NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.crimesceneblog.com/?cat=84

The Evil Pedophile, Jack McClellum was arrested today at UCLA as he was taking pictures of 3 year old girls to show to pedophiles. He was charged with violating a restraining order.

While it is not a crime to take pictures of any people in a public place, it is illegal to help people committ crimes. This doesn't just apply to pedophilia but it also applies to giving verbal support to terrorists on an internet forum, putting up websites that tell drug dealers, taggers, and stalkers how to evade the law and find victims.
If you do anything that supports a person's criminal actions, you are as guilty of the crime as if you had committed it yourself.

Hopefully Jack will be sent away until he dies and be an example for everyone who thinks its ok to help criminals committ crimes.

Thanks for the info...

And evil pedophiles are probably the worst kind of pedophiles.

http://www.crimesceneblog.com/?cat=84

The Evil Pedophile, Jack McClellum was arrested today at UCLA as he was taking pictures of 3 year old girls to show to pedophiles. He was charged with violating a restraining order.

While it is not a crime to take pictures of any people in a public place, it is illegal to help people committ crimes. This doesn't just apply to pedophilia but it also applies to giving verbal support to terrorists on an internet forum, putting up websites that tell drug dealers, taggers, and stalkers how to evade the law and find victims.
If you do anything that supports a person's criminal actions, you are as guilty of the crime as if you had committed it yourself.

Hopefully Jack will be sent away until he dies and be an example for everyone who thinks its ok to help criminals committ crimes.

Verbal support of terrorism is against the law? thats new to me
Has anyone been tried under this law before?

This doesn't just apply to pedophilia but it also applies to giving verbal support to terrorists on an internet forum

On your planet, perhaps. Here on the free corners of the Earth we have this thing called "freedom of speech and opinion", which means that you can agree with the terrorists (if you want), and say so, as long as you don't help in the acts of terror. ;)

Are there no other sources for this than a blog? What reason is this posted here except for character assassination?

(see references to evil, terrorist in OP)

Verbal support of terrorism is against the law? thats new to me
Has anyone been tried under this law before?

I doubt that's true.

Giving terrorists money is against the law. I suppose that if they catch you discussing a plot that's against the law.

If you hear from them personally that they're going to commit a violent act, and you do nothing to stop it (i.e., you don't immediately call 911 and turn them in) you're in trouble.

But merely saying, "I love <fill in terrorist organization name>" isn't going to get you arrested.

It may, however, serve as enough cause to have you monitored in some way.

On your planet, perhaps. Here on the free corners of the Earth we have this thing called "freedom of speech and opinion", which means that you can agree with the terrorists (if you want), and say so, as long as you don't help in the acts of terror. ;)

by agreeing with them they get more members because they see support. You are also breaking this law when you vote democrate, forget a star on the flag, and say fart in the pledge.

You are also breaking this law when you vote democrate, forget a star on the flag, and say fart in the pledge.

I'm not a USA citizen, so not likely. LOL :p

And when it comes to, say, Iraqi terrorists versus USA army, I definitely side with the Iraqis, even if I didn't agree with all their goals. ;)

Thanks for the info...

And evil pedophiles are probably the worst kind of pedophiles.

The real problem is what to do with heroic pedophiles. Is saving the world and bettering all mankind worth a trist with a ten year old once a month? :confused:

I personally think this guy is being railroaded. He violated an injunction order from a judge that barred him from going within 100 feet of anyone under 18 in his entire state.I dont even think the injunction is legal as he didnt really do anything to earn it, and the injunction itself was impractical to enforce. What is this guy supposed to do? Ask for IDs on any sidewalk he walks on in the entire State? Its like issuing an injunction to prevent you from going within 300 yards of anyone whos favorite color is blue. This guy simply hasnt broken any laws to earn an injunction in the first place. He has just behaved in ways that others think is immoral but thats no reason to lock him up. The OP says he was arrested for taking pictures that he was going to send to pediophiles. The proof of this is what exactly? Was he wearing a sandwich board that said what his intentions were for taking legal pictures in a legal place? The morality police are starting to influence the real police and this concerns me just as much as the crime of pedophilia does.

:) Have some tacos, Lunatic Goofballs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/tacos_avo.jpg

I saw it on the news on an LA news station also.

He is charged with violating the restraining order that required him to stay 30 feet from any child in the state of California.

The Evil Pedophile™ isn't charged for helping pedophiles, I don't even think that selling (legally taken) photos is a crime, nor is giving verbal support to terrorists on an internet forum

(I think, I'm certainly no expert, but I don't expect to be arrested for posting something like "long live al-qaeda" or something)

long live al-qaeda

*Knock at door*

Sir, would you please come with me. Quietly.

:) Have some tacos, Lunatic Goofballs.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/tacos_avo.jpg

YAY!!! :D

*digs in*

Are there no other sources for this than a blog? What reason is this posted here except for character assassination?

(see references to evil, terrorist in OP)

It's true. He was actually arrested twice. After he was arrested the first time and told to stay away from campus, he went back later last night and was arrested again at about 11 PM. This guy is sick.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arrest14aug14,0,580585.story?coll=la-home-center

Didn't hear about the second time. Why don't they just lock him up now?

http://www.crimesceneblog.com/?cat=84

The Evil Pedophile, Jack McClellum was arrested today at UCLA as he was taking pictures of 3 year old girls to show to pedophiles. He was charged with violating a restraining order.

While it is not a crime to take pictures of any people in a public place, it is illegal to help people committ crimes. This doesn't just apply to pedophilia but it also applies to giving verbal support to terrorists on an internet forum, putting up websites that tell drug dealers, taggers, and stalkers how to evade the law and find victims.
If you do anything that supports a person's criminal actions, you are as guilty of the crime as if you had committed it yourself.

Hopefully Jack will be sent away until he dies and be an example for everyone who thinks its ok to help criminals committ crimes.

...

You just...brough that up so you could tell us THAT...didn't you...

Ugh...

It's true. He was actually arrested twice. After he was arrested the first time and told to stay away from campus, he went back later last night and was arrested again at about 11 PM. This guy is sick.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-arrest14aug14,0,580585.story?coll=la-home-center

The less emotionally-laden source and presentation is much appreciated.

On your planet, perhaps. Here on the free corners of the Earth we have this thing called "freedom of speech and opinion", which means that you can agree with the terrorists (if you want), and say so, as long as you don't help in the acts of terror. ;)

I suspect (and this is just my guess) that maybe what they mean by verbal support is if someone deliberately gives information that enables or facilitates a terrorist act, like if you revealed security rotation schedules or the exact distance between a fuel tank and a fence.

I personally think this guy is being railroaded. He violated an injunction order from a judge that barred him from going within 100 feet of anyone under 18 in his entire state.I dont even think the injunction is legal as he didnt really do anything to earn it, and the injunction itself was impractical to enforce. What is this guy supposed to do? Ask for IDs on any sidewalk he walks on in the entire State? Its like issuing an injunction to prevent you from going within 300 yards of anyone whos favorite color is blue. This guy simply hasnt broken any laws to earn an injunction in the first place. He has just behaved in ways that others think is immoral but thats no reason to lock him up. The OP says he was arrested for taking pictures that he was going to send to pediophiles. The proof of this is what exactly? Was he wearing a sandwich board that said what his intentions were for taking legal pictures in a legal place? The morality police are starting to influence the real police and this concerns me just as much as the crime of pedophilia does.

The guy runs a website that is dedicated to "little girl watching" and has admitted on camera that if he were able to get away with it he would have sex with a little girl. He attends events that attract children and then posts ratings on his website that rate the events at between 1 and 5 hearts based on the number of "LGs," short for little girls, that attend and on how sexy they are. He was kicked out of Oregon for the same thing.

I personally think this guy is being railroaded. He violated an injunction order from a judge that barred him from going within 100 feet of anyone under 18 in his entire state.I dont even think the injunction is legal as he didnt really do anything to earn it, and the injunction itself was impractical to enforce. What is this guy supposed to do? Ask for IDs on any sidewalk he walks on in the entire State? Its like issuing an injunction to prevent you from going within 300 yards of anyone whos favorite color is blue. This guy simply hasnt broken any laws to earn an injunction in the first place. He has just behaved in ways that others think is immoral but thats no reason to lock him up. The OP says he was arrested for taking pictures that he was going to send to pediophiles. The proof of this is what exactly? Was he wearing a sandwich board that said what his intentions were for taking legal pictures in a legal place? The morality police are starting to influence the real police and this concerns me just as much as the crime of pedophilia does.

I think the best approach would have been to call a session of the state legislature together and pass some kind of law making it a crime to take photos of kids with intent to distribute them for the purpose of sexual gratification or to people who are known convicts of certain crimes yadda yadda.

That way, either one of two things will happen. Either A: the guy will stop taking the pics or B: He won't stop but will now be in violation of an actual law for which he can be prosecuted.

The guy runs a website that is dedicated to "little girl watching" and has admitted on camera that if he were able to get away with it he would have sex with a little girl. He attends events that attract children and then posts ratings on his website that rate the events at between 1 and 5 hearts based on the number of "LGs," short for little girls, that attend and on how sexy they are. He was kicked out of Oregon for the same thing.

Being a sick fuck is not automatically illegal. However, I'd like to knock this guy on his ass for several reasons including but not limited to:

Being a sick fuck and

Furthering the erosion of civil liberties by living up to the worst-case scenario.

*bleah*

What I am asking is why not put them all in the slammer since they still do these things unnoticed. The system is failing incredibly, even with new laws and a watch list.

At the end of the little video he says he's never done anything to a kid and says the community has nothing to fear from him...

The problem with that is that he's into the addiction cycle. It's the same as for drugs and alcohol. Sooner or later he's going to make a move. It won't be planned, he won't even be aware that he's about to do it... But he will.

He needs to get some help before he does something directly to a kid. He's got an illness that's treatable, but he's got to do it now before it's too late.

What I am asking is why not put them all in the slammer since they still do these things unnoticed. The system is failing incredibly, even with new laws and a watch list.

Unfortunately, that pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way. I know it's a nuisance, but as it keeps you from getting herded up and executed by teh ebil joos, I think we'll have to live with the annoyance. ;)

What I am asking is why not put them all in the slammer since they still do these things unnoticed. The system is failing incredibly, even with new laws and a watch list.

How can you lock someone up for doing something you have no proof of them doing (unnoticed)?

the White House keeps violating the Constitution in open light. Why can't they do something good with this power for a change?

the White House keeps violating the Constitution in open light. Why can't they do something good with this power for a change?

Because nothing good can be done with that kind of power.

the White House keeps violating the Constitution in open light. Why can't they do something good with this power for a change?

Nah, good would not be rounding up people who haven't broken the law. Good would be either modifying the law as necessary or raising community awareness of this sort of thing.

Being a sick fuck is not automatically illegal. However, I'd like to knock this guy on his ass for several reasons including but not limited to:

Being a sick fuck and

Furthering the erosion of civil liberties by living up to the worst-case scenario.

*bleah*

Yeah, it's tough to reconcile this with the first, but I think of it like a threat. If you threaten to kill someone they can get a restraining order against you if you can show that the threat is real. This guy has said unabashedly that he wants to have sex with a little girl and that he would do it if he thought he could get away with it so there's an implicit threat there. I know it's sticky, but the courts issued a restraining order ordering him to stay a certain distance from children. By going to the Infant Development Depertment at UCLA he clearly violated that order. It is up to the police to enforce the order no matter what. If there's a question about the validity of the order it needs to be handled by the courts. The police are not free to decide what orders they enforce and what ones they don't based on their own interpretation of the law.

The guy runs a website that is dedicated to "little girl watching" and has admitted on camera that if he were able to get away with it he would have sex with a little girl.

Id go on camera and state that id rob a bank if i could get away with it, id probably also kill a small select handful of people if i could get away with it. Id sneak into the Playboy Mansion and gawk at the Playmates in the grotto if i could get away with it. Id steal the Hope Diamond and turn it into a huge nose piercing if i could get away with it. Im sure id do any number of illegal things if i could get away with it. I suspect i am not even a minority in this view. For the record i have a perfectly clean record. Does this mean i should go to prision anyway?

Id go on camera and state that id rob a bank if i could get away with it, id probably also kill a small select handful of people if i could get away with it. Id sneak into the Playboy Mansion and gawk at the Playmates in the grotto if i could get away with it. Im sure id do any number of illegal things if i could get away with it. I suspect i am not even a minority in this view. For the record i have a perfectly clean record. Does this mean i should go to prision anyway?

Yes yes you should. TERRORIST! I kid I kid!

There was actually evidence on his camera. I don't know how relevant, but not enough to put him in the slammer.

Id go on camera and state that id rob a bank if i could get away with it, id probably also kill a small select handful of people if i could get away with it. Id sneak into the Playboy Mansion and gawk at the Playmates in the grotto if i could get away with it. Im sure id do any number of illegal things if i could get away with it. I suspect i am not even a minority in this view. For the record i have a perfectly clean record. Does this mean i should go to prision anyway?

He went to prison? I thought he was just detained for violating a restraining order. Yep, I'm sure of it, He didn't go to prison. In fact, he was released after he was booked.

As for killing all these people and robbing banks, do you also run websites dedicated to doing these things? Do you hang out at banks and take notes on them and publish their security routines on your website? Do you target specific people for death and then publish notes about how to do it and where the best places to target these people are?

Do you think police should be free to defy court orders based on whether or not they think the court order is a good one? If a group of violent skinheads were casing an Anglican church in the south and had published online how they want to blow the place up during Sunday services and a court issued an injunction after finding plans to do just that published on their website do you think it would be okay for the cops there to refuse to enforce the order because they felt that these people's free speech rights were being violated? Local police in places like Mississippi used to do that a lot in the 50s and 60s...

Also, do you feel like you need to take a shower after using this guy as your poster child for your rants against the morality police?

He went to prison? I thought he was just detained for violating a restraining order. Yep, I'm sure of it, He didn't go to prison. In fact, he was released after he was booked.

detained = prison in my book. Change the name from Prison to jail or locked room or any other synonym if it makes you feel better but does nothing really to change my point.

As for killing all these people and robbing banks, do you also run websites dedicated to doing these things? Do you hang out at banks and take notes on them and publish their security routines on your website? Do you target specific people for death and then publish notes about how to do it and where the best places to target these people are?

So do you suggest i should go to jail by publishing security routes of pulic cars in public places and to what other places they go to in the public and when? Preposterous. There is nothing illegal there as much as you want there to be. There are laws against targeting people for death. Im perfectly content with them as written. Writting about what someone does and thier routine in pulic is however PERFECTLY legal.
Do you think police should be free to defy court orders based on whether or not they think the court order is a good one? If a group of violent skinheads were casing an Anglican church in the south and had published online how they want to blow the place up during Sunday services and a court issued an injunction after finding plans to do just that published on their website do you think it would be okay for the cops there to refuse to enforce the order because they felt that these people's free speech rights were being violated? Local police in places like Mississippi used to do that a lot in the 50s and 60s...

Nope it was strictly the Judges fault here, for caving into a political activist group of angry mothers instead of doing his job and supporting the Constitution. The police acted appropriatly.

Also, do you feel like you need to take a shower after using this guy as your poster child for your rants against the morality police?

The funny thing about Constitutional Rights is that they are made to protect everyone, not just the ones you approve of personally.

detained = prison in my book. Change the name from Prison to jail or locked room or any other synonym if it makes you feel better but does nothing really to change my point.Your definition of prison doesn't jive with the law's definition. Police are allowed to detain people if they suspect them of a crime and that's what these cops did.



So do you suggest i should go to jail by publishing security routes of pulic cars in public places and to what other places they go to in the public and when? Preposterous. There is nothing illegal there as much as you want there to be. There are laws against targeting people for death. Im perfectly content with them as written. Writting about what someone does and thier routine in pulic is however PERFECTLY legal. Oh, public. I thought you said you wanted to rob a bank.



The funny thing about Constitutional Rights is that they are made to protect everyone, not just the ones you approve of personally.

And if this guy's constitutional rights are being railroaded it's for the courts to decide, not the cops.

On your planet, perhaps. Here on the free corners of the Earth we have this thing called "freedom of speech and opinion", which means that you can agree with the terrorists (if you want), and say so, as long as you don't help in the acts of terror. ;)

Should have the right to shoot them in the face then, considering they are usually advocating the murder of innocents =)

Im focusing on the larger Judicial issues at stake here. In essence society has determined that this guy is persona non grata who hasnt actually done anything provably wrong. What we are witnessing is a Judge doing Constitutional gymnastics to satisfy a powerful national news headline grabbing group of angry mothers all yelling "Save the children!!" So consequently this guy gets put away despite the fact he hasnt actually done anything that the law consideres illegal..

I mean for christ sakes, hes been run out of entire STATES. You know how many people with ACTUAL sex crimes and ACTUAL murders and god knows what other crimes that they actually are guilty of doing STILL arnt run out of whole STATES?

Im focusing on the larger Judicial issues at stake here. In essence society has determined that this guy is persona non grata who hasnt actually done anything provably wrong. What we are witnessing is a Judge doing Constitutional gymnastics to satisfy a powerful national news headline grabbing group of angry mothers all yelling "Save the children!!" So consequently this guy gets put away despite the fact he hasnt actually done anything that the law consideres illegal..

I thought the judges were just using the law to try to protect children from an admitted pedophile who has admitted his desire to rape children - the law does define sexual acts with children as rape, you know. Maybe they will be overturned if this piece of shit decides to take it up the judicial ladder, but the more I think about it the more I think they won't be. Just ask my ex girlfriend. All I did after she broke up with me was go to places I knew she'd go and take pictures of her and her kids. I might have said I wanted to rape her a few times, but that's just free speech, right? She used stalker laws to deprive me of the right to follow her to her kids' soccer games and take pictures of her, that bitch. Whatever, restraining order or no, I'm gonna go to the park Saturday and take pictures of her while her kids play soccer. And I'm going to follow her to work tomorrow and wait in the lobby for her to go to lunch and then blog about what she eats and who she eats it with. :)

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. The guy in question was served with a restraining order saying he couldn't come within 10 yards (30 feet) of a child in CA. Since someone isn't an adult until they're 18, that's a lot of people to avoid. How did the judge expect this guy to NOT break the restraining order? Going to the bank could cause him to violate the order, getting gas could, stopping in at McDonalds could, stopping in at Wal-Mart could, etc.

And before anyone says I should read the article before I post, I did. I know that he was doing exactly what he had been doing before the order was issued (taking pictures of little girls), but my point is, the judge (IMO) was setting him up to fail from the beginning.

Not to mention, if the guy presses the issue, he might have a pretty good civil liberties case on his hands.

Ok, let me see if I have this straight. The guy in question was served with a restraining order saying he couldn't come within 10 yards (30 feet) of a child in CA. Since someone isn't an adult until they're 18, that's a lot of people to avoid. How did the judge expect this guy to NOT break the restraining order? Going to the bank could cause him to violate the order, getting gas could, stopping in at McDonalds could, stopping in at Wal-Mart could, etc.

And before anyone says I should read the article before I post, I did. I know that he was doing exactly what he had been doing before the order was issued (taking pictures of little girls), but my point is, the judge (IMO) was setting him up to fail from the beginning.

Not to mention, if the guy presses the issue, he might have a pretty good civil liberties case on his hands.

He would have to prove intent. In other words, he would have to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that the court that granted the restraining order intended to deprive him of his civil liberties and that protecting children was not the reason they issued the retraining order. Even if he succeeded in getting the order lifted, this guy would have a hard time proving that the intent of the order was not to protect kids - especially when they have the guy on camera in numerous interviews claiming to be a pedophile.

The Evil Pedophile, Jack McClellum

Does that make him sound like a superhero to anybody else? Like The Karate Octopus, Jack McClellum or like a footballer's nickname? The Flying Full-back, Jack McClellum.

it also applies to giving verbal support to terrorists on an internet forum.

I fully support our terrorist/freedom fighters, especially Al Qaida who I am particularly fond of!


...


nothings happening

Yes yes you should. TERRORIST! I kid I kid!

I support you, Intestinal Fluids!

Wait... someone is breaking my door down and hauling me away.....

Should have the right to shoot them in the face then, considering they are usually advocating the murder of innocents =)

Errr... shooting people in the face for advocating something WOULD be an act of terrorism.

He would have to prove intent. In other words, he would have to prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that the court that granted the restraining order intended to deprive him of his civil liberties and that protecting children was not the reason they issued the retraining order. Even if he succeeded in getting the order lifted, this guy would have a hard time proving that the intent of the order was not to protect kids - especially when they have the guy on camera in numerous interviews claiming to be a pedophile.

I think it will be struck down because it pretty much bans him from California which, by itself, is violates the constitution.
You can't have a law or an injunction that bans the person from ever leaving his house which this injunction does. Also you can't have laws that would have the effect of banning immoral activities anywhere in a city.
When California cities started passing zoning laws that pretty much prevented the establishment of strip clubs, they were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court even though they didn't expressly ban the strip clubs themselves. The injunction doesn't have to explicity ban Jack from California or from leaving his house. It just has to have to effect of doing so.
If they went after him for "assisting in the comission of a crime" they would have a better ground from which to withstand constitutional attacks but they aren't doing so. They are going for the morality issue and in America you can't legislate morality.

Verbal support of terrorism is against the law? thats new to me
Has anyone been tried under this law before?

Some here on NSG would be questionable in that regards.