- #1
causalset
- 73
- 0
I just read yesterday about a case of Larry Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal). He was a parliament member and in the bathroom of Minneapolis airport he was charged with sexually sociliting an undercover police officer. When I read the case, however, I found out he never solicitted anyone! He never said a word to the officer asking for sex or anything else for that matter. All he was doing was body gestures that could have CONSTRUED that way. Well, being socially unaware and suffering from Asperger, I can tell you that anyone of the things he was doing is something I could easilly do on a daily basis. So the very fact that he got arrested on the first place (whether the charges are true or not) is telling you that police is going out of their way peeking at our gestures in order to trap us. In other words, any autistic who is not socially aware can be easilly charged with all kinds of things.
In fact there are plenty of examples of autistic children being victims to this very thing. For example, consider this: http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/1146 . While I am sure you guys are sympathetic to that child, please look at yourselves and see whether there is anyone YOU would treat equally unfairly. I am SURE the answer is YES (and Larry Graig is one of the examples). So, as Jesus said, before clearing your brothers eye, clear up your own so you can see clearly how to deal with your brother's eye. With this in mind, let us now go over the things that the senator was doing:
1) He went to the bathroom, and all stalls were full. So, as he was waiting for the stall to open, he was peeking through the door of the stall where the police officer was sitting, and was "watching" him. This was interpretted as sexual behavior. But is it? If I go to the bathroom and all stalls are busy, I would be really impatient, so I would be watching the people at the stalls in order to see whether or not there are signs that they are about to leave. Now, YES, it IS inappropriate, I agree. But it is NOT sexual. I do all kinds of other inappropriate things when I am impatient. For example, I made a request to a director of the institute to pay me to attend a conference. I am supposed to wait for his email regarding his decision. But I have no patiencer to wait. So, instead, I keep comming to his office every day and asking him just when will the decision be made. To make it worse, he is often NOT in his office and leaves the door open. So I keep comming to the open door, WALKING INSIDE (otherwise I won't see whether he is there or not unless I walk in), after seeing he is not there, I immediately walk out. Then I come back half an hour later and do hte same thing. Now, if someone was on my case over this, they could easilly say that I am trying to steal something and that's why I walk in. No one ever accused me of anything, despite the fact that I do it in front of everyone. Why not? Probably because they are aware of my Asperger and realize that I am a bit weird. Well, just like my impatience can cause me to go into the directors office without intention to steal anything, in the same way it can ALSO cause me to watch people in the stalls, WITHOUT my being gay or wanting to do anythign sexual at all. Probably the same thing happene to Larry Craig. Again, YES it is inappropriate, but it is so in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way than the cop thought it was.
2) Once one of the stalls was finally empty (the one that happened to be near a police officer), he was tapping his foot once in there, which the police officer interpretted as sexual solicitation. Well, I tap my foot very often when I think about something. In fact it would be hard for me to sit still for a long time, and ALMOST ALWAYS when I sit I probably DO tap my foot! Now, yes it HAPPENED to also be a sexual signal. But, for one thing, I didn't konw that it was, until I read Larry Craig's case, so quite likely Larry Craig didn't know it as well. Now, suppose he knew; let's say, he learned about it a year before the incident. Now, what was he supposed to do? Watch his own moves to make sure he NEVER does this? It is hard to watch your own involuntery moves all the time! If he had a habbit of tapping his food throughout his whole life, it is very difficult to un-learn that habbit within a period of a year, or whatever time period it was when you happened to learn that this gesture is inappropriate or sexual.
3) One of his feet accidentally touched the foot of the officer. He says he has a very wide frame and they don't believe him it is THAT wide. Well, look: yesterday I went to Daily Bread to eat. They have a couch that is probably a meter and a half long. I was sleepy, so I put my my left hand on the edge of the couch, and put my head on my hand. This made my body tilt slightly. Then I started to tilt more and more and eventually I almost layed down sideways, taking up most of the couch (except, of course, my feet were still on the floor). In America they would never let me do that (they don't allow sleeping in restaurants in USA), but in India that is fine with them; I stayed in that position for like two hours! Now, SUPPOSE that is what he was doing in the stall. Then his feet might well touch the ones of the officer! Now, I know that in USA it is not done in public. But the stall is where he THOUGHT he had privacy. So who knows, may be that is exactly what he did? He was sleepy and tired, and wanted to spread out and have some rest. So since doing that in public looks weird he decided to do that in the stall, and, accidentally, touched officer's feet in the process.
4) He was reaching a floor while in the stall with his hand pointing upwards. This, again, was interpretted as a sexual solicitation. He then said he was just picking up toilet paper, but there was no toilet paper on the floor. Alright, this one is a bit more difficult to come up with logical explanation for. But why does it have to be a logical explanation anyway? Let's say he was bored, and decided to play with pieces of dust on the floor. Well, yes, no one would do that in public. But the stall is where there is privacy, so may be he did some things he wouldn't do in public and didn't even pay attention to what they were! Then later, when he was pushed for explanation, he said he was picking a piece of paper; and there was none. Well, if someone were to come down to me and ask me why I did some stupid body posture I don't even REMEMBER, then may be out of desperation I would make something up, too. But the fact is that he DIDN"T REMEMBER that he touched the floor on the first place, let alone any of the gory details such as whether his arm was up or down, or whether or not he was picking pieces of paper along the way. I mean, why SHOULD he remember? Does he have photographic memory or something? *IF* he was trying to solicit sex then yes he would remember. BUt since he did NOT try to do anything interesting and was simply enjoying his privacy, OF COURSE he doesn't remember!
5) Pleading guilty for the charges in order to "make it all go away", and after that he tried to undo the plea for several months, without any success. Again, that is something I would TOTALLY do, on both counts. YES I DO make very stupid decisions out of fear. And yes, I DO often do something that I want to undo (out of fear OR NOT). And yes, if I do something out of fear first, I WILL want to "undo" it later on. In fact m life is FULL of the times when I first do something and then want to "undo", first say something and then want to "unsay"; and this happens EVEN without any pressure, so you can only imagine how much it can get worse under pressure. This is probably one of the main things that gets me into trouble, if not THE main thing. Now, other people do NOT do that, that is why they are not very understanding when I do. But then again, other people don't have Asperger either. So this is one more example of Larry Graig acting autistic which is what got him into even more trouble. Furthermore, let's not forget: as a parliament member, he is probably very rich, and that would make it even easier for HIM to plead guilty. I mean, when he pleaded guilty his fine was only around $500, while he probably is getting 6 digid salary. So to him $500 is probably the same thing as $5 for us. Now suppose you were charged with a crime you never committed, and you were told: if you plead guilty you will only have to pay $5 fine and be done with it, but if you don't plead guilty you might go to jail. In this case I AM SURE a lot of you would plead guilty, even if you know you are innocent. I mean, it is pretty good deal to pay $5 in exchange of piece of mind, EVEN IF you know you are innocent. So that is probably what he thought.
In fact, if anything, THE COP should be charged with sexual behavior. HE was the one watching someone in the area that the other person THOUGHT was privite. That is blatant violation of privacy! Even if Larry Craig DID do something inaprorpiate, how would the cop ever know it, unless he watches EVERYONE (not just him). In fact, he has to watch EVERYONE in the bathroom QUITE CLOSELY in order to notice some small details as "tapping the foot". And think of all the other people who tap their foot simply because it is their habbit. And they are ALL being suspected by that cop, without even knowing it! And why should EVERYONE'S privacy be violated just because cop happened to worry about few perverts (and Craig might or MIGHT NOT be one of them)? I think THIS is a reason enoough to undo the guilty plea whether he is in fact guilty or not. I heard that there was a policy that if a cop finds out that a person in a posression of illegal drugs, BUT the actions of a cop happen to be illegal (like searching a property when they shouldn't be allowed to), then the person should be deemed innocent, because the evidence obtained by illegal means shoud not count. Now, in Craig's case, the ONLY evidence I really see is guilty plea. But that plea was obtained by illegal means: he won't EVER have to plea guilty for ANYTHING if the cop wasn't watchign the privite activity of the people (ALL people, not just him) in neighboring stalls!
Let me emphasize again: in order for the cop to watch the way Larry Craig taps his foot, he has to watch the way EVERYONE does that, including the autistic children you want to protect. This kind of attitude is exactly what got this little child ( http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/1146 ) into undesered trouble with the police. In light of this, do you guys think it is fair?
In fact there are plenty of examples of autistic children being victims to this very thing. For example, consider this: http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/1146 . While I am sure you guys are sympathetic to that child, please look at yourselves and see whether there is anyone YOU would treat equally unfairly. I am SURE the answer is YES (and Larry Graig is one of the examples). So, as Jesus said, before clearing your brothers eye, clear up your own so you can see clearly how to deal with your brother's eye. With this in mind, let us now go over the things that the senator was doing:
1) He went to the bathroom, and all stalls were full. So, as he was waiting for the stall to open, he was peeking through the door of the stall where the police officer was sitting, and was "watching" him. This was interpretted as sexual behavior. But is it? If I go to the bathroom and all stalls are busy, I would be really impatient, so I would be watching the people at the stalls in order to see whether or not there are signs that they are about to leave. Now, YES, it IS inappropriate, I agree. But it is NOT sexual. I do all kinds of other inappropriate things when I am impatient. For example, I made a request to a director of the institute to pay me to attend a conference. I am supposed to wait for his email regarding his decision. But I have no patiencer to wait. So, instead, I keep comming to his office every day and asking him just when will the decision be made. To make it worse, he is often NOT in his office and leaves the door open. So I keep comming to the open door, WALKING INSIDE (otherwise I won't see whether he is there or not unless I walk in), after seeing he is not there, I immediately walk out. Then I come back half an hour later and do hte same thing. Now, if someone was on my case over this, they could easilly say that I am trying to steal something and that's why I walk in. No one ever accused me of anything, despite the fact that I do it in front of everyone. Why not? Probably because they are aware of my Asperger and realize that I am a bit weird. Well, just like my impatience can cause me to go into the directors office without intention to steal anything, in the same way it can ALSO cause me to watch people in the stalls, WITHOUT my being gay or wanting to do anythign sexual at all. Probably the same thing happene to Larry Craig. Again, YES it is inappropriate, but it is so in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT way than the cop thought it was.
2) Once one of the stalls was finally empty (the one that happened to be near a police officer), he was tapping his foot once in there, which the police officer interpretted as sexual solicitation. Well, I tap my foot very often when I think about something. In fact it would be hard for me to sit still for a long time, and ALMOST ALWAYS when I sit I probably DO tap my foot! Now, yes it HAPPENED to also be a sexual signal. But, for one thing, I didn't konw that it was, until I read Larry Craig's case, so quite likely Larry Craig didn't know it as well. Now, suppose he knew; let's say, he learned about it a year before the incident. Now, what was he supposed to do? Watch his own moves to make sure he NEVER does this? It is hard to watch your own involuntery moves all the time! If he had a habbit of tapping his food throughout his whole life, it is very difficult to un-learn that habbit within a period of a year, or whatever time period it was when you happened to learn that this gesture is inappropriate or sexual.
3) One of his feet accidentally touched the foot of the officer. He says he has a very wide frame and they don't believe him it is THAT wide. Well, look: yesterday I went to Daily Bread to eat. They have a couch that is probably a meter and a half long. I was sleepy, so I put my my left hand on the edge of the couch, and put my head on my hand. This made my body tilt slightly. Then I started to tilt more and more and eventually I almost layed down sideways, taking up most of the couch (except, of course, my feet were still on the floor). In America they would never let me do that (they don't allow sleeping in restaurants in USA), but in India that is fine with them; I stayed in that position for like two hours! Now, SUPPOSE that is what he was doing in the stall. Then his feet might well touch the ones of the officer! Now, I know that in USA it is not done in public. But the stall is where he THOUGHT he had privacy. So who knows, may be that is exactly what he did? He was sleepy and tired, and wanted to spread out and have some rest. So since doing that in public looks weird he decided to do that in the stall, and, accidentally, touched officer's feet in the process.
4) He was reaching a floor while in the stall with his hand pointing upwards. This, again, was interpretted as a sexual solicitation. He then said he was just picking up toilet paper, but there was no toilet paper on the floor. Alright, this one is a bit more difficult to come up with logical explanation for. But why does it have to be a logical explanation anyway? Let's say he was bored, and decided to play with pieces of dust on the floor. Well, yes, no one would do that in public. But the stall is where there is privacy, so may be he did some things he wouldn't do in public and didn't even pay attention to what they were! Then later, when he was pushed for explanation, he said he was picking a piece of paper; and there was none. Well, if someone were to come down to me and ask me why I did some stupid body posture I don't even REMEMBER, then may be out of desperation I would make something up, too. But the fact is that he DIDN"T REMEMBER that he touched the floor on the first place, let alone any of the gory details such as whether his arm was up or down, or whether or not he was picking pieces of paper along the way. I mean, why SHOULD he remember? Does he have photographic memory or something? *IF* he was trying to solicit sex then yes he would remember. BUt since he did NOT try to do anything interesting and was simply enjoying his privacy, OF COURSE he doesn't remember!
5) Pleading guilty for the charges in order to "make it all go away", and after that he tried to undo the plea for several months, without any success. Again, that is something I would TOTALLY do, on both counts. YES I DO make very stupid decisions out of fear. And yes, I DO often do something that I want to undo (out of fear OR NOT). And yes, if I do something out of fear first, I WILL want to "undo" it later on. In fact m life is FULL of the times when I first do something and then want to "undo", first say something and then want to "unsay"; and this happens EVEN without any pressure, so you can only imagine how much it can get worse under pressure. This is probably one of the main things that gets me into trouble, if not THE main thing. Now, other people do NOT do that, that is why they are not very understanding when I do. But then again, other people don't have Asperger either. So this is one more example of Larry Graig acting autistic which is what got him into even more trouble. Furthermore, let's not forget: as a parliament member, he is probably very rich, and that would make it even easier for HIM to plead guilty. I mean, when he pleaded guilty his fine was only around $500, while he probably is getting 6 digid salary. So to him $500 is probably the same thing as $5 for us. Now suppose you were charged with a crime you never committed, and you were told: if you plead guilty you will only have to pay $5 fine and be done with it, but if you don't plead guilty you might go to jail. In this case I AM SURE a lot of you would plead guilty, even if you know you are innocent. I mean, it is pretty good deal to pay $5 in exchange of piece of mind, EVEN IF you know you are innocent. So that is probably what he thought.
In fact, if anything, THE COP should be charged with sexual behavior. HE was the one watching someone in the area that the other person THOUGHT was privite. That is blatant violation of privacy! Even if Larry Craig DID do something inaprorpiate, how would the cop ever know it, unless he watches EVERYONE (not just him). In fact, he has to watch EVERYONE in the bathroom QUITE CLOSELY in order to notice some small details as "tapping the foot". And think of all the other people who tap their foot simply because it is their habbit. And they are ALL being suspected by that cop, without even knowing it! And why should EVERYONE'S privacy be violated just because cop happened to worry about few perverts (and Craig might or MIGHT NOT be one of them)? I think THIS is a reason enoough to undo the guilty plea whether he is in fact guilty or not. I heard that there was a policy that if a cop finds out that a person in a posression of illegal drugs, BUT the actions of a cop happen to be illegal (like searching a property when they shouldn't be allowed to), then the person should be deemed innocent, because the evidence obtained by illegal means shoud not count. Now, in Craig's case, the ONLY evidence I really see is guilty plea. But that plea was obtained by illegal means: he won't EVER have to plea guilty for ANYTHING if the cop wasn't watchign the privite activity of the people (ALL people, not just him) in neighboring stalls!
Let me emphasize again: in order for the cop to watch the way Larry Craig taps his foot, he has to watch the way EVERYONE does that, including the autistic children you want to protect. This kind of attitude is exactly what got this little child ( http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/1146 ) into undesered trouble with the police. In light of this, do you guys think it is fair?
Last edited by a moderator: