I’ve seen cops in my town carrying out a decoy operation on certain evenings in a certain part of town. A woman dressed not-so-provocatively stands out on a street corner. After a short time a car pulls up and a conversation ensues. The woman is mic’d. The conversation recorded. Unless and until the mark actually talks about the sex act in exchange for money (a firm solicitation), it is nothing more than a conversation. Once money is mentioned - the cops move in and arrest him.
Now, that being said - I did not hear of any incident where Craig and the cop talked money in exchange for a “meeting”. If there was, then THAT would have been cause to arrest him.
From everything I’ve heard and read, this was nothing more than a non-verbal conversation between someone who wanted to meet someone else via sign language.
Nothing in the law books that says two people cannot get together no matter what form of communication they use. Those gestures described could have just as well meant “Hey buddy, wanna go get some coffee at Starbucks?”
Show me where in the statutes it says that you are not allowed to converse either verbally or non-verbally in the mens room and then I’ll believe he’s guilty of a crime.
The man has cracked morals, but he did not commit a crime.
Ben is in favor of raising taxes, too...I think he’s lived in Malibu for too long.
I’m fairly certain that the Minneapolis ordinances against solicitation of lewd behavior in a public place cover the sort of sting operation that Sgt. Krasnia was involved with. A restroom is a place where, for example, minors go; it must be possible to prevent predators from preying on minors and others there even if offers of money for sex don’t take place.
-—Nothing in the law books that says two people cannot get together no matter what form of communication they use. -—
So you won’t mind if someone comes up to you in the head and says he wants a blow job? How about 3 or 4 or 5? No law against verbal or non-verbal communication; I believe that’s what you said. And if it’s OK in the head, I guess it’s OK in a restaurant or bus or plane or any other damned place the perv feels the urge.
He wasn't arrested for conversing. That is the the misunderstanding some have, the misrepresentation some are trying to perpetuate. We are not talking about two people discussing a hotel room over the wash basins. These are degenerates being aggressively physical in trolling the stalls.
He was charged, plead to and convicted of a particular behavior which would have been disturbing or alarming to anyone sitting in the stall next to him. It was not just toe tapping as some who try to misdirect would claim. He continually peeped into the stall and invaded it and the person in the stall with his feet and hands. It was behavior that a reasonable person would have been alarmed by.
Larry Craig agreed in his plea:
3. I am pleading guilty to the charge of Disorderly Conduct as alleged because June 11, 2007, ... I did the following: Engaged in conduct which I knew or should have known tended to arouse alarm or resentment of others which was physical (versus verbal) in nature.
Here are the exact statutes he was charged with:
Count 1 PEEP: Interference with Privacy: Minn. Stat. Sec 609.746 subc. 1(c), by surreptitiously gazing, staring, or peeping in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room as in a hotel, as defined in section 327 70, subd 3 a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341. subd. 5 or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts and doing so with the intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant; a Gross Misdemeanor.
Count 2 DISOR: Disorderly Conduct Minn. Stat. Sec. 609.72 subd. 1(3), by engaging in offensive obscene abusive boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene or abusive language tending reasonable to arouse alarm anger or resentment in others, in a public or private place, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, a Misdemeanor.
He plead guilty to this second charge.
The man peered at the officer through the opening at the stall door jamb. For two minutes.
He put his hand into the officer's stall from the adjacent stall several times.
He put his foot into the officer's stall and against the officer's foot.
He did all this while the officer was sitting on the can.
You're saying that's not a crime?
Or are you saying the officer is lying about all this?