A Privacy Act — Or “A Pissing Match”?
August 30, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Here’s something worthy of note from the audiotape the police just released of Larry Craig’s June 11 bathroom bust. The arresting officer, Minneapolis Airport Police Sgt. Dave Karsnia, tells Craig: “I don’t call media, I don’t do any of that kind of crap.”
How well did that promise hold up? Consider that you can hear the audiotape of the arrest interview right now via the Associated Press. Click here to listen for yourself.
So much for keeping the media at bay.
Also note that Karsnia tells Craig, “I don’t want to get into a pissing match.” Pissing match? Sounds like there’s reasonable doubt that it was lewd behavior going on in that stall.
PatHMV said,
August 30, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
You do the officer a grave injustice. NOBODY in the media found out that a United States Senator had been arrested and plead guilty for MONTHS. The officer kept his word, by everything I can see. Once the story is out, then the tape is public record, and the police have no choice but to turn it over to the media when requested. It’s not his personal property, to do with as he chooses.
I think the officer should be commended for NOT calling the media that very day. He would certainly have been legally entitled to, as the arrest itself was a public record. But he didn’t, obviously.
PatHMV said,
August 30, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
And yep, there’s reasonable doubt. But you can’t blame the cop for that. You arrest on probable cause, which is clearly present. The only person to blame for the guilty plea is Sen. Craig.
Daniel said,
August 30, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
I’ve heard enough of the audio to know I cannot believe Mr. Craig on the face of it.
If this audio is supposed “proof” of his so-called innocence then why on earth would he have signed statement admitting guilt. No reasonably smart man would do such a thing. A truly innocent person would fight it every step of the way from start to finish - and for a 30-year public figure, you’d think he would forever be aware of the ramifications from the get-go.
And I find no reason not to believe the undercover cop wasn’t doing his job well enough.
Chris Smith said,
August 30, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
My question is the pattern of stings in Minnesota.
You sort of hope this was a purely random ‘encounter’.
The timing of the sudden explosion into a media feeding frenzy has to make you wonder if there isn’t a group with an agenda diverting the spotlight away from someone.
But of course, we know that this is mere tinfoil hat speculation.
Troy said,
August 30, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
The encounter was random. Its discovery was not and I’m sure responsibility lies with one of the lefty gay groups who have been trolling for info on Craig for 20 years. They never found one of the blowees or blowers, but Craig made the mistake of leaving a paper trail — a public record. Police reports — for guilty pleas and verdicts — are open records and can be gotten pretty cheap. The tape recording is also an open record. Why? Once Craig plead guilty — every piece of info is public record.
The fact this case wouldn’t even generate paper in Los Angeles is irrelevant. It speaks to the amount of major crime in those areas vs. Minneapolis — cops have better things to do because there’s so much to do.
Carol Herman said,
August 30, 2007 @ 11:42 pm
Larry Craig wasn’t accused of lewd behaviors. For that both men would have had to lower their pants. And, you just can’t ask cops to keep your commons clean, by having to disrobe.
Here? The signals were obvious. That Larry Craig then tried to use his “senate card?” And, his skills as a lawmaker? Even complaining that he was “entrapped.”
I’m not impressed. Larry Craig is gay. Does this. Married a woman with 3 kids, and then claims they are his own. And, he drags her in front of his camera appearances. She looks miserable.
One reason we have vice squads is that the police, as the law, is protecting the commons. Otherwise, you’d just be over-run with this crap.
As to why the cops were in this john in the first place? It was becoming notorious as a homosexual hangout. For this type of “quick sex.”
And, people are slowly learning about the pickup routine. Starting from a point where David Barry once wrote about how men never go to stand next to another guy, peeing. But try to claim the urinal furthest away.
I think, too, among the staff in DC, there’s more known about Larry Craig than his constiuents knew; except now they are finding out.
I suppose some day there will be a need for cameras in the stalls. Where the behaviors can be photographed, before arrests are made. But we are not there, yet.
Larry Craig is damaging the GOP. The other party? Doesn’t have to do a thing.
But where larry Craig is really, really gifted is in his ability to lie. He’s as good as Bill Clinton. You don’t come across this too often.
Michael Lamb said,
August 30, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
I have some sympathy for the Senator. Rubbing feet is not lude behaviour. He almsot certainly would have gone further but if I were on a jury I’d aquit. Didn’t George Michael have to expose himself before he was arrested? I agree men having sex in a public bathroom is gross and needs to be stamped out, but I just need more evidence before I could convict without a reasonable doubt.
As for people saying he should not have pled guilty, I think in his position I would have done the same even if I were innocent. Pay a small fine and have a chance of getting away without any public exposure or go to court and make it a circus? He was going to take a hit even in the event he was aquitted.
buzz said,
August 31, 2007 @ 12:03 am
Is he gay? Probably.
Did he go into the bathroom looking for some action? More than likely.
Do I want to walk in on that sort of thing at the airport? Nope
Do I want some kid to walk in on that sort of thing? Nope.
Did the cops have reason to run the sting? Probably.
Ok, having said all that….of course he pled guilty. It was the more likely way to keep this out of the press.
Looking at the tape and the evidence, I just want one person to tell me where a law was broken.
nodakboy said,
August 31, 2007 @ 12:08 am
Mr. Barnett:
I don’t see what lewd behavior Craig engaged in, according to the published reports and the police report published online. I’m no big fan of anonymous sex in public restrooms between men, but it seems to me that part of what America should be is a country where it’s not illegal to solicit sex from a stranger, even in odd places, as long as you don’t make a nuisance of yourself.
Adults should be able to handle being hit on without feeling like they have been the victim of a crime.
If Craig wasn’t exhibiting his junk or touching another person and not making a bother of himself, seems to me there wasn’t any crime here.
Tapping your foot, making innocuous hand motions and nudging a foot? Lets sic our police officers on better crimes than this.
(Naughty question: how much do these kinds of vice cops get into such duty? Wonder how often they are aroused in these situations? It’s got to be the worst duty. Unless they ARE into it.)
On the hypocrisy thing: the wisdom of the 19th century bromide on this can’t be exhausted: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” It’s worse to speak up for bad behavior - just for the sake of consistency - than to speak against it even while doing it. Sure, it’s better to not do anything bad. But if you do, there’s no reason to drop all of your moral standards to the level of your practice and to announce “bad is good, black is white.” There are worse things than hypocrisy.
And just because you like getting or giving blowjobs in public restrooms doesn’t mean you have to support gay marriage, civil unions or allowing openly gay people to serve in the military.
Just because you carry on with another man’s wife doesn’t mean you have to publicly support adultery. And in the case of restroom sex and larger issues of sanctioning homosexual behavior and practice, there are all kinds of fine and not-so-fine lines of distinction to draw in society and government and public life, versus private..
This type of anonymous sex in public restrooms apparently is way more common than most of us would know. I’ve had a couple three instances of running into it and it is creepy to the average guy.. Dirty public restrooms just don’t make me horny. And I just don’t run into many good looking women in men’s rooms, dag nab it.
But many men apparently are into this; just read the writing on the wall.
I assume it goes back to pubescent experiences and if that’s where you first got off,,, well….thanks for the memories. Or, on a more practical level, I suppose it’s about the quickest, cheapest and easiest way to get some if you aren’t too fussy about who you get it from. In both cases, there are good arguments for why men with such proclivities could claim not not be gay.
I don’t approve of such restroom hookups.
But I also don’t think that what Craig is reported to have done should be against the law. Let the cops catch the guys doing it, or together in a stall. Why troll for such vague solicitation? Just stationing a cop in such places would do the trick. So to speak; they don’t have to mount a sting. So to speak.
On another note, the level of journalism exhibited by the Idaho Statesman in its long-held story on Craig’s rumored proclivities is way below the Mendoza line in my book.
The one guy, the “only credible source,” in the newspaper’s own lingo, makes such claims about sex with Craig while admitting he’s got no corroboration, PLUS he demands and wins anonymity from the paper. That is not right.
Just because they spent much of the article quoting people who say “No way, Jose,” doesn’t justify publishing such scant rumors about such exotic alleged behavior.
The Minneapolis airport incident did not have enough to push the story over the edge of publishability; there just wasn’t enough substance to any of the other stories about Craig.
You gotta have someone on the record say he did it and also have some way of corroborating the circumstances.
Common sense argues that it’s tough to believe Craig could get away with such stuff for 40 years without there being more evidence than has come to light.
However, while I agree it’s hard to doubt that Craig was up to something proto-sexual in the Minneapolis airport, it isn’t enough to charge him with a crime, nor provide the Statesman with enough to go with an otherwise shaky story..
While the arrest should be reported, because he is a Senator, the approach of the Statesman to publish all this weird in-you-endo based on the one police report is shoddy journalism.
PS: One good question of journalistic competence is how did the Twin Cities metro dailies miss this arrest in the first place? Think of all the great stories they have missed by not checking the airport police logs regularly.
Scrapiron said,
August 31, 2007 @ 12:20 am
I have listened to and read the transcript. The cop is clearly the liar of the two. He was out for a high profile arrest and you can bet your last dollar it was coming out before the election. Give both of them lie detector test, several test by different agencies, and compare the results. The cop will end up in jail and the senator’s rep will still be ruined by the press. Just like the Marines that didn’t murder anyone but were accused of cold blooded murder by Mad Jack Murtha and convicted by the press. Luckly a judge and jury saw it different and the slime ball Murtha still hasn’t issued an apology to the Marines. Murtha should be removed from the senate and hanged beside the lying cop. I’m not in Craig’s state or Mn (the first Islamic outpost in America) but know a lying cop when I hear one.
John Pearson said,
August 31, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Here’s my two cents: Judging from the transcript, Craig appears to be guilty of intending to fornicate in the bathroom. The arresting officer, Dave Karsnia, seems to imply he’ll embarrass Craig with a public trial if he doesn’t plead guilty to solicitation. This puts the senator in the awkward position of defending a situation analygous to “How often do you beat your wife?”. In other words, Sen. Craig, although probably seeking a sexual encounter, has NO RECOURSE except to plead guilty. If this case goes to trial, Craig surely loses his Senate seat. The best he can hope for is a quiet guilty plea.
This whole case smacks of extortion, not of a public figure, but of a segment of society Karsnia and the MAC find undesirable in their public restrooms. If something similar happened to me, no matter the circumstances or level of guilt, I’d plead guilty too, and hope nobody got wind of the event lest I lose my marriage and family.
And one more thing: the word is “pleaded”, not “pled”.
papertiger said,
August 31, 2007 @ 2:07 am
Toe taps, carry on luggage leanings, picking up TP off the floor…
Next time I am in Minnesota, I will be too nervous to take a crap.
Pal2Pal said,
August 31, 2007 @ 2:47 am
Listening to the audio, there is no doubt in my mind that the cop was out of line and very defensive when Craig questions some of the absurd things the cop accuses him of. Rest room stalls are small and cramped spaces. By the time you sit on the toilet with a wheeled carry-on bag in front of you, you would have to straddle the bag in order to have room for your knees and feet. So, I think this explains the wide stance. Who knows why he leaned down and picked up the toilet paper. He demonstrates it, but we only have the audio description. Maybe it was stuck to his heel or might get stuck and he didn’t want that to happen and look like a fool walking around with toilet paper on his shoe. Or maybe he is compulsively neat, who knows? I’m not that neat, but I have had to pull toilet paper off a shoe. It’s icky. What gets me is the idea that the cop is so insistent that Craig, who was in the left side stall, would reach across his body with his left hand to reach under the right hand stall wall. That is just senseless, yet the cop is adamant that Craig is lying to say otherwise. The cop goofed and doth protest too much.
I don’t know what Craig’s sexual orientation is and I don’t care. Has he been a good Senator for his constitutes is the only question that should matter. I can’t figure out what the crime here is and I think everyone should stop and think that fanatical cops can come after you the next time. If the cop is so sure of Craig’s intentions, then why didn’t he wait and at least let the scenario play out to the point of an actual proposition? This sounds to me like a money making scheme for this police department that is no different than a speed trap set in a small town in order to generate revenue through fines. Well dressed businessmen are probably the perfect targets. The charge is really no more serious than a minor traffic ticket or jay walking, virtually a citation.
One more thing, as a woman, can’t say I know anything about men’s rooms, but don’t they have urinals out in the open where men stand around peeing together already fully exposed? Seems if you were looking to hook up, you’d do it there, not sitting in a stall and hoping someone might come and sit in the next one. Hooking up for a sexual encounter is definitely not a girl thing.
Pal2Pal said,
August 31, 2007 @ 2:48 am
Last line should read, “hooking up for a sexual encounter in the ladies room is definitely not a girl thing.” Sorry.
G. Phillips said,
August 31, 2007 @ 7:12 am
‘And one more thing: the word is “pleaded”, not “pled”. ‘
You might want to check the dictionary before saying that.
sanssoucy said,
August 31, 2007 @ 7:19 am
I still don’t see what the frakk law was broken. Since when is toe-tapping and finger-fidgeting some sort of “disorderly conduct?” I mean, come now; it’s legal to whip out one’s sexual organs and urinate in a toilet stall. You can even have a bowel movement there. But toe-tappin’ is a crime?
So what if it’s some sort of “signal” for gay sex? Senator Craig is over 21. The cop was over 21. So far as I see, if the senator had approached someone and said, “Excuse me, sir, I would like to have steaming gay sex with you, pronto” there isn’t squat the law could say about it.
Jeebus H. Keeristo, how do you get laid in Minnesota, anyway?
Dr. Hugo Z. Hackenbush said,
August 31, 2007 @ 9:16 am
Somewhere former White House aide Walter Jenkins is spinning in his grave.
Jeff Cole said,
August 31, 2007 @ 11:39 am
Let’s leave aside for a moment the gay thing, and change the scenario ever so slightly.
A man in a suit sits in a bar in the terminal of a large city’s airport. Facing him at an angle down the bar is an attractive lady.
The man begins a well-rehearsed and purposeful routine of subtle eye signals and gestures directed at the woman. He arches his eyebrows coyly. He smiles. He tilts his head jauntily. Then he takes out a business card, underlines his cell number and slides it ever so slightly in her direction.
Not a word is spoken until the lady steps off her bar stool, approaches the man, pulls a badge and arrests him.
It’s a well-known fact that “working women” (those kind) ply the watering holes of hotels and other anonymous public venues. It is also a fact that consenting heterosexual adults often initiate no-cost liaisons in such places.
Now even if the man intended to solicit sex from a prostitute, (a doubtful undertaking in an airport bar) would the above scenario have crossed the threshhold and triggered an arrest for disorderly conduct in any city in the US? Of course not. Perhaps in embarrassment, the married man, a pillar of his community, would plead guilty to the lesser misdemeanor charge. And therein would lie the problem. He pled guilty to what exactly?
Sen Craig committed no crime - but admitted to one. The tape reveals nothing that incriminates him, but much that absolves him. Okay, so he has to go. Be careful about gloating. If you can imagine the heterosexual scenario I’ve postulated above, you should be a little less enthusiastic about pushing Craig out the door.
Go ahead and admit it! You’ve been in a public place and unthinkingly smiled at the attractive person sitting opposite you — giving cause for some vice cop to spring into action!
sorel said,
August 31, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
G. Phillips,
“pleaded” is a legal term. “Pled” is not.
Black’s Law Dictionary
Don’t feel bad, I had that question on my first law school exam. (I did poorly).
nodakboy said,
August 31, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
It’s interesting, no, that nobody writes in who is a veteran of such anonymous sex in public restrooms. There must be hundreds of thousands of men who do it regularly. Let’s hear from some of them about what’s the big thrill and how it works: is there really a toeo-tapping play book?
Ontario Emperor said,
August 31, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
If Craig does resign (as rumor has it), it will be interesting to see what his resignation statement says.
Beldar said,
August 31, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Mortman, you’re absolutely wrong about this. Before you accuse the officer of acting contrary to his representation, you ought to have at least some shred of evidence that he did so. Your post contains none. You ought to modify it to acknowledge that.