News – A self-described pedophile who says he is attracted to young girls but doesn't actually molest them was ordered Friday to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in California.
First we should chop off his balls, he will change.
OldRusty
First we should chop off his balls, he will change.
Yeah, that is the reason hands are chopped off for thieves and heads are chopped off for murderers, here the societies change change, criminals fear, if this is suggested by Muslims you would call them uncivilized and seventh century religion if you do it it is civilized and Democratic, same old and rusty opinion.
Pathetic American justice system at work. Who is going to follow this rapist with a measuring tape?
No body needs to follow him with a measuring tape. The problem is that the law has been unable to act in a case where they clearly should be able to, so the court gate the police as tool.
If he is observed to violate this restraining order, the police now have something they can act on.
Every American should have a problem with this argument. What KS is saying is that there is this guy that, for what ever reason, the govt doesn't like. So they (in this case the court at the request of a private citizen who happens to be a lawyer) makes a ruling (writes a law) that they know this guy is going to violate. In fact, he will most likely violate it many times. He probably violated it when he stepped onto that airplane after being served with the order. So now the police can pretty much pick him up whenever they want to. They have made a law abiding citizen a criminal (I'm not saying I support pedophilia or this guy's behavior. I'm just saying that he had not crossed the line into illegal behavior prior to the order.) So in effect, this guy was targeted to be taken out. Granted, he brought it upon himself by making himself visible. But if he can be targeted by our system, so can you.
This will become a fundemental free speech and liberty issue.
If someone likes to shoot at people in a video game, are they a threat to the society around them?
If someone likes guns, will they use them to kill someone?
If someone likes women, are they a rapist?
Generally, it must be demonstrated that the person is a risk. This is done via an evaluation/expert opinion ordered by a court or the like. Consider that to be the due process to determine any potential risk this individual may pose to society.
The irony is that if someone says they have an interest in murdering people, but never would act on it, nothing could be done about it. We see this infinitely more often in today's society than what this person is pursuing.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
soulkeeper009
pyuuuke
adamhowe1980
dokkyou08
elliotthicks1965
harleyb761960
romeohoover1968
MaryLynn_
mikedammann
Kat42
markreg
uncogito
popbob
qilla
TednGilbertAZ
WeddingGirl
rw113
shehnshah
Keith Neo
ironblack
TOtheMOON
BiddingWebDirectory
zehrila
ozobozob
JJackieloving
NelsonR
BusinessDude
mannyandmil
kobzikov
beck1
Thecastout
ballbuster2
trnscndr
roscoe714
Helixbuilder
entropy
loor
lynnmelville
puffin
L8again
CoffeeMugs
nikita2k
lenseview
avpd85
Papiann
TravelLin
342)
And the lesson every pedophile with no record will learn? Never admit your prediliction, not to anyone.
Could we possibly label this guy the LEAST dangerous pedophile in California? I mean, it's not like he's going to catch most of the parents there unaware!
Indeed. It is quite ironic that everyone's more worried about the few pedophiles who are public about their preferences and thus can't sanely make a move as they have everyone's eyes on them than the many ones who aren't.
I suppose it has to do with the fact that this pedophile is bringing a major light to the problem of pedophiles to a higher degree than is normally seen. This major light is unique in the sense that typically pedophiles are heard of being arrested, but in this case he is roaming free.
The real problem is the wording of the "sexual orientation" as a protected constitutional right laws. The ultimate agenda of those pushing the "no moral certainty" agenda, includes legalizing pedophilia, as it was in Roman Empire times. Then a lord could simply ask for a little boy or girl, and it was provided. Once society is reprogrammed to accept homosexuality, then the next planed step is to claim pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and thus a protected constitutional right. With regard to the children, they will call it freedom of their choice. Already the Bills of Rights for children sponsored in the OAS and United Nations, limit parental authority over children, and provide a separate right to freedom of choice of religion. Nobody has asked, who will teach our children different religions or beliefs, which conflict with their parents.
(continued)
(Cont)
There is already an encroachment on these inalienable rights under the law. Initially, a State was only permitted to interfere with a parent's rights regarding the health, education, and welfare of our children, if there was abuse. The Federal Government offered States money to agree to follow Federal guidelines on such issues, and one by one the States have accepted. Authority is alleged by the Feds under the Commerce Clause. In this area, the Supreme Court has upheld the ability of a State to transfer rights reserved to it contractually to the Feds for money. However, in this area, no one has asked how the State can transfer rights they never had - rights reserved exclusively to the People, a right so fundamental to our very essence as a human being, that it is a part of our very being. In establishing the Government of the United States and of the various States, none of us delegated those God given rights to any Government. I will raise my children, according to my beliefs.
your a biggot. with homosexuals, they want consensual sex with a personal close to there own age. gay men want other men and gay women want women there own age. its a completely different topic of they go after children. that isnt gay, its pedophilia. destroying a kids life. stop claiming gays want to destroy kids lifes.
I was not referring to gays. I was referring to the extreme left wing, which the gays have found to support them. They have their own agenda, and your just a tool, a base of support, for them. There has been a movement against "any" moral certainty. The terminology "sexual orientation" is very broad, and was intended to be so, by those who sponsored it, using gay rights. If sexual orientation is deemed a protected constitutional right, then why wouldn't those born with an orientation toward children also be such a right - actions are illegal not orientations which a person is born with. Most do not understand the full nature of the groups they find to support their goals, and are happy for any support. This does not mean that gays support the goals of these groups, whose ultimate ideals include legalization pedophilia, and anything else dealing with the regulation of morals. Watch, the move will begin within a couple of decades.
Sorry, gave you a positive comment when I meant to hit respond.
What you're saying is not true of anybody I know that wants gays to have equal rights. Consensual sex is not pedophilia, its not ******, it will not result in "human-animal hybrids." This kind of reasoning is just your way of attempting to justify your own intolerance.
If he has never molested a child, why is he being referred to as a pedophile?
Because a pedophile is simply someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. It is not synonymous with 'child molester', despite what the media would like you to think.
Holy cow you do exist.
did i miss something? i never read "prepubescent" in that story. dudes still a sicko tho.
True...not in his right mind. But, he has not committed any crime. Looking is one thing; acting on it it another.
Yes, this whole thing just seems to be the state trying to get him to make an example out of him.
I don't condone his beliefs in any way, but this whole set up smells of entrapment to me. Isn't he supposed to be innocent until proven guilty?
hey, god (in your dreams or our nightmares) - that is like being GAY and NEVER touching another man... sorry, your argument is washed up. if you CLAIM an ORIENTATION, it is INEVITABLE you will ACT on that at some point in your life... and Pedophilia is only considered a valid 'orientation' bi the utmost liberal of sexologists. calling pedohilia an orientation is nothing more than a cop-out to justify one's illegal perversions. I'm bisexual... for me to not ever act on that would mean I was straight... or gay, depending upon which way I leaned. I lean towards the hetero side, though... 60/40 physically and 90/10 emotionally.
ADAGUY- If he has never molested a child, why is he being referred to as a pedophile?
SELF-DESCRIBED, he's not a molester until he actually does it.
because he WANTS it... duh.
he called himself a pedophile thats why
Does he need to proof each person that is suspected to be under 18 or should all childern under 18 wear tags like the JEWS of wwII had to wear stars ?
According to many prior court rulings, it is the accused's responsibility to determine that their partner is of legal age. Courts have ruled that people are still guilty of statutory rape even when their partner presented a credible fake ID.
In this man's case, the issue is moot. He is specifically attracted to pre-pubescent girls. There isn't much chance of mistaking one of them for someone who is of the age of consent.
"it is the accused's responsibility to determine that their partner is of legal age"
I didn't see where he was accused of any crime. He is not a child molester, He is merely a non-active pedophile. If you think he is weird find out how old you great-great-great-grandmother was, then how old her husband was.
According to the writ he is not allowed within 30ft of anyone under 18 years of age. That means no leaving the house, he can't get on an airplane, bus, train or any other public conveyance. he cannot go to the mall, movies, park, grocery store or any place a person under 18 might be. All of this without committing a crime. As far a I know he has done nothing illegal. True he has a highly immoral penchant that "may" lead to illegal activity, but still no "law " has been broken. Remember this next time you look at another person or you may be called a rapist.
Right on point.
This is not the law in any but 3-4 States. Under Federal Law, the legal age of consent is 16, and it is a defense if one reasonably believes the minor was over 16. In some States the legal age of consent is 14, in California it is 18. California is one of the few States where the fake ID would not be a defense.
have you ever had one of your children kidnapped out of your home and savagely raped by a pedophile? well i have, and guess what? he had no prior criminal history. not only should they lock him up immediatley, they should brand the word PEDOPHILE onto his forehead.this is exactly what needs to happen..they should have their faces plastered everywhere so those who dont have priors will be pointed out.
I'm not a big fan of prior restraint, and think it's very easy for it to get out of hand, but in this case, you have a guy who is not only stalking children, but telling others how to do it.
I don't think the court went far enough. The court should have ordered this guy to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
Are we slowly moving into a world of guilty unless proven innocent? This person may be doing something that is morally horrible, but he has not committed a crime. He has found an area where he can pursue what he wants within the law. I would be surprised to find this as a free speech issue at some point.
Can a law be written to counter the perceived threat that a situation like this uncovers? I think it will be very hard to do without threatening other liberties that we enjoy.
I think the court worked backwards in this case. An evaluation should have been ordered, then restraints/restrictions might have been applied based on the findings. As it stands presently, I expect the restraining order to be struck down based on no unlawful threat. A judge has no expertise in evaluating this person. A judge presides based on written law, which has not occurred in this example. An area that certainly needs some legal attention.
Good analysis. Also, I'd like to add that issuing the temporary restraining order in this case on the basis of Jack McClellan's assessment of himself amounts to self-incrimination and would not stand in a court of law, since it violates 5th and 14th Amendments, I think.
Though considering that he is not even suspected of a crime I don't see on what grounds a judge would be able to issue an order for psychiatric evaluation.
The whole thing seems to stink to high heaven legally, then again maybe there's additional information that hasn't been presented here or my legal knowledge is lacking; I'm not a lawyer after all.
Yes, there may be more to the story than we know. My guess though is that the media would be all over it, since this is a hot button type of issue.
I think a family member, if available, should step up and request an evaluation. Being that he is homeless, maybe that isn't possible. A judge may consider the public acknowledgement as a possible threat that might warrant an evaluation to determine risk to the community.
This is a tough call, if this is this guys sexual orientation, and he says he has never molested a child, yet says all these places where he can be close to little girls...it's only a matter of time, I think. Just as it would be to have sex with a woman if you are a hetrosexual man, you don't cruise bars, places where woman are so you can get close to them, without ever hoping to some day find one. this guy says he cruises parks, libraries etc....maybe he wants help to protect himself from himself? If I was a pedophile, I'd want to kill myself-he's on medication for depression. I don't know how realistic it would be to think you could change someone, but help protect yourself from others..I can see someone wanting that. And in the mean time..people must protect their children.
wtagg,
In one part of your post you said, " Can a law be written to counter the perceived threat that a situation like this uncovers?"
Two words, "PERCEIVED THREAT", jumped out at me.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the War in Iraq was started because of a "Perceived Threat" - that there were supposed to be WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and biological weapons, etc. in Iraq.
You also asked, "Are we slowly moving into a world of guilty unless proven innocent?"
Considering the Court-ordered restraining order in this case, I guess I may be in deep trouble too, because I am attracted to beautiful adult women and may, at some time in the future, get involved with someone. And, I enjoy looking at a beautiful woman, PERIOD.
I wonder if two zealous lawyers can get an order placed on me too, because they have good-looking wives, and need to make sure I stay at least 30 feet away from them.
Don't know what to say. Probably feel the same way if it was my child. But then, what you seem to advocate, is the justice meted out Ancient Rome? "F" was branded on the foreheads of criminals/fugitives.
I am sure that what you went through was a horrible experience but that does not provide you or our society with the ability to inflict prohibited punishments on individuals which have not committed a crime. It also does not provide the means or necessity of violating the provisions of the Constitution of the United States against cruel and unusual punishment. If we start locking up individuals based on what they thought about doing or say they are going to do there would not be enough cells available in this nation if we built nothing but jails for the next 20 years. How many husbands or wives have not said "I think I a going to kill him/her". How many bosses have had their life and limb threatened?
If we start plastering their faces everywhere then what are we going to do about murderers, and rapists, and people who steal hundreds of millions of dollars from people's retirement funds and so on and so on and so on. Punishment is a result of being guilty of a crime.
What do you suggest, brain scans, DNA profiling, psychoanalysis of everyone and locking up those who may commit a crime in the future? This would be the only way to protect all people from all potential crimes. Even then, a sociopath would be able to circumvent most modern testing procedures. I for one do not want to live in a society where we attempt to predict the future and punish those who may do something wrong before it happens.
He's insane, and he's putting kids at risk.