[Vision2020] Thought Police: Re:Senator Larry Craig Challenges Guilty Plea

[Tom Hansen]

Ted Moffett stated:

 

"If the police officer was sitting in the stall clothed, what invasion of
privacy occurred if someone gazed at him through the crack in the door?"

 

Are you suggesting, Mr. Moffett, that it is acceptable to "gaze" from
outdoors into somebody's bathroom as long as either nobody is there or if
somebody is there, they are fully clothed. 

 

Hey, wait a minute!  This all sounds too familiar.  Oh, but that was/is
Steve Sitler, our local construction working surveyor's assistant.

 

Senator Craig "gazed" at the police officer seated in the restroom stall for
approximately two minutes.  In my opinion a person situated in a public
restroom stall is entitled to the same degree of privacy against on-lookers
as if (s)he were in a bathroom at home.

 

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college
students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."

- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007) 

  _____  

From: Ted Moffett [mailto:starbliss at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 2:23 PM
To: Donovan Arnold
Cc: Paul Rumelhart; Tom Hansen; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Thought Police: Re:Senator Larry Craig Challenges
Guilty Plea

 

Donovan wrote:

 

But again, I ask, was the police officer sitting on the scraper for hours
with his pants up or down? Either way, it would seem like an odd thing to
do, and could be seen as an invitation for people to look in and see why a
guy is sitting in a stall with pants up/down for hours. 

 

 

This question appears to my layman's perspective in understanding the law to
be a important.  If the police officer was sitting in the stall clothed,
what invasion of privacy occurred if someone gazed at him through the crack
in the door?  And even if he was not fully clothed, the officer may have
exhibited signals that he was interested in some sort of "meeting," thus
inviting someone to make "contact."  It seems logical to assume that someone
looking for an "encounter" in a restroom would not just target anyone in a
stall, but look for someone who was giving signs they were interested in an
encounter.  The officer made statements he was aware of the sorts of signals
given to indicate someone was interested in a "meeting."  We may never know
the full and truthful facts regarding these questions in this case, given
the case may never go to trial, or even if so, the facts may remain
questionable; and both Craig and the police officer may have reasons to not
fully disclose all the details of what occurred.  

 

Ted Moffett

 


 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070930/df6d25f0/attachment.html