on a man in a toilet—with the implicit understanding that the sex act, whatever it was, would go down, ahem, in that same toilet—that got him in trouble. A toilet is a public place, yo, and it’s illegal to have sex in public. And, sorry, crowding into a stall together does not make it a private place.
Still, Craig could have gone to court and argued that, hey, I was hitting on the guy, for sure, but only because he returned my eye contact and seemed to welcome my advances—and if he had said yes I was going to propose that we get a room at a nearby hotel. But Craig didn’t argue that—to argue that he would have to admit that he was gay or bi, and that the only misunderstanding involved time and place, not intent or his stance. He didn’t. He pleaded guilty.
And… finally… while I would be the first to argue that most men who get it on in bathrooms and other public sex environments are discreet and don’t bother anyone, some are not and some do. There were complaints about the men having sex in the bathrooms at the Minneapolis airport, and the police did what police are supposed to do when there are complaints—they responded. If straight people had been fucking in the bars at the airport—or the toilets—the police would have responded to those complaints too, no doubt. But straight people don’t, in general, because straight women won’t, in particular, and so the comparison really isn’t valid.
Now there have been cases where the police have gone to cruisy areas—parks, rest stops—and arrested men for hitting on undercover officers even when they intended to go back to their apartments or RVs or doublewides to have sex. That’s a bullshit double standard. No straight person would be arrested for hitting on someone—unless, of course, the pass amounted to assault. You know—unwelcome touching, like playing footsie with the guy in the next stall.
And, I’m sorry, but part of the thrill of illicit public sex—getting it on in bathrooms or parks with strangers—is the risk that you’ll get caught. So it’s hard to have much sympathy when someone who gets off on the risk of discovery is, you know, discovered. It wouldn’t be a career-destroying event for an out gay guy today—like, say, a George Michael (Pee Wee came too soon). It would, however, be a career-destroyer for a hypocritical, homophobic bigot like Larry Craig. And it serves him right.
100%.
Word. Just imagine trying to take a dump in an airport toilet stall, looking up and seeing some creepy closet-case staring through the stall crack at you. Yecch.
If he'd just admit he's bi, there'd be no problem.
It very much reminds me of this awesome best of craigslist from two years ago, about peeing in O'Hare in Chicago...
Ah Dan,
I won't argue that the straight boys hitting on women in bars ploy wasn't a bit of a stretch, and I certainly won't argue that the creepy fuck is getting exactly what he deserves, but the police report (or what we know of it) only discusses the "known" signals leading up to a potential homosexual encounter. No word of any actual acts being committed other than the signals. In short, indicating sexual interest in another person is what he was arrested for -- and THAT shouldn't be a crime. I won't deny that odds on he would have happily blown the cop while kneeling in a pile of his own filth, but that is more a reflection of my feelings for right-wing republican assholes that can't keep their politics out of my life. Sadly, that isn't a prosecutable offense...
FYI, you looked great on CNN!
in fact straight people do get busted for sex in stalls in bars as a quick search will reveal. thanks for making it explicit.
I agree with you, Dan, but I just don't see how somebody could be arrested based on tapping and hand signals? Maybe I'm naive about the burden of proof, but it seems like what he did was the equivalent of driving by a hooker and rolling down the window. You can say that is an action usually taken by someone looking to solicit a prostitute, but they're not going to to arrest you for solicitation unless you verbally offer to pay the prostitute (or vice cop) for sex.
Or maybe this is just a case of a cop making an arrest even though a conviction never would have happened anyway? Unless, of course, you plead guilty.
Um. Bathrooms are for pissing or shitting. That's it.
I'm a gay man. I don't care if guys (or girls, for that matter) hit on me in bars or walking down the street or in grocery store lines. I'm a big boy. I can say yes or no. I can even be polite about it.
But don't hit on me when I'm trying to take a dump in an airport bathroom. I don't care if you are the hottest stud within a hundred miles, it is NOT okay to hit on me while I am taking a dump in an airport bathroom.
Thank you.
What SDA said.
The undercover cop sat there on the toilet waiting for thirteen minutes.
I can't defend the bastard...but that seems spooky. After 5 minutes, the senator probably thought he was just WAITING for a move. Anyway.
Fnarf, I thought you were married to a woman?
@9
True enough, there are few places I would consider less sexy than a men's room.
Oh, and this whole police entrapment memme is just a sideline.
You can argue that merely indicating sexual interest in a bathroom should not, in and of itself, be illegal. You could argue, I suppose, that maybe he would not have actually had sex in the bathroom, but instead would have proposed retiring to his hotel suite for the main action, thus never actually committing a lewd act in a public toilet (unlikely, I'm guessing, but I'll admit it could have gone down that way).
But that isn't what Craig is arguing. He isn't saying that what he did should be perfectly legal. He is saying that the cop misunderstood his actions (huh?!?), and that he's not gay (yeah, right). By implication, he is also saying that gay men still should not be allowed to solicit each other in a public restroom, and that being gay is still a bad thing.
That is the same as if he were caught smoking a joint. Instead of saying that smoking pot should be legalized, he says that no, he wasn't smoking a joint and the cop must have misunderstood what he was doing. He is not a pot smoker. And smoking pot should remain illegal.
He's a closet case and a huge fucking hypocrite. This is called karma, fucktard!
What @8 said...
Let's be clear here...sex in a bathroom, illegal. Good.
The steps leading up to that? Questionable, at best. And, given the likelihood that the cop was encouraging the behaviour in order to reel in the suspect, then that gets close to entrapment.
Dan, I understand the desire of the gay community to now distance itself from the practice of cruising bathrooms...I get it. But, at the same time, let's not lose our heads about what is and/or should be illegal.
So far, what I've read in the police reports, Mr. Craig should have beat this charge in court. But, the nature of the situation is what allows cops to use this as a tool for harassment of closeted gay individuals.
Right on...
And you don't PLEAD GUILTY if you're not.
@6 the actual charges he admitted to were basically 1) peeping, and 2) engaging in behavior that will likely lead to the disturbance of others.
@8 in seattle they can arrest you for soliciting a prostitute if you say nothing. the last big sting (on aurora north of green lake) involved some cases where a guy drove by twice, which was enough:
The officers were arresting and charging men for two primary violations -- patronizing a prostitute and prostitution loitering, which can mean merely asking a suspected prostitute whether she is a police officer or circling a block to check out a woman who may be a prostitute.
from: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/259183_sting11.html
@17
Back to my argument about straight boys hitting on women in bars. Staring at their chests may not equate with peeping, but I can guarantee that they are engaging in behavior that will likely lead to the disturbance of others. Should they be arrested too?
@17
well that is certainly news to me! seems pretty dubious that prostitution loitering should be a crime. Just as dubious as arrest for hand signals and tapping, regardless of what is the assumed intent. I can agree that street prostitution and public sex in front of non-consenting parties should be illegal, but it seems like calling foot tapping and driving by a prostitute is just a recipe for police harassment and unnecessary arrests.
Maybe shit and piss turns him on?
i know! i'm pointing this out because i disagree with it and was surprised to learn how easily someone could be arrested. a guy driving past a hot woman a second time illegal? what?
from the PI:
Some also think if they don't talk about money or sex, they are immune from arrest. Not true, according to Smith. Even if they don't offer or agree to a sex act in exchange for money, they can be arrested for "loitering for the purpose of soliciting a prostitute."
and check this out from the same story:
Another decoy, Robin, 33 - a three-year veteran of the Sheriff's Office - said it sometimes takes some coaxing to nab a john.
THANK GOD no one knows who any of us are on SLOG(for the most part)
Let's change the character from a Senator to an unknown guy and the same circumstances happen to him. I wonder if the crys of "entrapment" would be more prelevant?
Let me be honest though, I think that sex in public restrooms is sick and I am getting great joy at watching a GOP Senator getting caught.
What @9 said. Tap away, whistle away, jump up and down, I don't care, but please, *don't* stare at me through the frickin' crack of an airport toilet stall while I'm trying to take a dump. That is peeping; it is what the gentleman from Idaho did; he pled guilty to it; he did not deny it, nor did he have any amusing alternative explanation for it("wide stance," picking up nonexistent toilet paper); and it is and should be illegal. Period. If you stare at me in a bar or on Aurora Avenue it just ain't the same.
@ Dan: "I’m sure Sen. Craig would not have been arrested for sending a man a drink in a bar, or for hitting on a man in a bar."
true, but he might have been punched in the face. It's about shame, which is something Sen. Craig is no doubt full of.
Wait, what? The Mile High Club isn't exactly a common courtesy to those around you. If you're under the impression that it's equivalent to getting a hotel room, you've invited to sit in the last row of seats, seatback against the toilet stall, next time you fly.
If anything, given the choice between other people boinking in the airport bathroom versus boinking in the airplane bathroom, I'd take the former. I can leave there.
@8 I don't think so. That's like saying that a drug dealer must say, "Can I offer you some nice crack today?" before you have probable cause to make an arrest. There are slang terms and signals for drug dealing that are meant to evade the notice of non-drug users, and the foot tapping, hand motions, etc. are an analogous feature in bathroom sex. Just as any guy who ever used the downstairs bathroom in Smith Hall at UW.
Dan,
You seem to be backing away from your criticism, said on CNN, that sex in a public bathroom is creepy.
Now you seem to be saying it's okay if no one's bothered. Which is it?
Or do you have a message for MSM and another for your paying customers?
I don't know how tall Craig is (I thought mugshots were supposed to have your height in the background!), but standing in that throng of reporters, I doubt he's 6'. How large could his 'wide stance' possibly be? I hope he gets interviewed by David "Lurch" Gregory from NBC and tries to explain that one.
@26. i mostly agree, gitai, but if you can have money change hands regardless of the wording, or have someone pull down their pants in a public restroom regardless of the hand signals, you can still make an arrest. the wording in both those examples does not matter.
arresting prior to that prevents one from changing their mind, or could potentially in some cases, get an innocent person in trouble.
I said on CNN than it's creepy -- and it is. Having sex in a place where you have to listen to the fwap and splash of other men defecating? Uh... creepy. It actually grosses me out -- particularly when CNN anchors ask me to walk them through it, as if I do it myself.
But, as I also said on CNN, most men who do this sort of thing go out of their way to avoid detection. Most are discreet, most don't bother anyone. And most other people in the can -- even at the time --don't even realize it's going on. But it is still creepy.
PdxRitchie @12, I was referring to the "it is NOT okay to hit on me while I am taking a dump in an airport bathroom" part, not the "I'm a gay man" part. Obviously.
There is no rational basis to define signals as lewd behavior and thus criminal.
No way. It is pure unadulterated homophobia. Vice cop stings and entrapment, which destroy lives, cost a lot of money for attorneys, squander resources, are not cool and only provide a lot of glee for the fucking vice cops.
There can be no defense of any degree of entrapment as an issue of civil liberties. Never.
And saying that straight people are treated the same is not true, and Dan, you know better. Straight couples get naked in cars, fuck away, dry hump in the park, he fondles her tits, she is giving him a hand job - oh, it so sweet, they are in love.
Gay men are the sole victims of this kind of entrapment. Straight folks get a jocular reprimand to take it elsewhere and gay men go to jail.
Years ago, already mentioned somewhere, when there was a major problem in Woodland part stings - hundreds of gay men were charged with touching the cop, felony assault, not sexual touching, the shoulder was common. In that fracas the Mayors Gay Lesbian Commission did research and concluded they could find NO cases where the same laws were used for straight folks.
In my opinion, parks are a much bigger problem than tea rooms. When gay men congregate in even the most casual fashion, the cops get complaints.
Beware, cops will read this as a message it is OK to get the fags back into the deep closet and out of public spaces.
Interesting the cop had been there for 13 minutes and in no way said fuck off. Common sense tells you he was reeling the guy in. And some court got the 575.00 as revenue.
Harold,
When I was a resident of San Francisco, living in the Castro district, I knew of many guys who preferred public places for sex, including parks and bathrooms. I could never figure it out because there were always plenty of private places available. Finally I got it - it turned them on. So entrapment, enshrapment, public bathrooms are for taking a dump and peeing. Don't go into one and spend 20 minutes tapping your foot, making hand signals or knitting a sweater. Do your busines and get out. Or you might get the thrill you were looking for - being arrested.
So, Dan, given your past success at using hypocrite Republican senator’s names to describe sexual by-products (the public misses you Mr. Santorum), can I nominate Senator Craig’s name to define a gay hook-up in a public restroom? How’s this – “I met this guy in the restroom and we were having a great craiging, but then he pulled out and got santorum all over my ass.”
Above-
With all due respect, I appreciate all you said, but I prefer the QFC on 15th, and the Cuff.
For me the danger is the issue of vice cop stings and our communities buying into their sorry game.
Wise or unwise, creepy urges or cottage fence mainstream, gay men should not tolerate entrapment. Ever.
I agree with Dan and most of the commentary.
As far as the cop, he issues a citation/summons alleging certain facts. It's not up to the cop to decide if it is criminal. It's only up to him to see if it meets the standard to allege that such activity took place. Based upon prior acts that others have done, Craig fit that mold under the circumstances at the time. The cop didn't have to say fuck off or do anything. Once the cop made the allegation it was for a court/jury to decide.
As Craig himself admitted, he wanted it to go away. So he pled to a lesser charge to make it go away. If he didn't want to do so he could have done what the rest of us can do: go to trial. Now his excuse is that he shouldn't have pled guilty and fought it. He also knows that it's too late for that to occur and is intentionally using that fact to protect his political hide.
Craig is now wanting sympathy from those that would think entrapment, figuring its the only way to save his political career. I actually hope he stays in office for his complete term as people of both parties that are hypocritical will worry.
I also wonder if he had to make a later appearance in court to plead guilty to the charge or if it was done at the time. If he flew back to MSP on Senate dollars (or used Senate staff such as his scheduler) to make things happen that should come out.
@32 Harold has summed up my thoughts nicely.
To the rest of you...I am not dismissming what Craig did. Fine; he pleaded guilty. I get it. They got him. Case closed, and he's a hypocrite to boot. Great. Skewer him; lord knows I will.
However, for those of us who care about the civil rights issues involved, these style of cases do raise serious questions.
Here's a bit of analysis of the laws involved...
The link is a right on commentary on the issue of police stings - very good information and thanks for the post, Tim.
Tap, tap tap .... expectant pause.
@29 I really don't think the poor cop should have to wait til a wang is whipped out before he makes the arrest.
So apropos of little, I got propositioned by a hooker for the first time (in Seattle) a couple weeks ago. I passed out on a friends couch and left at 7:30 AM! She lives one street south of Aurora, near 45TH.
So I'm walking to my car, less than a block & I see this cute young lady so I smile at her. Again it's 7:30 AM in the freaking morning, I figure she's a co-ed getting coffee or going to yoga or something. She smiles back. I get in my car & look over my shoulder she's looking at me. I smile again & she stops and starts walking towards the car. I'm pretty confused, admittedly, after all it's 7:30 in the morning & I just got up. I roll down my window & she asks if I'm looking for company. I blurt out some "nos".
Anyway, I guess I wasn't loitering so I'm cool.
If someone peers at me through the crack in a bathroom stall I'd just yell "This one's taken" instead of letting them stand there forever getting an eyeful. If someone were tapping their toes I'd just assume they're listening to something really good on their Ipod. Only when they started playing footsies, I'd say something like "what the hell?". If someone waved a hand below the deviding wall I'd just hand them a wad of TP or a tampon. By pleading guilty Larry Craig confessed to the crime and also to being a closet case and a hypocrite. Larry Craig is perverted, dirty old man. We've known this since the early eighties.
There's a lot going on with this story: homophobia, the jaw-dropping degree of denial Larry Craig must operate under, "entrapment" (do note the ironic quotation marks) and the hypocrisy of a political party presenting themselves as "moral" in the extreme.
What can you hope comes out of this? That Larry Craig finds and accepts, however belatedly, his own true self? That he suffers? That the Republican Party finds its true self, or that they suffer?
@35 - entrapment is a bad thing always, but what happened in the Craig case would only be entrapment if the police had initiated contact. That's not what happened - Craig initiated contact and the cop played along. Fair game in my book.
That said, what really sucks about this whole thing is how the MSM is using this to link restroom cruising with gay men generally. Case in point - the ABCnews.com article headlined "How Gay Men Cruise for Sex" (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3534199&page=1) as if all gay men everywhere can only get off to the smell of urinal cakes. I'm happy that Craig is getting what he deserves, but this really is a big step backwards for the cause.
#35 -
I think you have taken the bait of the other side in that there should never be a game with the cops.
Gay men have EVERY right, at all times and in all places to socialize, joke, be emotional, affectionate, and sexual - just like out straight counterparts.
Everywhere, and anytime, and always. Never is out existence tied to the scrutiny of the police power of the state. Cops should not be determining if we kiss in public, use signals to see it there is a taker, or just act totally fem and campy queer, cause we wanna.
And of course it is entrapment when some vice cop is spending his days camped in the john taping his foot.
New more accurate reports say that yes, the cop was playing footsie back.
Who was deceiving who? The Senator is a pathetic, sad closet case and has horrible politics, but broke no law. Oh, excuse, the unwritten law that says gays go some where else, don't show anything we don't like in public, back into the closet, and your are OK if you don't remind us you suck cock.
Another aside is the division of no not me, I am not one of them - as if it matters. We all have out scene and we have done the right wing a favor to offer an immediate defense that - "I am not one of those queers." Our enemies do not really care, we just sound foolish.
Who gives a shite about Larry? He's done for and homophobes better beware. Those undesirable notions are creeping up ready to burst through in all their scandalous glory.
But, what abuot TT, Trouble Tomboy from this week's article. It seems the guest writer[Spears] thinks TT is a boy. A mix-up? Poor reading skills? Call the Editor someone's not paying attention.
New slogan for the GOP: Big Tent and Wide Stance.
#35 -
I think you have taken the bait of the other side in that there should never be a game with the cops.
Gay men have EVERY right, at all times and in all places to socialize, joke, be emotional, affectionate, and sexual - just like out straight counterparts.
Everywhere, and anytime, and always. Never is out existence tied to the scrutiny of the police power of the state. Cops should not be determining if we kiss in public, use signals to see it there is a taker, or just act totally fem and campy queer, cause we wanna.
And of course it is entrapment when some vice cop is spending his days camped in the john taping his foot.
New more accurate reports say that yes, the cop was playing footsie back.
Who was deceiving who? The Senator is a pathetic, sad closet case and has horrible politics, but broke no law. Oh, excuse, the unwritten law that says gays go some where else, don't show anything we don't like in public, back into the closet, and your are OK if you don't remind us you suck cock.
Another aside is the division of no not me, I am not one of them - as if it matters. We all have out scene and we have done the right wing a favor to offer an immediate defense that - "I am not one of those queers." Our enemies do not really care, we just sound foolish.
and what's with this, "he plead guilty, he wouldn't have done that if he wasn't guilty..." talk? i think he was "guilty", but huh? people plead guilty all the time when they are not for various reasons.
@40 daniel: you could actually be arrested for what you did. maybe you'd be found innocent at trial because you're story would add up, and if it was a sting, that co-ed/hooker/cop might have let you go if you explained. but if that was a sting, that co-ed/hooker/cop might have tried a little harder to get you, maybe tried to prolong the conversation, and who knows what could've happened then...
Here's an issue I haven't seen discussed. Dan said, "There were complaints about the men having sex in the bathrooms at the Minneapolis airport, and the police did what police are supposed to do when there are complaints—they responded."
Regardless of the other arguments involved, you have to ask whether the police responded appropriately. Rather than having an undercover police officer sit on the toilet all day to make examples of a few people, how about slapping a sign on the door that says, "These premises are patrolled regularly for your safety," and having a uniformed officer walk through every few hours.
I would argue this would be a more effective and fair way to deal with the complaints and curb the activity in the bathroom. Except for the dumb luck that they caught a Senator which made this very public, I can't imagine the handful of people they would normally catch (who would try to keep things as quiet as possible) would be an effective public deterrent.
The goi love a sex scandal to distract their shriveled brains. The flavor of the scandal doesn't matter, it's President with an young woman one day, a Senator flirting with a young man the next. The point is to confuse the goi by making conflicting statements about subconscious sexual urges.
Dan this is real Tikkun Olam to have a gay man attacking another man for attempting sex in a restroom. I especially like the touch of you writing some months ago about your friends who have a 5,000 square foot sex dungeon in their mansion. Tell the goi a 5,000 square foot private sex space is perfectly kosher, while going on and on about how sex 10sq foot public space is disgusting.
The goi will never think to ask about the repulsive extravagance of a 20,000 square foot mansion with 1/4 of it used for sex while in New Orleans families of seven are living in 100sq foot mobile homes.
Tzdeck might mean needing 5,000 square feet of your home to get off in was wrong in a lot of ways, environmentally certainly besides the fact it contributes to the gross inbalance of resource use in our world. But lucky for us all the goi listen to your kevetching about potty putz pulling.
The poor goi don't know what should turn them on, and we can arrest them when they choose a form of sex that isn't currently fashionable. A week or two of headlines about brokeback bathroom means the goi won't be paying attention to our war.
I personally could care less what the goi do with their putz in the Minneapolis bathrooms, but I don't want the goi looking too closely at the war.
This putz paranoia is great filler, keep up the good work. Mazel Tov!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).