The “disorderly conduct” statue is sufficiently broad enough to give the officer authority to pick up Gay Larry.

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:

….(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.

http://tinyurl.com/yntw9g

Of course, this broad definition gives police quite a bit of authority since it covers POTENTIAL effects of behavior–and it is reasonable to suggest that Gay Larry’s behavior falls into this category. I have actually walked into a public bathroom while this type of stuff was going on and I can tell you that it did “arouse anger or resentment” in me [I am a bit uncomfortable using the word ‘arouse’ in this context, but its in the statute! ]

Now, to be actually convicted of a disorderly conduct is a different matter. If Gay Larry had hired a half-way decent lawyer, he probably could have gotten the charges dropped, questioning the “reasonable cause” for arrest.

It is also important to remember that disorderly conduct is a pretty minor crime. The punishment is little more than a speeding ticket.

I am surprised that no one has brought up the Minnesota Vikings boat cruise scandal. Moe Williams got the same punishment as Gay Larry for touching a dancer’s breast.

Also, Vikings cornerback Ced Griffin was arrested last month on a DC charge for failing to abide by a dress code at a nightclub. His case was “continued for dismissal” which means that he was not convicted, but has to stay out of the club for ayear and pay a fine. Unlike Gay Larry, Griffin had the sense to plead not guilty.

When a man approaches a woman in a “creepy” way, she can just say No. No crime has been committed. Likewise, if Sen. Craig were to play footsie with me from the next stall, I would simply let him know I’m not interested. Certainly that would be an unwelcome and uncomfortable situation, but I don’t think it would constitute a crime.

It isn’t that I endorse any of the behaviors. I simply mean that as a matter of going before a judge, I am not sure that based on the report given that there was enough to convict.

And the only reason I even give it any thought is that he is now claiming he shouldn’t have plead guilty.

Surely there is a right not to be peered at through a toilet stall door crack — to the point where the sargeant could tell that Craig had blue eyes.

Surely there is a right not to be intentionally touched by someone else’s foot while in a public toilet stall. In another context that is called “battery.”

Surely there is a right not to have someone intentionally reach into your toilet stall — to the point where the sargeant could see his wedding ring.

And if there are surely such rights, then there is surely some form of legitimate police power to protect such rights.

P.S. I am gay and not a Democrat.

During his press conference today, Gay Larry only expressed regret that he made the plea.

If Gay Larry claims he is innocent of disorderly conduct then he certainly is guilty of obstruction of justice, since he lied during the plea.

That is a much more serious charge than disorderly conduct.

His statement today was really weird. He seemed to blame the whole thing on the Idaho Statesman.

The whole thing makes Gay Larry seem really pathetic.