Man ordered to keep 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in the state of CA

The thing is, this is not a seemingly "okay guy". The "okay guys" are the ones who go under the radar, and therefore get the chance and anonymity to do that kind of stuff. They're the guys who don't get watched, who most likely aren't known by police, and who don't get psychiatric help because nobody knows what they're thinking.

As for him being a time bomb, there seems to be no indication whatsoever that he has violent tendencies. It also seems pretty unlikely that this guy will actually get to spend time with young girls - exactly because he's so open about this.

There are tons of guys who think about young girls in a sexual way. Just look at the child porn busts that are in the news all the time. Those guys are dangerous, because before they're caught, nobody knows what they're doing. They can't be watched, they can't be sent to a psychiatrist.

This guy - they know who he is, they can watch him, they can force him to get psychiatric help. Those things will make him less dangerous.

On the other hand, punishing him like this (because it really is a punishment) might convince him to go underground, where he can't be watched, and can't be sent to a psychiatrist. That would make him much more dangerous.

Civil rights are a funny thing. If they can be taken away without good legal cause and precedent, they're not rights anymore, they're just permissions. Permissions that could be stripped away at any time.

He says he is. Saying he won't offend is what to you, believable?


That's right. This guy isn't being given that chance. Boo hoo for him.


True in some cases, not in all, and it's neither here nor there. THIS guy revealed himself quite noticeably. He done brung it on himself.

Who said anything about violent tendancies? I say that it's obvious by his own words that he is a time bomb that could go off at any time, and by that I meant that he could at any time get close and a little too friendly with one of his marks. (I thought my meaning was obvious)

Close. He won't get to "spend time" with young girls because the parents and the authorities have spoken due to the fact that he is "so open" about this.

They can once they are caught. If they out themselves and show their tendencies to the public before they actually grab a kid and creat CP I have no problem with them being sanctioned either. There's been enough child abuse in the world from these sick fucks, I have no problem with society and the law taking a tougher stance with them. I have no idea why you seem to.

Sadly, that's probably the one thing they can't do to him at this point. Unless he actually offends I don't see them being able to lock him up in a phych ward or forcing him to "get help". But they CAN tell him to stay the fuck away from underage girls. It's now on the books, and if he ever does offend you can bet the full range of guns the legal system has will come to bear on him.

He can do whatever the fuck he wants, but if he's spotted too close to kids he's going to be nailed. That's the idea. People can fantasize all they want about whatever they want... just shut the fuck up about it and don't broadcast this kind of obsession that involves people's kids. It really sends a message to all others out there who might be emboldened by this guys moves, his website etc.



It doesn't happen for just any reason, or at least not a usual thing. Knowing that it can happen makes most of us at least try to live our lives withing the boundaries of the law. Not this clown. The lesson here is don't go taking pictures of other people's kids on the sly, put them on a sick fuck website and then fucking blog about how hot they are.

Which brings us back to my original point... he's getting what he deserves. People are not going to take kindly knowing a guy like this is out there watching their kids and lusting after them. Talk about his rights all you want but no parent anywhere is going to agree with you.

he is going to have to move to Death Valley

Maybe he should be jailed.

I think that you'd agree with me that whether he offends or not, he's still not an "okay guy" - which is why it is important for him to be watched.

He didn't give *himself* that chance by being open about his preferences. That is to say, he made it nearly impossible for himself to do anything with any kid without getting caught immediately. The court just gave a very clear message to pedophiles that they should not be open about their preferences. A very clear message that they should hide carefully - which makes them extremely dangerous.

That doesn't matter. The goal here is protecting children, right? Do you really want to teach pedophiles to remain in the shadows where we can't watch them?

Since he exposed his desires, it's rather easy for parents to make sure their kids stay far away from him. Without violent tendencies (rape is something I would consider violent), it would be pretty hard for him to get to have sex with kids.

They can once they are caught, but if they're caught they've probably already raped several children.

Wouldn't it be better to have them expose themselves *before* doing something like that, so the police can watch them and let them know they're being watched?

Allowing them to talk about their desires online is a perfect way to let them expose themselves unintentionally before they ever break any law. Once they do that, they can be identified, be placed on a watch list, be kept away from jobs that involve children, etc.

Things like this restraining order, however, very clearly tell them to stay hidden, so they can't be watched, and we'll only find out what's going on *after* they've abused a bunch of children.

I have no problems with a tougher stance if it works. I do have problems with a tougher stance if it's completely ineffective or even counterproductive.

Taking tough action is useless if it actually creates a situation that is much more dangerous than the previous one.

First, he was a well-known pedophile who could easily be watched.
Now, he's a well-known pedophile who can't even go to the grocery store anymore.
When he moves away because he can't even go to a grocery store anymore, he'll be an unknown pedophile who knows better than to expose his desires, that is to say, a pedophile who can't be watched.

I don't see how that is in any way a good thing. Not seeing a problem does not make it go away, and in this case, not seeing it actually makes the problem bigger.

This is a temporary restraining order. It will go away. By then, he's in another state or even country, possibly using another name, much more dangerous than he was before.

He'll shut the fuck up about it like you want him to, which means it will be a lot easier for him to actually make contact with children - which is precisely what we want to *avoid*.

And it sends the exact same message to those who visit his website: stay hidden, don't let anyone know you're a pedophile.

That way, nobody will watch them, and nobody will know about them until it's too late.

Knowing that having our rights stripped away can happen if we break the law is what makes some of us try to live our lives within the boundaries of the law. This guy, however disgusting he might be, apparently did not break any laws.

This is essentially a conviction without either a crime or a trial. The lesson here is that the government may choose to ignore civil rights when it chooses to do so.

No, it isn't usual, and it doesn't happen for just any reason. It could become a lot more usual once a precedent is set, though, and the amount of reasons for it could quickly expand. (someone posts on a forum about rape fantasies? restraining order from all women. someone posts on a forum about fundamentalist Islam? restraining order from public buildings. etc.)

And that brings me back to my two points: this action appears to be both counterproductive (possibly creating a more dangerous world for children), and it violates the civil rights of someone who did not break any laws.

I don't particularly care about "what he deserves" in the mind of public opinion. I care about protecting children, and I care about civil rights. This restraining order helps neither.

I would rather have them think about their little fantasies in private, yes, rather than do something that turns thier fantasy into reality.

Fantasy --- okay (obviously fantasy hurts no one, as you and everyone else here should know)
reality --- bad.

You're contradicting yourself here by the way. You speak out about this guy's rights being violated, then with the above point you pretty much say it's better if a guy like this outs himself so we as a society can watch him. Well, they are obviousy watching him now, and applying the sanction of a restraining order on him as well.

There are other people in the world whose rights you'd be better served defending than this piece of shit's. What about the rights of the parents who live near him? What about their rights to protect their children? A sanction on him like this raises awareness so that more people CAN watch him, and it's also a sensible one in that whether he is sanctioned or not he really should stay away from underage girls regardless.

All this does is put it in writing.


If you really feel this strongly that the authorities in CA are handling this wrong why not write a letter to them and tell them how you would handle it better? :D

Which is exactly what happened to this guy, and he is now being watched. What's the problem?



You think pedos don't already know enough to keep hidden and keep their shit to themselves? Newsflash, it's a dangerous world regardless of what this court does to this particular would-be pedo. Jeez man.


But... that's exactly what they're doing with him. By putting a restraining order on him he is now on the books as someone who needs to be watched and they are sending a "clear message" to him and other would-be pedos that their brand of shit isn't going to be tolerated.

Yes, it's better to let the guy roam free, let him keep running is ignorant little website so we send the message to pedos that it's okay to stalk our kids, take pictures of them, talk about how "hawt" each kid is, etc. Good call.



I get that you're trying to think of "the bigger picture" here, but your rationale just doesn't wash. They are dealing with THIS would-be pedo, not all pedos. Hello? And why does everyone assume that this guy hasn't offended before? Just because no one has come forward to accuse him means squat. He very much could have done some actual pedo shit in the past.

Now let's delve deeper into this restraining order that you find so unconstitutional shall we? A woman can file a restraining order against her man (or "a" man) with not much more than her word and some very light evidence to support it. I don't see you yelling about the rights of those men being violated, yet in this case there is very little difference aside from the fact that with this guy's website there is insurmountable evidence to support the restraining order.

And that's all it is, a restraining order. He is not being prosecuted. He's not been clamped with a tracking device nor does he have criminal charges put on his record. He's simply been ordered to stay away from young girls, something he should do anyway.

This is one of those times when, after a technology spurt, there really should be a law. We now have tiny phones that can take pictures of people's kids without their consent or knowledge, and an internet where those pictures can be uploaded and discussed pedo-style. You're right, there isn't a law here aside from maybe a stalking law, but maybe there should be. I'm not quite sure how such a law would look but I do think that what this guy has been doing should be illegal.

This is a case of a pedo trying to indulge his fantasy any way he can and push the boundaries of existing laws as far as possible without breaking any existing laws.


And Libertine, the fact is -- any pedo who reveals himself (or herself for that matter) is going to be pursecuted if not prosecuted. It's a given. Once people know someone runs a website like his the gloves are always going to come off, and there's not a damn thing you or anyone else can do to stop the outrage. You'd be better served to deal with that fact rather than getting all broken up about some pedo's "rights". Most people think that pedos should have no rights, period.

Oh, and before you start squawking that this restraining order is different from most because it doesn't say to stay away from just one female but millions of them, forget that argument too. In the usual sense the issue involves just one woman, the one being bothered by the man. In this case this guy has already been proven to have been basically stalking kids, going where they congregate, taking illicit pictures of them, uploading and blogging etc. His is a danger to any young girl within his vicinity thus it applies accordingly.

The poor guy can't go into a grocery store? Again, boo fucking hoo. He brought it on himself as I've already told you 10 times now.

However, since neither of us have actually read the terms of his restraining order, how do you know he can't go into a grocery store? There are usually some stipulations included in such orders, no? It's quite possible there is language included that would allow him access to certain areas if certain conditions are met.

i personally dont think "fantasy" has anything to do with anything.

i think the distinction to be made is that EVERYONE has bizarre thoughts and fantasies. but people also readily recognize the boundaries of acceptable and unnacceptable behavior in the society of which they live... and live/behave accordingly

this guys behavior to most people is completely unnaceptable. being totally open about these "fantasies", discussion them in the open, blogging about them is not a normal behavior. in fact, its bordering on, if not... psychopathic, hence the risk.

and we are not talking about random, "fleeting thoughts"

we are talking about an obsession and a person that any psychiatrist would agree is a ticking time bomb.

Well said, agreed in full.

I think what most of you guys who feel this TRO is proper are failing to understand, this man is being prosecuted for thought crimes, for his free speech rights.

But something tells me that you won't ever get it. Even if it means they may someday come after you, for your thoughts.

Oh, and another comment for all those screaming about how much they hate pedos, or how they want to kill them, I find it rather intriguing, it's usually those who are so adamantly against something that have the real issues deeply hidden within themselves.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much

I'm surprised at this nonsensical comment comming from you.

I thought you were smarter than this.

The United States is mentally ill and getting worse every year. Only about forty years ago it was perfectly normal for women to marry between the ages of 14 and 16, and if you weren't off playing house with a man by 19 you were an "old maid" and might as well start knitting doilies and stocking up on cats to ease your lonely old age...

I'm not saying it's OK to go drooling over children, but this is a case of attempted "thought control"... shades of George Orwell's "1984"

not nonsense at all. Rabid comments about any topic, even pedophilia is usually a sign that those spouting those comments are taking too deep a look inward.

Kind of like the reformed alcoholic, who is not just content with saying, "I cannot handle the drink, therefore I abstain," but become almost vigilante like in trying to control the lives of others.

Same thing with smokers.

Same thing with closet homosexuals.

Same thing with closet pedos.

True, adolescence is fairly new in our world. You were either a child, or an adult, and that transformation in most societies including our own, occurred around 13.

Physically your body matures at that age, and because we as a society over the last 100 years or so decided, we now stunt psychological maturity by keeping children mentally younger, and younger each year.

I look back in my short 40 years on this planet. The things I was capable of doing at the age of 13, most kids would now not be able to do at the age of 16. We shelter kids from the tough aspects of life, I think at a detriment to our species.

Let's digg this shit!!!

http://digg.com/offbeat_news/Man_ord...alifornia/blog

That's how I'm feeling, as a father of teenaged boys; I'd rather see them apprenticed to some trade and working for peanuts than playing video games all day.

Youth is wasted on the young, now more than ever.

exactly and how does he get food or function at all? never saw an adult grocery store or mcdonalds... lol

If this guy went to the police and told them himself...he must have felt that he was on the edge getting to a point of no return...and therefore I think it is good for this guy to protect him against himself...if he did not go...what do you think would have happened?

Perhaps he should need a good therapy as well...if there is any that helps these people

Pure BS.

By your logic, because I hate ketchup I actually like it. Fact is I hate it with a passion, always have. I don't even like it on the table in front of me and will ask a waitress to remove it every time. But it must mean I secretly love it and am in some sort of denial.

Right.


Above nearly all other forms of sick behavior, pedophilia will invariably always incite people into some level of rage or otherwise outrage. That doesn't mean they are secretly harboring inner pedo demons, it means they are outraged by these idiots and their sick ways. Period.

I too made a few comments in this thread about them better off being shot in the head when they re-offend and put out of their misery. You're what, calling me a pedo because of it?

I hope not.



I've noticed others saying something similarly out to lunch on gay threads, saying that those who don't like gays or care for the gay lifestyle are probably harboring repressed gay tendencies. While that may very well be the case for a few I would say it's for the most part very ignorant and uninformed logic. Some people actually don't like ketchup, some don't like pedos, and some just flat-out don't like gays. No hidden secrets about it.

Make your point, and move on with your life. Do you honestly have to prove to people you hate pedos?

I'll try to find the study online, but a university recently did a study about pedophilia, something like 33% in their study would be classified as pedos. There are more out there than people would hope...so yeah...out of the 9 "let's shoot them in the head" guys, there is on average 3 of them saying it just to put on the beard.

True... True..

Well he didn't go to the police, he is proclaiming himself: 'A self-described pedophile who says he is attracted to young girls but doesn't molest them' and was on his way to Chicago for a TV appearance.

Hum, '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.'

I am all for constitutional rights, but give me a break, we live in a society and must abide by unwritten laws to exist. I believe the Judge did his best under the law that he must govern.

Now, let?s just think if we heard of a person proclaiming himself as murder, rapist, torturer, and pedophile but never acted on his impulses. I for one would think his was ?nut case? and wouldn?t want him roaming around in my neck of woods. Nor would I want a self-describe murder, rapist, torturer pedophile or any extreme deviant behavior living around me or my family.

Years ago, peeping Toms got locked up and were banished from their communities along with their family members, now it just seems if one takes their deviant behavior public?it is a ticket to make money throughout the media. Very sad.

I'm becoming more and more enlightened about you by the second here man. "blah blah blah"? Nice, very mature way to quote someone when they are trying to have a discussion.

By that alleged university study you're loosely quoting it would then seem that over 66% actually do feel genuine outrage over a guy like this and aren't harboring any repressed tendencies themselves, yes? Yet in your post earlier in this thread you made a sweeping generalization about everyone and basically insinuated they are all closet pedos. That eros is a fucking idiotic thing to say, especially in a topic like this.

People's opinions here stem from them thinking about their own kids and nieces and nephews etc and how they would feel if they knew some guy like that was living in their midst and possibly watching and taking pics of their kids and posting them and blogging about how he'd like to do this or that to them etc. Christ man get your head out of your ass.

I'm surprised more haven't wieghed in since your comments. I think that you guys who want to cry about this pedo's "rights" are the ones who are having closet tendencies if anyone is. Hopefully he or someone like him doesn't come sniffing around any small kids in YOUR family, but sadly it seems that's what it might take for you to see this issue the right way.


I'm out. Discussing a contraversial issue like this with a "blah blah" quoting fucker is a waste of a perfectly beautiful Sunday evening like this one.

Cheers.

I did not make general sweeping allegations, I said I found it intriguing, and in a lot of cases it's true, the guilty dog barks first, and usually the loudest.

And, whether you like it or not, it is about rights. I take my rights very seriously, and don't pick and choose which times they do apply by how I feel on the subject.

The simple fact is, in America, the same right that protects this guy saying he likes children, is the same right that protects the adult webmaster who likes extreme porn, or straight up vanilla porn, and is the same right that protects the preacher standing on the corner telling us we're all going to hell.

The only speech that is not protected is obscenity. The courts have ruled that CP is not protected by 1st amendment rights, however they have ruled that computer generated CP IS. That is if someone makes a cartoon depicting children, or takes for example Dakota Fannings face and super imposes that onto the photo of some porn chick having sex.

We've gone down this road before about how I would react if the situation would affect me personally when discussing executions. Once again, this is why judges are supposed to rule on law, and not emotions.

You, it seems however choose to make the rules, and apply them clearly based upon your emotions. This is not a way to run a civilized society.

If someone attacks my family, I'm going to be the meanest mother fucking vigilante out there, but God forgive me if I'm wrong and take out an innocent person before I let people who are not affected by it personally to discover the truth.

Nope, I illustrated quite clearly about this being a restraining order. No law has to be broken for a woman to obtain a restraining order against some guy who has reportedly been badgering her, and so too is it perfectly fine for society to take out a restraining order on this type of asshole. He outted himself and his pedo tendencies, and for that society is telling him to stay away from children, same as the idiot abusive boyfriend gets told to stay X amount of yards away from his wife or girlfriend.


If they had gone and arrested this guy and pursecuted him unjustly without him having actually broken any laws I'd be right with you on upholding rights, although I still wouldn't be all that broken up over a pedo.


It's too bad you and I can't debate without the childisness though.


Back outside for me....

Looks like it was a sweeping generalization to me.