Mark Steyn Being An Elitist Ass

Like many on the Right, I enjoy Mark Steyn's work, especially when it comes to terrorism. But his recent piece on the Craig bathroom nonsense makes him look like a pretentious ass. He opts to rag on the cop involved. Basically Steyn is so full of crap on this one, perhaps he should use a public restroom once in a while, something he claims to not do.

There were two creeps in the men's room

Just so. Sgt. Karsnia is paid by the police Department to sit in a stall in the men's room all day, like a spider waiting for the flies. The Baron von Richthoven of the Minneapolis Bathroom Patrol has notched up a phenomenal number of kills and knows what to look for – the tapping foot in the adjoining stall, a hand signal under the divider. Did you know that tapping your foot in a bathroom was a recognized indicator that a criminal act is about to occur? Don't take your iPod in with you! Or, if you do, make sure you're listening to the Singing Senators: Hard to tap your foot to "Sweet Adeline," and if you do it's unlikely to be in a manner sufficiently frenzied to attract the attention of the adjoining constables.

The logical assumption is that this police operation was going on in this men's room because of reports, likely by average citizens, that there was a fair amount of this type of activity going on on a regular basis. In Steyn's view, apparently individuals who do choose, or need to use a public restroom should simply go about their business while two lost souls seeking anonymous sex in the next stall go about their sordid business, as well.

That Steyn also goes on about a lack of standards to bash Democrats while demeaning a cop doing what is most likely not exactly a plum assignment meant to instill some sense of standard for behavior in a location where there was evidently some very sub-standard public behavior going on suggests Steyn phoned this one in and couldn't resist tossing in a little demagogy for good measure. No doubt he'll pen plenty of gems in the future I'll happily read. But this particular effort from him should have just been flushed.

Sex-wise, the left's standards are that whatever's your bag is cool – which is the equivalent of no standards. Thus, Monica Lewinsky was a "grown woman" free to make her own decisions on the carpet of the Oval Office. Without agreed "moral standards," all you have is the law. When it's no longer clear something is wrong, all you can do is make it illegal.

Comments

[seekeronos]

"--- Without agreed "moral standards," all you have is the law. When it's no longer clear something is wrong, all you can do is make it illegal. ---"

And even the Law is not a sure bet any more. Just get an activist judge to "rule" it unconstitutional, and no more pesky laws to keep deviants from their toe-tapping and getting married to the same gender or to multiple partners, or to their pet llama.

As for picking on the cop... wellllll ..... we could always go for installing cameras in the lavatories.

But not too many folks will go for that - ya know, violating civil liberties and all that. Of course, the "gotcha" is that while on public property, one really has no expectation of privacy. Some don't even care about that - even the straight couple who couldn't wait to get home, but were practically a step away from dry-humping each other in the produce section of my local supermarket. Such folks just want to show off, or get attention... yeeek! Get a room already.

How much more so the spurious sex fiends in the adjoining stall, one or both of whom likely gets a thrill out of semi-public sex.

On this, Mark Steyn is wrong... unless cities want to pinch pennies by taking down the stall dividers, or building them so that it is impossible to get two people in them comfortably... or just do what many commercial and otherwise public spaces in Manhattan have already done:

"We're sorry. We do not have any _public_ restrooms."

Too bad, that Larry "Toe-Tapper" Craig found the wrong guy to proposition. If Sgt. Karsnia had propositioned him first, then I could see how that might be entrapment... but it comes back to "avoiding the appearance of evil".

Because if Mr. "Toe-Tapper" had kept to his "business" on th pot -get in, get done, get out- he'd still be sitting pretty on Capitol Hill.

[Ken McCracken]

"The logical assumption is that this police operation was going on in this men's room because of reports, likely by average citizens, that there was a fair amount of this type of activity going on on a regular basis."

But you don't know that this is the case, do you.

So, who is being a pretentious ass?

Being so quick to throw out an insult, just because you disagree with someone, over a set of 'facts' in question makes you look quite petulant and arrogant.

[Fred Beloit]

Sorry, guys, I don't think we yet have the full story on this and people have been assuming too much to invent a narrative of what really went down.

Just for example, how many people in the last two months were arrested in that restroom and charged, and charged with what? One? Three? 28? We don't yet know do we? What if the answer were not any? Only the Senator.

How many convictions and for what crimes have resulted from this "sting" and for how long has it been up and running? A year? A week? What if it is a year and there have been no other convictions? Is it really against the law to make a pass at someone in a public facility? What if there were hand signals and toe tapping in the baggage area? Would there be an arrest?

I'm not pimping for Craig and am sorry to disagree with those with whom I normally agree, but answers to these questions should be found before we all can face arrest and interrogation for smiling seductively at a woman in an airport. Or should only politicians be concerned? I agree with Steyn.

[Dan Riehl]

"Being so quick to throw out an insult, just because you disagree with someone, over a set of 'facts' in question makes you look quite petulant and arrogant."

Well, that's funny, Ken - as it is precisely the type of thing I called Steyn on. But perhaps as he has a big name, you either simply over looked his doing it, or have your nose so far up his butt you simply couldn't see it.

[retire05]

I have to disagree with you. This whole Craig case, while it may be important to his family and friends, and yea, even to his constituants, has no bearing on me.
I love the "children in public bathrooms" analogy. Tell me, if you have a minor child, one who is young enough not to be able to defend themselves, why would you allow that child to go into a bathroom unattended in the first place? Do you not think it is your responsibility as a parent to check out a situation before you place your child in it? Do you not think that perhaps just asking an airport police officer to check the situtation our first might be the best tactic if you have concerns? The police in an airport are there to help passangers, not just watch for bad guys. There is a reason a police officer is called a public servant.

My first reaction was to think that Craig pled out to a lesser offense in order to keep the situation out of the news. After hearing the police recording and reading the arresting officers report (which has a number of discrepancies in it), I have to tell you, this was a bad bust and if Karsnia was one of my officers, I would have to refer him back to training. You cannot arrest someone on the assumption that a crime is ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED, a crime has to be committed first. Another reason we call police "first responders". They respond to a event that has already happened.

The bottom line here is that McConnell walked into Craig's office, laid the sword on his desk and walked out expecting Craig to fall on that sword for the "good of the party". Why? Because they all have Foley Fever. The mere thought of any impropriety by a Republican sends Republicans scurrying through the halls of the Senate to make sure that the Democrats are not plotting to demand yet another resignation and filling the headlines with sorted details of a non-crime in the MSM.

Listen to the tape. Read the officer's report. This was a he said/he said case and if Craig had not over reacted and had hired a lawyer he would have walked away with nothing but a legal bill and the officer would have been back in training. But he didn't and that was his mistake. For an officer, during interrogation, to say that he could not believe that Craig was elected and "that's why we have a problem" should be a comment that warrents at least a reprimand for the officer. He injected his personal views into the interrogation and that, simply put, is bad policing.
If the police had a case for a greater violation/crime, they would not want to let Craig pled out when they had such a "big" fish. They would have asked the DA to prosecute to the full extent of the law. But you see, they had no case and getting Craig to pled to a lesser crime at least got him on the books.
There is not a newsroom in America that does not have a police scanner. They all do and they are monitored 24/7. That is how the newrooms learn of a bust, a stand-off, a car chase, an auto accident. They, unlike John Edwards, do not have the ability to channel the minds of others to tell when a crime is being committed. This story was available to the news the minute it happened and the minute Craig was booked. Newspapers have reporters whose beat is the court house. Why was this story held for two months? Why not release it when it happened? What was the purpose in sitting on it? I can tell you why. Because THERE WAS NO CASE AND CRAIG WOULD HAVE BEAT THE RAP IF HE HAD LEGAL REPRESENTATION. There was no money passed hands, no verbal solicitation, no physical assault. And if bumbing a foot is considered assault, then the next time someone bumbs into me at a movie line, I guess I can have them arrested for "violation of privacy". Or maybe I can have them arrested on the "assumption" they were going to pick my pocket?

This mindset of the Republicans running around the Beltway trying to dodge the bullets fired at them by Democrats who do nothing to police their own has to stop. We are eating our own. How many Republicans have to resign to appease the Democrat dogs before we say "enough"? Is Craig, who the officer thought was about to commit a crime, a more severe case than William Jefferson whose freezer held $90,000 of dirty money and two of his buddies have already turned a dime on him? When are Republicans going to start demanding that Democrats operate under the same set of standards and purge their own for severe crimes like bribery, letting your boy toy run a prostitution ring out of your home, funneling billions of dollars into your husband's business?

The standard of "assumption of intended crime" does not work. Not for you and not for Craig.

I am not defending Craig one way or another. Not being able to read his mind, I have no idea of his intentions but neither do you. And if we can only hold people responsible for the crimes they do commit, such as distrubing the peace, you have no right to assume that there was a more sinister motive.
This is a case where the Democrats would have been screaming about police harrassment, entrapment, and persecution of a minority. They would have been standing on the Senate steps to show their unity with Craig if he had a (D) behind his name saying how sad it is that because of the Repbublicans, Craig was reduced to seeking favors in public bathrooms due to the discrimination against gays.

But that's OK. You let the Democrats set the norms for Republicans and you are going to see Republicans all over the nation distance themselves from values that we hold dear for fear of reprisal. Then we will have two parties; Democrats and Democrat Lites.

[retire05]

"But perhaps as he has a big name, you either simply overlooked his doing it, or have your nose so far up his butt you simply couldn't see it."

Dan, I have to tell you, if ever there was a sour grape comment made by you, this is it. Are you upset that Steyn has a big name or that someone disagrees with you and agrees with Steyn?

[Dan Riehl]

"Dan, I have to tell you, if ever there was a sour grape comment made by you,"

Save the BS, retire05. I have no problem questioning the policy, or wisdom of this type of policing - those are items for honest debate. But neither Steyn, you, nor Ken need to attack the cop on the street to have that debate. But you do. I am not defending the broader policy, simply standing up for the cop.

[retire05]

So now my comments are BS and yours are not? How egotistical of you to think that because you blog you are somehow so much more intelligent than your posters.
If a cop makes a bad bust, that reflects on the whole department and it becomes a way to get a really bad guy off in the future. This was a bad bust and any good LE can tell you that.
I appreciate you wanting to stand up for the cop, but there are bad apples in every cart and this cop, while a little over enthusiastic in doing his job, needs more training. He jumped the gun and if Craig had persued this legally, the cop would have really looked bad then. And that Dan, reflects on the whole department.

And since we are into insult mode here, perhaps you should explain how I attacked the cop? I said he needed more training. Is that now considered an attack? I think not.

You seem touchy because I don't agree with your assesment of this scandal. Why is that? Do I, as a Republican, have to march lock step with you if you are also a Republican? I thought that is what made us different from the liberals.

I also notice that you chose not to address any of the other points I made but rather chastized me for what you thought was cop bashing.

Go ahead and join the rest of the over reacting conservative bloggers without applying a bit of common sense into your reactions. That is your choice. But when we have no candidates for any office you can say that we are all waiting for the Second Coming before nominating someone. That should work out fine, don't you think?

[Dan Riehl]

retire05,

You came after me and because I responded you're now crying foul. Geesh! And because I choose to not engage portions of the issue, you presume I am on another side. The point for discussion here may well be the way we go about policing this activity. It was a thin bust, at best. But guess what? I bet they go on everyday generating revenue through fines and leaving people in their wake too embarassed to fight it out in court - though I suspect many more are indeed gulity.

But the practice doesn't flow from the beat cop, or front line detective, who likely view much of this stuff as BS, as well. My basic point was, attack the system, the pols and administrators who devise these things but give the average cop on the street the benefit of the doubt occasionally. Something Steyn certainly didn't do. I bet if you looked at the "training" you are suggesting this cop needs, he went through it and was following procedure just fine.

Going after the cop here is akin to going after serving military because one disagrees with an administration's policy re a war. I called it as I saw it in this case, you say my view is BS, I say yours is. That's a typical blog exchange, no need to play the viktum over it.

[retire05]

Sorry, Dan, what I accuse you of is burying the hachet in a man whose already dead. It serves no purpose. And if you think the officer in the Craig case acted according to department policy, then that policy needs to be reviewed as that very same policy could be used in other situations.

"I bet they go on everyday generating revenue through fines and leaving people in their wake too embarrassed to fight it out in court"

Does that make it right? What about the poor slob who does not have the means to fight it out in court. Are you saying that a cop can stop you for speeding, even if you were not, and it is OK because he is "generating" revenues? Somehow that doesn't sit right with me. And no, I don't think that is what you are saying. But Dan, there are cops out there that should not be cops, just as there are firefighters, bookkeepers, telephone repair men and plumbers who should not be in those professions. Was the Rodney King beating department policy or what that a decision made by the individual officers?

And no, this is not like going after the military because of a disagreement on war policy. By your standards, those who violated the ROE at Abu Ghraib, should have been allowed to go free and not courts martialed because of the policy of their superiors. You see, it cuts both ways.

A LE is responsible for many things when on the street. And judgement is one of them. Do you want only clones who cannot think for themselves but rather follow department protocol even if they know it is wrong? Can you say Serpico?

And no, I am not crying foul. I simply point out the error of your ways. If you cannot take critizism, you are in the wrong business.

[Dan Riehl]

"If you cannot take critizism, you are in the wrong business."

Um, as your comments haven't been deleted, or edited, how is it exactly that I've shown I can't take criticism? I can take it and I can dish it out. It seems the latter is what's troubling you the most.

[retire05]

Sorry again, Dan. I am not troubled. It is your blog and you are certainly entitled to voice your opinion on it. But when you draw first blood, you can expect some of us to not accept it.

Larry Craig has resigned. His 27 year career is toast. His reputation is toast and I am sure things are not really happy in his home. But the blood letting needs to stop.

If you want to express outrage how about writing about Norman Hsu and the fact that a judge in California let this professed felon walk by simply writing a check for $2,000,000.00. How about demanding that the Democrats explain their connection to someone who obviously is tied to the People's Republic of China and has no visable means of earning the vast amounts of money he poured into the DNC and Democrat politicians even making it on the prestigious New School as a trustee under Bob Kerrey? How about informing your readers of the Democrat Party's attempt to protest the war/military supporters? Or the two Middle Eastern men who have now been charged by the feds for carrying pipe bombs in their car near a military base?

Any of those things seem a little more important to you that the now old story of a fallen Republican?

[Dan Riehl]

"Any of those things seem a little more important to you that the now old story of a fallen Republican?"

They are important and far from over. Sorry if you think I can't speak my mind on something unless or until I have weighed in on every other issue "you" see as important. The issues you cite are well covered in the blogosphere, just because I don't immediately jump on every passing train doesn't mean I don't care about it. Did you even stop to think how good it would be if that whole Hsu issue didn't play out completely just now and might prove to be more beneficial in the general election? No, of course not - that wouldn't be a knee jerk response.

[retire05]

Dan, don't get your Hanes all in a wad. I am only saying that the Craig story had been covered ad naseum and it is time to move on.
It has been reported that Justice is going to look into the Hsu scandal and yeah, while I would love for the whole impact of the story to break right before November, '08, I also realize that the wheels of Justice move very slowly and that unless this gets pounded on the MSM is going to shut it down.

And don't put words in my mouth. I never said you could not speak your mind. You want to waste bandwidth on a dead story, have at it.

Have a nice holiday.

[LOL]

mark steyn usually writes his op-ed's without any fact checking or coherent logic. This shouldn't be surprising.

[seekeronos]

Steyned or un-Steyned, the fact of the matter is this:

There *are* certain signals and body language and behaviours used by men who cruise for illicit bathroom sex (or for just an innocuous meeting --- the sex or other activities may happen at a different location).

The cop was versed enough in them (whether or not he was a vice cop is irrelevant) to know that Craig's alleged activity and signals was code for him (Sgt. Karsnia) to expose his male member under the partition to be serviced by Craig.

Apparently, Craig would not have given these signals in an exact and deliberate manner, unless he was aware of the intended meaning thereof.

This here blog by a gay man familiar with bathroom cruising code >>> http://wockner.blogspot.com/2007/08/10-million-americans-know-better.html

... details certain aspects of this "secret bathroom sex code" which apply well to the Craig fiasco.

Bottom line here is... ** Craig got caught with his pants down. **

Regardless of the speculation on the spuriousness of the charges or Sgt. Karsnia's investigation... Regardless of whatever stupidity on Craig's part (beyond cruising a police officer) ensued thereafter (pleading to lesser charges, hiring lawyers, etc.) --- all of it is utterly irrevelant; because if Craig had kept his business in the bathroom to ordinary, non-sexual movements of excreta and then went on his way... Sgt. Karsnia would not have had reason to arrest him.

And even if we paint the worst case scenario, that some Dem with money to burn (from the ChiComs via Hsu? Heh...) was casing Craig out to catch him at the next possible slip-up ala Foleygate... then Craig blew it for abandoning the one major rule of personal integrity, which is also covered in the Bible:

"--- Abstain from all appearance of evil. ---" (1 Thessalonians 5:22, KJV)

[Fred Beloit]

""--- Abstain from all appearance of evil. ---" (1 Thessalonians 5:22, KJV)"

Fine, seek, but how about "Render unto Caesar..." This is a legal matter. The moral side is between him and whatever religion he may have. Legal matters need to be sorted out according to the civil law not religious law, Sharia or otherwise.

[joeb]

How did the Craig story come to light? I havent been able to find out how this story broke. Who broke it and where did they get the information?
That link to the bathroom cruising code really is a good source of info. I never knew of this code. As someone else commented "Remind me not to wear my ipod in a men's room and tap my feet".
As for police procedure I am with you Dan. I think the policeman was well trained and following current procedure. The Wash.Post had a detailed article on the history of sex stings a few days ago and it outlined how the way police have to operate these days is in contrast to the days when under cover sex officers were required to actually have sex with someone(male or female)before arresting them.

[seekeronos]

Awfully long post coming up, be ye forewarned. :P

"--- Who winks with his eyes, who signals with his feet, Who points with his fingers; Who [with] perversity in his heart continually devises evil, Who spreads strife. ---" (Proverbs 6:13-14, NASB)

With much signaling with feet and hands, did the former Senator Craig fall into the pit.

While the New American Standard Version (NASB) is not my favourite translation of God's Word, it does read more clearly to this occasion, and Proverbs 6:13-14 gives us clear warning concerning men who exhibit the same sort of behaviours of the likes of the former Sen. Craig.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"--- Fine, seek, but how about "Render unto Caesar..." This is a legal matter. The moral side is between him and whatever religion he may have. Legal matters need to be sorted out according to the civil law not religious law, Sharia or otherwise. ---"

Fred:

It is both a moral as well as a legal matter, which enters the public sphere... in that the common sense approach of public officials (as well as anyone else, really) avoiding the appearance of evil would have prevented Craig from losing his job, as well as the public trust.

It may well be that legally, Craig committed no crime. In fact, further down this reply, I can even show where there are certain weaknesses in the LEO's charges against Craig, but that still doesn't resolve for us a reason as to what prompted Sgt. Karsnia to interrupt the Senator's wide-stanced attempts to pick up things up in a bathroom stall (allegedly, [imaginary] fragments of toilet paper, not undercover cops).

However the dust may settle from the certain legal maneuvering of Craig's legal counsel, as whatever back room deals are hammered out to protect what precious little shreds remain of either Craig's future career prospects or his honour, and whether or not Sgt. Karsnia was obeying police procedure in his arrest, or if so, whether he cited Craig under the appropriate codes, and whether or not the police actions fell within the bounds of either statue or constitutional law.... ultimately all of this has no bearing on the fact that _serious_ doubt has now been cast upon Craig's character.

Which is why, regardless of his actual guilt or innocence - he has made himself practically unelectable for any office, present or future. Indeed, if a pun may be permitted here... Craig did not acquitted himself well at all.

His lack of cooperation with the authorities both pre- and post- Miranda reading show that he was resisting as a means of concealing his guilty conscience.

If in fact he had been completely innocent, or if he were a better actor, he would have went along with Sgt. Karsnia, discussed the charges, and perhaps might have (not likely) even had the whole matter brushed under the rug, or at least adjudicated in a manner certainly less likely to bring the shame and downfall he has thus suffered... had he displayed a more humble and conciliatory attitude, if not at least playing things coolly so as to cast doubt on Sgt. Karsnia's testimony -- provided that there was no other cause to hold suspicions against his character - such as the heated way he defended himself concerning hints of inappropriate behaviour towards Congressional pages ala Maf54 (the former "Hon." Mark Foley) back in the early 1980's.

Instead, he acted the part of a prima don(na?) when caught, refusing to obey the LEOs' repeated directions to leave his luggage in the appointed place, and even displaying further arrogance by displaying his "I'm a US Senator, whaddya think of that?" card.

As expected, that seems to have had no effect upon the LEOs - they seemed to have had no sympathy for him at the very least - at the station where he was booked. In fact, it may have rather guaranteed that the LEOs would seek to book him on the maximum possible charges they could find.

All this, for the hope of an illegal (and certainly immoral) union initiated in a public restroom on a layover. As I said before, if the now dis-esteemed Senator had tended to the proper business and use of the latrine, and gone his way, he would not have lost his honour and integrity.

And when cast even under "Render unto Caesar", the Bible also says that public authorities (police, gendarmes, peace officers, sheriffs, and other forms of law enforcement agents) bear the sword as revengers of God to protect law and order:

"---

Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

---" (Romans 13:3-4, KJV)

Therefore, the police, or other security professionals/LEOs, in order to protect the public peace not only have the right to inspect public spaces (such as a public restroom in an airport) but a duty before the king (in our case, our Republic) and God our Heavenly King through Whose Divine and Sovereign assent our Republic has come to exist... to enforce the laws of man, the laws of nature, and nature's God.

This includes the apprehension of persons who are engaging in "lewd conduct", or in raig's case, a gross misdemeanor of "gross misdemeanor interference to privacy" under which Craig pleaded down to "Disorderly Conduct" (something of a catchall charge)

Now the only (in terms of civil law as well as biblical) shortfall I could possibly see here is that there is only the testimony (written police report as an affidavit) of Sgt. Karsnia, vs. the testimony of Sen. Craig, whose testimony may be in doubt, with the plea bargain and admission of some guilt, and the subsequent denial of guilt thereafter.

Now between the (alleged?) sexual solicitation, the use of known hand and foot signals amongst solicitors and those solicited who look for such solicitation... all of this amounts to casting a large shadow of doubt on the (soon to be ex-Senator) Craig's account.

The best Craig can hope for is wriggling out of this on a technicality, in that there was no such activity on Craig's part (other than the non-verbal solicitation) whereby he could be charged for the misdemeanor offense of lascivious behavior, or any public indecency under MSS 617.23 subdv. 1(3)c

* Link: >>>>
http://www.nac.oshkosh.net/StatesFrames/State_Laws_Frames/Minnesota_Laws/body_minnesota_laws.html

In the original report*, Craig was charged (this charge was dismissed by the court for a guilty plea to Disorderly Conduct) with violating MSS 609.746 sd.1(c) :

"---
609.746 INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACY.
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device.
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:
(1) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 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, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and
(2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.

---"

Link: >>>
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=current&section=609.746&image.x=33&image.y=8&image=Get+Section

and: MSS 609.72 sd. 1(3)

"---

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
Subdivision 1. Crime. Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place,
including on a school bus, 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, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:
(1) Engages in brawling or fighting; or
(2) Disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or
(3) Engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
A person does not violate this section if the person's disorderly conduct was caused by an epileptic seizure.

---"

Link: >>>
http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=current&section=609.72&image.x=26&image.y=16&image=Get+Section

A strict interpretation of MSS 609.72 sd. 1(3) must establish that Craig's actions were in fact, of an obscene nature, which could tend "to reasonably arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others."

The foot contact following the toe tapping, the hand signals, and the conspicuous gazing through the gaps of the stall and stall door structure might be construable as aggressive actions to sufficiently meet the test of abusive or offensive (violating the "personal bubble of space", where Craig's 'wide stance' caused his foot to come into contact with Sgt. Karsnia's foot, inside of a bathroom stall which is generally wider than any comfortable stance one might adopt when either seated or standing in a typical public toilet stall),

And how wide was the occasion for Craig's sin? About 36", if the stall(s) the event allegedly occurred in is up to Minnesota Building Code/Accessibility standards.

A typical toilet stall which presents a significant barrier between any ordinary physical contact between occupants of adjacent stalls... considering the very high likelihood that restrooms inside of an international airport would be required to meet at least state accessibility standards, here we can find the Minnesota Accessibility Code, Chapter 1341 under the Minnesota State Building Code (Link: >>> http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/BCSD/BCSD_1341H_102204083636_1341hyperlink_sinp.html#top )

This provides for a stall that is generally no less than 32" in width, and no less than 36" for accessible stalls. And while a maximum height is not provided for in code, there is a minimum 9" clearance from the divider for foot clearance (sic) in stalls less than 60" long (measured from door in front of the WC to the rear wall behind the WC).

A generally observation of typical clearances from bottom of partition wall to floor suggests that the clearance not exceed much more than 12", where a typical toilet bowl height may be as low as 15" (not including toilet seat/lid) where any partition clearance greater than 12" risks the inappropriate display of an occupant to public view. Reference also this graphic, depicting the dimensions of an otherwise typical WC/Toilet bowl: http://www.cheviotproducts.com/toilets/d-mayfair.gif

It is conceivable that a seated stance of greater 36" can be maintained without discomfort on a typical public toilet seat, but not likely, except for the persons of exceedingly large frame or proportions... I think that could include the likes of NBA draft picks who are well over 7' average height.

Given most people's aversion to intruding even anywhere close to another person's personal space (demarcated in that instance by the stall walls), a closer stance of 12"-16" (measuring liberally from inside of the medial face of the large toe of one foot to the inside of medial face of the large toe of the opposite foot) seems to avoid any possibility of giving offense, much less crossing under the partition.

However, to sit in such a manner as to actually extend the feet some distance _under_ the partition and into the adjacent stall would require a seated stance that could become quite uncomfortable... or presumably, a willing partner on the other side (which of course, is the unstated goal of this game of "footsie"). **See my end notes below for more details on this.

Craig's actions may be taken as alarming even without considering the undertones of the coded body language he used (which, according to the gay blogger who I've linked to upthread, is used by a significant subset of the gay male community).

However, in order to establish a charge of toward lascivious or lewd behaviour, the charge must demonstrate that Craig's actions were of sufficient lewdness to cause alarm, wherein the test may fail the standard of _obscenity_ because according to Sgt. Karsnia's report, there was no exposure of genitalia or direct, verbal solicitation for lewd public behaviour (e.g. public sex in the stall, or even the much harder to prove solicitation of sexual favours), nor any other notably lewd behaviours made by Craig.

All we have to go on, according to the report, is a few hand signals, some toe-tapping, and perhaps some rather disconcerting gazing into the stall (by Craig) into the stall Sgt. Karsnia was occupying in the course of his duties.

Concerning the (now dismissed) charge of violating MSS 609.746 sd. 1(c), this may have had the best chance of applying, as while no specific instance of lewdness may need to have taken place, for the actual violation was the invasion of Sgt. Karsnia's privacy while occupying the bathroom stall by Craig, into Sgt. Karsnia's stall when peering through the cracks as a part of his cycle of assessing Sgt. Karsnia's potential interest in responding to Craig's coded solicitation.

While the gravity of the charge - a gross misdemeanor - might have had far more serious implications for Craig's future if found guilty, it may well have reflected the actual occurrence much more truthfully.

So, to sum up - while Craig might eventual escape all legal and criminal liability, and while Sgt. Karsnia might not have had anything truly legally substantive (short of progressing to further stages in the "secret bathroom tapping code", thus opening Sgt. Karsnia to liability) on Craig at all, this shameful event shows forth a glaring weakness in Craig's character - that he allowed himself to be found in this situation to begin with.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ENDNOTES

* Linked from Fox News, a PDF copy of Sgt. Karsnia's report entered on 11 June 2007, and complaints entered per Minnesota State Statutes (MSS) on 27 June 2007:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/craig_report.pdf

** ...As I am typing this, I tested this by adjusting my office chair to a seat height of 15-1/2" and placed a tape measure extended to 36", with the dead-on-center of the chair's pivoting axis over the 18" half-way mark -- I could not maintain a natural level of comfort by attempting to mimic the posture and seating required to move my feet from greater than 18" right or left of center. The zone of comfort for me at a wide stance (an American male of average height and weight: 6'0" and 200 lbs.) was with a inside medial face of large toe to the inside opposing face of opposite toe, was a spread of 16" (that is, with the tape measure from 18" on centre, the inside face of my left foot at the left big toe was on the 24" line, and the inside face of my right at the corresponding big toe was on the 8" line - which left still a comfortable distance yet from the 32" boundary of typical stall design, and considerable distance from the bounds of the Minnesota Accessibility Code standard of 36".

*** I will admit also, that for me, politics and faith are bound together --- not in the sense of the Islamists for whom it is inseparably hide-bound into a hideous, wretched, and evil doctrine that ceaselessly destroys all in its path until all things are submitted to its false moon god, but rather, where good governance is built upon and informed by faith - a faith, but not so controlled to the exclusion of reason by dogma and the traditions of "religion" so called, but made manifest through the sound faculties of reason which God has invested in all men, especially for have begun in wisdom, as the Preacher-King Solomon, and the Psalmist once said, where "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". (Psalm 111:10, Proverbs 1:7)

Those whose minds are trained of Godly knowledge and wisdom through His Holy Spirit, they shall, with His Divine guidance, see and discern the innate bindings of reason and faith together, for better application of government, and the happiness of those governed.

"--- The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. ---" (Psalm 111:10, KJV)

[Fred Beloit]

Well, seek, I appreciate and respect the work you put in on this. It demonstrates your integrity and passion concerning the issue at hand. However, much of your work is kind of a trial or anticipated trial, mixed in with much moralizing, Biblical scholarship, and what-ifery. These latter three considerations are unrelated to what my concerns are. And your "trial" material, though well researched, is unaccompanied by a strong legal defense. As such it is not, at least to me, of too much use. I believe a good lawyer could make minced meat of it so that Craig would be found not guilty of either charge you so well described.

Further, I cannot imagine how anyone could be found guilty under similar circumstances in this "sting" operation. That is why I am interested in finding out how many others have been charged in this sting and what the charges were.

As to the Senator and his future, I believe you were on the right track with this statement, "regardless of his actual guilt or innocence - he has made himself practically unelectable for any office, present or future. Indeed, if a pun may be permitted here... Craig did not acquitted himself well at all."

I believe you are right, his state's voters would likely not reelect him. But I thought the same thing when Kennedy left his real or anticipated lover under the bridge in the cold, dark water. Yet the good citizens of his state send this worthy back to the Senate time after time. So I guess I don't understand much about voters. But I still see no good reason for Craig to resign with the information that has come out so far. If what we have is all there is, he should stay in office unless his state somehow impeaches or recalls him according to the laws of Idaho.

You will notice the pleas of fellow Repubs for him to quit don't impress me. Their main concern is, as always, their next election.

I am not a lawyer, but Sen. Spector is. He laid out a scenario on the tele about how Craig could go to court and change his guilty plea to not guilty and then proceed to defend himself against any charges they might come up with.

Thank you for your efforts to educate me, I can always use that kind of help. With admiration, Fred.

[Fred Beloit]

Oh my God, Mr christamfordmum, shoot me now (oh sorry, you don't know anything about shooting, do you; club me to death then). Mrs. Huffington is in complete agreement with me, or I with her if you would have it so. What have I done to deserve this? Now my position must be rethought.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/in-the-age-of-terror-isn_b_62928.html

[Fred Beloit]

41 arrested since May in sting operation? But no info on convictions.

http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1391164.html

[seekeronos]

"--- I believe a good lawyer could make minced meat of it so that Craig would be found not guilty of either charge you so well described. ---"

You are probably quite right. Fortunately, I never pursued a career in law (veterinary medicine was more my speed, as it seems that I am wired more toward the hard sciences than I am humanities).

Yet, I like to dabble in this and that, and I reckon what I dug up would largely go to show how weak of a case the prosecution may really have, since Minnesota has no laws defining Craig's alleged behaviour as "lewd" or otherwise objectionable.

I mean, he wasn't caught "in flagrante delicto" of any lewd acts defined under MSS 617.23... (Link: >>> http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP&year=2006&section=617#stat.617.23.0 )

...although, I'd say that in a practical sense, having someone peeking into the cracks of the stall I was sitting in while attending to my natural business might discomfit me to the point of having to leave abruptly, or possibly confront the offender.

Perhaps as a result of this, some future legislator will see fit to revise or add to the MSS 609 series to include such behaviours exhibited by public bathroom cruisers as actual criminal behaviour.

If I might break from my normal pattern of doing things, and play the part of the cynical skeptic, I'd say that Craig would still have his job, if he had played the part of the misread accused with a poker face, along the lines of doing what the officer told him, keeping a cool head, and then by so doing, casting doubt upon the officer's claims, as his sangfroid and position might otherwise have lead Sgt. Karsnia's superiors to work toward brushing aside the "misunderstanding".

Instead, he acted like an accused princess, and even moreso, with much vehement denial, almost like the triple Petrine denial of Christ.

I shall not hold an elected man's romantic inclinations against him, if such a thing is not truly disgraceful... but his dishonesty and lies I certainly will.

To expect our elected leaders to exhibit some degree of integrity and moral uprightness is not expecting too much, I hope.

[seekeronos]

I guess this comes back to the gist of Mark's assertions - although i am not altogether comfortable with his dismissal of Sgt. Karsnia as a "creep", for merely performing the task he was assigned to do:

However... in light of the more urgent need to have our LEO assets deployed more purposefully, I'd say that Mrs. Huffington is spot on (although, ordinarily, I would also be loathe to admit that she is right too often...)

That of course, is not to say that a LEO should not interrupt an illicit act in progress... but having LEOs endure prolonged camping out sessions in airport men's rooms does seem to be a stretch of both police resources and valuable toilet real estate.