|
I even am glad someone that was that much of a hypocrite is gone but...at the same time, I'm not really sure that what Craig was originally arrested for could have been supported by evidence. There is a law against solicitation of prostitution and there is a law against sex in public but none of this happened. There is no law against seeking out sex partners in public bathrooms as long as you don't actually have sex there or agree to pay for sex or do something lewd. And while that was the original charge, I think the reason they offered him a lesser charge is that lewd conduct was not supported by the evidence.
For one thing there is nothing really lewd about anything he did except possibly peering into someone else's stall. Now, I know that is bad, and usually if I can't tell if someone is in there I would look under the stall to see if there are shoes visible - and not through the crack to see if someone was in there. But the case could be made that he was only looking to see if someone was in there. The cop said that he peered in there for about two minutes, but unless it was all videotaped it would appear to be a case of his word against the cops. I really don't think tapping your foot, running your hand under the wall or even rubbing up against a person's leg can be considered lewd conduct. To really make the charge stick the cop would have had to show that Craig actually did something like masturbate, expose himself outside the stall or put more than his hand and foot in the other stall. Also, if the cop was sitting on the pot with his clothes on it does seem that this could be an indication to someone looking for sex that the other person was also looking. After all, if you aren't sitting on the toilet with your pants down or standing facing the toilet , what in the world are you there for? Perhaps it was disorderly conduct, but I bet he could have even fought that and won. Of course if he had tried to fight it the story would have been found out immediately, but perhaps he would have been able to spin it as entrapment or a misunderstanding and not be run out of office.
However, the fact that he was trolling for same sex partners in a public bathroom and had previously legislated against such conduct really smacks of hypocrisy. It is grounds for running him out of office, but not for charging him with a crime.
|