- The Larry Craig Legal Controversy
A question for an appellate court is the wording of the law regarding disorderly conduct that states if one's behavior "disturbs others", they have committed a crime. "Others" is plural, and Craig's only complainant was a single, lone officer dropping a log next door. If Craig admits he is gay, and being gay is nothing to get upset or disturbed about much anymore in 2008, he isn't guilty of very much but perhaps the disdain of a cop hanging out. To smell other peoples' poop is pretty much a disturbance to begin with. A reasonable person should expect rank odors, but should a reasonable person expect gays to frequent airport bathrooms?
In 2008, the answer is probably yes, a reasonable person ought to expect there to be gay men cruising the stalls, for those types love the thrill of good/bad, slutty/proper, hot/cold, and itchy/scratchy.
Should the officer have had the reasonable expectation he ought not to be tempted so by Craig's or anyone else's advances, insofar that if allowed to persist, a cop might renounce heterosexuality, cave and wind up naked? Pubic safety dictates at some such point a cell-phone or official gun could go missing with pants down.
There are other deep, deep questions that arise from police stings besides Roxanne, Don't stand so close to me. "Can cops have the necessary skills to disdain airport temptations once they have retired from the police department?" or "Will police have the necessary skills to disdain the sale of dime or nickel-bags upon retirement?" One can only speculate at this point what the police may do in retirement phases.
Disorderly conduct is a generic charge, minor and if I were Congress I would allow Craig to continue in office on the condition that he review MTV's most recent gay bus-stop/restroom/dating game show so as to quite simply bring the issues into a proper, just light of odd entertainment.
