"Why don't you have a seat over there..."

[Toxicity]

And surprisingly enough, no. This is not about Chris Hansen. Although the topic nature would seem pretty close...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20263135/?GT1=10252


LOS ANGELES - A man who blogs about his attraction to young girls but says he doesn’t touch them was arrested Monday near a university child care facility with a camera, police said.

Jack McClellan, 45, who is unemployed and lives out of his car, was arrested at 1:40 p.m. at the University of California, Los Angeles, campus police said in a statement. He was arrested near the university’s Infant Development Program, which provides onsite care for children 3 months to 3 years old and serves faculty, students and staff, according to the university’s Web site.

McClellan violated a restraining order requiring him not to loiter or congregate within 30 feet of minors, police alleged. He was released and scheduled to appear in court Sept. 13.

Phone and e-mail messages seeking comment from McClellan were not immediately returned.

Web site taken down
McClellan created waves in Southern California upon arriving earlier this summer from Washington state, where he had lived with his parents.

For years, McClellan maintained a Web site in Washington where he posted photos of children he had taken in public places. He also discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls, or “LGs,” congregate.

McClellan’s server took his Web site down over a month ago. He said in an interview a few weeks ago that he wasn’t sure whether he would try to put it back up.

McClellan, who said he lives on supplemental security income and suffers from depression, has maintained that he launched the site as a form of therapy and wouldn’t do anything illegal.


As for my opinion on this? As ill as it may seem, I think I feel a little sorry for this guy, given what he has said is honest...

Of course, the whole pictures and giving tips to others on how to meet young girls is going to seem rather suspicious - and the contradictory statement of saying, "Hey, I'm a pedophile," and then, "No, it's not like that. I don't even want to think about harming a girl," right next to each other in the same interview would get a large amount of raised eyebrows from the audience.

But before you start to ask, "Why would you feel sorry for him," let me say that I've seen cases like this before; where one will state that pedophilia is actually just being around children and care for them and make them happy in order to make one self feel satisfied. I'm not too sure if it's just an excuse created for their defense, or if people such as McClellan are truly lonely and as a result are confused by the definition. Pull out any dictionary and look up pedophilia. What do you see? It's a noun that is "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children."

Although the thought may seem weird, I think that if the court appearance fails to prove anything specific, let him go, but make sure his actions are moderately supervised just in case. Personally I wish I could tell him that if you're so lonely, stop complaining and adopt a girl, although supervision would be necessary were that to happen.

[Heald]

I'll let him babysit my kids.

And by let, I mean hit.

And by babysit, I mean with.

And by my, I mean a.

And by kids, I mean truck.

DIDYASEEWHATIDIDTHAR

And you'd let him adopt a girl. A guy with a (supposedly self-confessed) sexual attraction towards girls. Not a bad idea actually. In fact, I propose we let Michael Jackson run and teach a kindergarten (unsupervised, natch), let Gary Glitter run a holiday camp for 8 year old girls in Vietnam, and maybe even let George W. Bush run a country.

Political slur actived. Political debate/flame war will commence in six posts time, give or take 4 depending on whether DTZ posts.

[mr_pikachu]

Okay, here's my question. What prompted the restraining order in the first place? I glanced over the article and didn't see anything about that... it seems to me that such information might shed a bit of light of the nature of both this story and McClellan himself.

Let's assume for a moment that the restraining order was an overzealous response to him telling someone he was a pedophile. And let's assume, further, that that's as close as he's ever come to acting on those thoughts. Do we punish him simply for saying something on his mind when he hasn't actually done anything criminal? Doesn't that seem a little wrong? If it does, and we thus view the restraining order as being illegitimate, then the supposed crime in this case really shouldn't be so. Not that he should have violated the restraining order - that was foolish, I admit - but it really makes you wonder what he's actually done wrong.

Now, if this guy's actually gone further than just talking to people, or if he's said something to a child rather than just other adults (like telling a girl "I'd like to have sex with you"), then we have an entirely different matter. But as much as I usually take a very hard stance against sex offenders, if this guy didn't do anything criminal in the first place, then I can't say I see the reason for his punishment.

[Magi of all]

My judgement here is reserved until I find out whether or not he acted on his desires or not. If he actually did or said something to kids, then punish him accordingly. If all he has done is though about it, then theres nothing we can do. There is no such thing as thought crime and it will be a cold day in Hell before there ever is. Besides, if he is depressed and (basically) homeless, it likely he needs professional help more than anything else. All in all, I hope this turns out inocently.

At least, as innocent as a pedophile case can get.

[mr_pikachu]

I'd like to briefly quote a recent LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-ed-mcclellan10aug10,0,1215336.story) article on the subject.


The temporary restraining order issued last week by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig is a logical legal step taken to its fear-induced extreme. Attorneys asked Sandvig to prohibit McClellan from loitering near minors in the Santa Clarita Valley, which he had visited and to which he planned to return, and to stop him from posting pictures of minors on the Internet without the consent of their parents. Instead, Sandvig ordered McClellan, who has committed no crime, to stay 10 yards from every child in California. Restraining McClellan from Santa Clarita would have been understandable, if constitutionally unsound. Restraining him from the entire state is even less supportable.

In short, the prosecutors asked the judge to keep McClellan away from minors in Santa Clarita (for which I still don't see the basis, but at least it's not the entire state) and to prohibit him from posting pictures of kids online without parental consent (which I thought was against the law anyway; perhaps this is the initial offense that triggered everything? Still need to check). The judge instead chose to bar McClellan from going near any child in all of California, an over-the-top measure that the prosecutors weren't even seeking.

Still trying to find out what evidence the prosecutors presented in trying this case in the first place...


EDIT: Apparently taking pictures as McClellan has done isn't illegal (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html) after all:


The man who runs it, 45-year-old Jack McClellan, has never been convicted of a sex crime, which means he can attend any family-friendly events where children are present, and take all the pictures he wants for his Web site.

Which brings us back to the central point. What illegal act has he committed? Granted, this article was published in March, so maybe he's done something since then... but it seems like I should have been able to find something by now if that was the case.

[Magi of all]

In short, the prosecutors asked the judge to keep McClellan away from minors in Santa Clarita (for which I still don't see the basis, but at least it's not the entire state) and to prohibit him from posting pictures of kids online without parental consent (which I thought was against the law anyway; perhaps this is the initial offense that triggered everything? Still need to check). The judge instead chose to bar McClellan from going near any child in all of California, an over-the-top measure that the prosecutors weren't even seeking.

And yet R Kelly is still at large in the world.

[Arnen]

(Note I didn't actually read the linked articles - I have to go soon and don't have time, I'll read it when I get back. Just felt like posting my opinion quick.)

From what I gather, the pictures weren't inappropriate, right? If they were non-pornographic, and all he's done was be in the company of young girls and take pictures, I don't think he's really done anything wrong. There's a vast difference between being attracted to something and actually doing something about it.

[Toxicity]

I've seen the answer to your question a bit on television, Brian. I didn't hear of the restraining order until today myself, but I remember seeing an interview with him that's fairly recent (not too long before his site went down) in which he was brought on, after his discovery and claims to pedophilia, and asked about what he's done, what he intends to do, and was even asked by the other person involved aside from the interviewer, a person on the East Coast campaigning to catch all child predators, to remove his sunglasses so the viewers could get a glimpse of his eyes.

This, of course, was after he had moved to California, and also placed on the list of child predators in spite of a clean record.

And yes, Arnen. All pictures on the site were not of pornographic nature, although the "how-to" part of the site that's the apparent cause of concern is what I haven't heard much of.

Apparently the only thing has has done was to violate the restraining order, which could have easily been for any reason, but the black-white spectrum of law enforcement insists that he has done bad. Even then the reason for the restraining order is unknown. Although I still believe the interview may have been a contributing factor...

[Asilynne]

Um...whether or not its illegal, its still creepy. Some middle aged bastard taking pictures of young girls and putting them on his website without their permission, and then going on about how he is attracted to them and how to best capture on film the prey that is little girls? Um....If there isnt a law against that its still downright creepy and I certainly wouldnt want it happening to me.

Lets look at the pictures part. Would you want someone going around snapping pics of you without your knowledge and then putting them as part of a collecton of pics of people who have something in common on a site? I wouldnt. Whether they were sexual or not I would feel pretty creeped and also angry that my permission wasnt given to be added to a "collection". Im a pretty private type person so that would be an invasion of my privacy, if theres a pic of me on the internet I would want it to be either me posting it or someone with my permission posting it (such as an anime con site for purpose of costume display). I wouldnt want some freak with a camera adding me to his "dark haired tall girls" pic collection lol

[mr_pikachu]

I'm not saying it isn't creepy. Nor am I arguing that it shouldn't be illegal; it does seem like there should be permission required to take pictures of minors, whether or not it's at a "family-friendly event."

However, the fact remains that such a thing is not illegal, and therefore no wrongdoing was committed on a criminal level. And if we started punishing every person we found creepy... well, it would be insulting to bother with completing that point. The implications are obvious enough.

[Leon-IH]

I don't really see what all the fuss is about with the pictures, I mean hell, the government and private security groups already take huge quantities of film and pictures of people every year, fact is that once you leave your house, images and film containing you will be taken.

[RedStarWarrior]

The law is that consent is needed for pictures of you to be posted in the public domain (internet, television, etc.). If you are a minor, then your legal guardians must give the consent. This is the only law I've been made aware of that he has violated. So what if he has an unnatural attraction to young females? The real point is that, unlike most pedophiles, he isn't trying to hide it and hasn't acted out on his feelings. As such, the only thing the court should have done is tried to rehabilitate him. Yes, that means he shouldn't go on the sexual predator list...sorry, but there are many more people that I would be much more worried about than some sad, lonely man who has found a legal outlet for his psychological problem.

[Jim Crill]

My judgement here is reserved until I find out whether or not he acted on his desires or not. If he actually did or said something to kids, then punish him accordingly. If all he has done is though about it, then theres nothing we can do. There is no such thing as thought crime and it will be a cold day in Hell before there ever is. Besides, if he is depressed and (basically) homeless, it likely he needs professional help more than anything else. All in all, I hope this turns out inocently.

At least, as innocent as a pedophile case can get.

Don't his actions equate to stalking? He specifically goes to events where little girls are and obviously observes them, why? While he isn't necessarily planning something, he's either thinking or feeling something. Something directed to children, something from one attracted to children. I mean honestly, why wait until something bad happens when its obvious of his intent (again, maybe not now and maybe he doesn't want to hurt them, but the fact is emotions often get the better of people)? I think it's silly not to give him a restraining order.