But you haven’t done anything to prove your innocence. Your wife, your children, your relatives, and the community in which you live will now know that you’ve been charged with an act of indecency that bears upon the essence of your character. The fact that you might escape the charge on a technical detail doesn’t prove your innocence in their eyes, and doubt will always exist; your name and reputation will remain inextricably married to the idea that you went out soliciting gay sex in a public restroom.
You might be willing and able to tolerate that situation. Many people wouldn’t, and would opt for what they considered the lesser of two evils. My point is that it gives the authorities immense power over the citizenry; not that it makes Senator Craig any less worthy of condemnation. Although I think it’s plain to see that he’s going to receive that condemnation, whether he’s worthy of it or not—and that reinforces my point.
Which is PRECISELY the reason I would take the approach that I stated.. This would be a WIN/WIN.... Mr Craig would be seen as a supporter of law enforcement efforts.. and the public would likely be sympathetic.. and put themselves in HIS shoes.. ah hands.. ah stall.. ah.... you know what I mean..
Those are good points and it is far removed from my own perspecive since my career would not be instantly over if I were in that situation. But unless there is some evidence that the police were beyond their bounds in patrolling the restroom, I don't accept that the officers actions were illegitimate in any way.
If I were a regular person using that restroom and I heard clear evidence of gay behavior on more than one occasion, I would report it and expect that the police would do something about it.