It’s an interesting legal question – although the answer is clear cut. It’s hard to get much more unconstitutional. Which I realize will be an unpopular opinion … but your private fantasies aren’t the government’s concern – no matter how twisted. And I know some of you freaks have some twisted thoughts.

Interestingly, he’s not even being punished for his thoughts – but for voicing his thoughts. The precedent it would set is almost funny – a “dont’ ask, don’t tell” approach to pedophilia. If you want to hang out at the playground all day, we won’t touch you … unless you volunteer that you like Nabokov just a little too much.

No, there’s much more. There are affidavits from dozens of parents and other adults who have confronted McClellan for being present at events, and in places, that he had no right to be. That he took closeup, detailed photos of children and posted them on a publicly declared pedophelia website, with the stated intention of sharing the information, including addresses, among other pedophiles. etc, etc.

His past actions are not limited to stalking and photography from afar. He attempts to “play” with the children, and to hug the little girls when an opportunity presents itself, and he admits that this is for his own sexual gratification. How is this not to be considered unacceptable behavior? How many other TROs exist naming someone who hasn’t committed a crime “yet”?

Yes, on first glimpse this looks like a case of society imposing an unconstitutional standard by attempting to prevent undesirable actions, but this guy’s existing actions, for which he shows neither regret, remorse, nor any likelihood of stopping, put children at risk from “more harmful” people of his sort.

Jack McClellan spent some 25 minutes on the air by phone with radio host Rick Roberts of KFMB 760 in San Diego, just about two weeks ago.

He doesn’t actually touch kids,

This isn’t accuratet. He admitted that his regular routine was to go to public children’s activities at least four days a week, like huge birthday parties in parks, and try to hug as many little girls as he could. When asked directly if he intentionally sought out little girls to hug, he said yes, but that the hugs were always consensual. Rick asked him how old these “consensually” hugged girls were, and he answered “tennish”. He would often pretend to be a paid photographer for parents at musical recitals, sneaking his way backstage to take pics of kids “preparing” (getting dressed). Then he’d post the pictures, with dates and addresses, on his website for other pedophiles to consider.

His original website included very detailed discussions of numerous legal and illegal drugs that he has used and recommended for enhancing the pleasurable sensations of touch while being around the children.

Rick offered Jack $1,000 cash if he would submit to a psychiatric evaluation. McClellan considered the offer for a moment, then asked how long it would take. Rick told him that he would be confined for anywhere from 3 days to 2 weeks to complete the process. Jack then refused the offer, saying that he couldn’t go that long without being near the kids.

It was primarily based upon the taped phone conversation with Rick Roberts, and other information gathered by the radio station, that the Santa Clarita judge approved the application for the restraining order against McClellan.

I’d have to disagree with Patterico, the TRO isn’t going too far. This oxygen thief has publicly declared his intentions, and they are no good. He should not be able to hang around places where vulnerable minors can be found. The order doesn’t prevent him from going places he needs to go. He can go grocery shopping, or to the courthouse to defend himself, because he isn’t doing those things to stalk kids. Any behavior on his part that follows his admitted desires is prohibited, and should be.

It’s the act of the defendant and the defendant’s state of mind that is relevant, — not the child’s.

No, there has to be some involvement with the child. You cannot harrass/annoy someone and leave them not knowing you exist. The act does not interfere with the child in this case. Kongs, which is the only argument I’ve seen that this statute would be relevant, does not apply. The facts of the two aren’t even close.

angryoldfatman, yeah…something like that. I was thinking about a viral “Warning” poster, along the lines of a Wanted poster too. Put the creep’s face everywhere so that people are maddogging him everywhere he goes. That would have the added benefit of forewarning everyone who looks after kids.

Or, he could maybe fall down a well on Lassie’s day off.

Interaction is an element. Read the cite from Kongs I posted at 4:55. The affected child/children in this case would likely have no idea who the guy is. He doesn’t meet the Kongs standard.

Now, you’re just making crap up. Interaction is not an element. It’s the act of the defendant and the defendant’s state of mind that is relevant, — not the child’s.

Why don’t people focus their energy on the actual criminal pedophiles (there are tons of them) that are back on the streets from prison and probably in their neighborhoods. Follow THOSE guys around because it is almost certain that they will do it again.

Yeah, ignore that guy over there who has confessed to being a sicko. Use up all effort finding hidden sickos who don’t announce themselves.

Gee, we can’t possibly do both of those things simultaneously. Just like we can’t fight terrorism here and in Iraq, or lower taxes and cut government spending or (insert diversionary false dichotomy here).

Why don’t people focus their energy on the actual criminal pedophiles (there are tons of them) that are back on the streets from prison and probably in their neighborhoods. Follow THOSE guys around because it is almost certain that they will do it again.

It seems like this guy is more on a suicide mission than anything else and/or is looking for attention. He’s pushing the limits of legalities, knows the loopholes and wants someone to hurt him.

Trying to find a legal solution here is extremely vexing. But if he put up pictures of my daughter, the solution would be crystal clear, it wouldn’t involve the courts and he’d never do it again.

Perhaps this is an object lesson in looking to government as the solution for all problems.

Pablo on August 14, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Bingo.

The best solution is to use the law in the exact same way as Mr. Creep, instead of running off to nanny-state clockwatchers who rarely care about more than when and where their next coffee break is going to be.

Stalk him like he stalks children. Take photographs and video of him as he goes about his creepy business. Put up a website and update it to broadcast his whereabouts and actions at all times.

If the clockwatchers decide you’re the bad guy for doing that, concerned parties can block his view whenever he’s holding a camera. Being obnoxious is not illegal, and if he has a right to be in a public place, so does a camera-blocker. Frustrate his efforts in every way physically possible without doing anything illegal. If he gets angry and attacks, said parties can document it and have him arrested for assault. Wash, rinse, and repeat until he gets the message.

So, if someone were to take him fishing and lose him….

That’s not contact. He’s had no interaction with them whatsoever, he’s merely taken photos from afar. And his “pedo website” isn’t illegal unless there’s sexually explicit photos.

Physical contact is not required. Nor does the victim have to be offended. And the pedo website is evidence that he had abnormal sexual motivation (which is required) in taking the pictures. Sexual explicitness is not an element.

Time to commmit him for his own safety, and our own.

For about 60-90 years, or until it falls off.

The contact is the act of taking their photo. McClellan’s behavior also goes beyond a neutral viewing in that he is/was uploading them to his pedo website.

That’s not contact. He’s had no interaction with them whatsoever, he’s merely taken photos from afar. And his “pedo website” isn’t illegal unless there’s sexually explicit photos.

At this point, I’m not even sure this guy is a pedo. He’s clearly trying to game the system and explore the edges of the envelope.

Trying to find a legal solution here is extremely vexing. But if he put up pictures of my daughter, the solution would be crystal clear, it wouldn’t involve the courts and he’d never do it again.

Perhaps this is an object lesson in looking to government as the solution for all problems.

I do not believe in the death penalty for pedophile scumbuckets like this certified creep.

Out of curiosity, why not? I mean, for those who’ve actually committed the crimes.

I’m not a fan of the death penalty generally – I think trusting the government with that power is actually a non-conservative position – but I think that if we’re going to have it, it ought to be used for a lot of crimes, including violent rape and child molestation, and similar crimes.

The death penalty would actually be useful if it really eliminated some of the worst people from society. I always thought it was stupid that we execute some idiot who was fleeing from a crime and got lucky with a shot that killed a cop … but brutal rapists just get a couple decades in prison.

But its hard not to notice that some of the very same people who (rightly) argue that “hate crimes” should be dismantled because they amount to criminalizing “thought” are, in this case, taking exactly the opposite stand.

It’s an interesting legal question – although the answer is clear cut. It’s hard to get much more unconstitutional. Which I realize will be an unpopular opinion … but your private fantasies aren’t the government’s concern – no matter how twisted. And I know some of you freaks have some twisted thoughts.

Interestingly, he’s not even being punished for his thoughts – but for voicing his thoughts. The precedent it would set is almost funny – a “dont’ ask, don’t tell” approach to pedophilia. If you want to hang out at the playground all day, we won’t touch you … unless you volunteer that you like Nabokov just a little too much.

Wonder what would happen if tomorrow he said: “Just kidding. I’m not a pedophile.” After all – the only evidence is his own claim.

This entire thing reminds of border enforcement. All this publicity given to this case … while meanwhile, actual victimizers are getting quiet slaps on the wrist. How about we forget about this chump – and work on instituting the death penalty for first offense child rapists?

That would be a little more useful methinks.

Speaking of border enforcement … if this kiddie-obsessed kreepazoid had a brain, he’d become a Mexican citizen then sneak back in the U.S. illegally before committing his crimes or running his kreepy kooky website.

Then nobody would care, I guess. And the ACLU and Sean Penn would pay his legal bills.

Well, not defenseless if I happen to be standing next to them when he is around.

And admitted pedophile like this, requiring parents to get a TRO… probably requires hospitalization someplace where they lock the doors to keep the patients from excaping.

My argument is that I think he should be locked up because he has violated Penal Code section 646.6.

Not based on Kongs. From the case:

Here, Kongs’s conduct went much further than a neutral viewing of little girls in underwear for his private sexual pleasure. Rather, his viewing was combined with affirmative conduct which could ordinarily cause annoyance or offense to the subject of his attentions. (See People v. Thompson, supra, 206 Cal.App.3d at p. 466.) Kongs expressly instructed Amanda C. to pose in suggestive positions-with her legs spread apart-so as to facilitate his viewing and photographing of her crotch, thereby making Amanda an unwilling and unhappy participant in his sexual fetish.

This scumball doesn’t appear to have any actual contact with any of the children, so the precedent set here wouldn’t apply.

The prime argument seems to be that this guy should be locked up because he endangers the children he photographs.

My argument is that I think he should be locked up because he has violated Penal Code section 646.6. My gut feeling is that law enforcement is currently building a case against him. Frankly, with his notoriety, and with the number of gangs in LA, he is risking his life the longer he goes unarrested.

That’s assuming that any info about where the pics were actually taken is posted on the site.

I haven’t been following this too closely, but I remember hearing it reported that he was going to fairs and special events and posting pictures he took of girls and rating the event as to – I don’t know what to call it other than pedo appeal. I think he had a rating system, i.e., Jack gives it 4 LGs (out of 5)!

I suspect a pedo would travel to a nonlocal event because, he probably has trolled all the local ones and people are starting to get wise and he is less likely to be recognized out of his neighborhood.

He doesn’t actually touch kids

Correction – he hasn’t actually been caught touching kids.

Let’s say some violent pedo sees a pic of a girl he likes on this guy’s site. Is this pedo really going to travel to whereever the girl’s picture was taken to kidnap her? Seems like a lot of trouble to go to when said violent pedo probably spends most of his spare time hanging out at local kiddie haunts and also sees kids he ‘likes’ there.
…
Aylios on August 14, 2007 at 3:43 PM

I can believe that a pedo would travel out of his neighborhood -even out of state- to make that big ‘score’ if he thinks he can get away with it. Don’t those internet cop stings often snare out-of-staters who travel with the hope of the big score with their underage ‘friend’? Don’t some pedos actually travel overseas (to, for example, Thailand or Cambodia) for ‘vacations’?

If nothing else this guy is an accessory.

Saw this creep on Pravda CNN yesterday. He lives out of his car, and yet he has a blog again. Wonder where he’s getting the internet access? If it’s alibrary, all the workers there ought to shut down the computers as soon as he steps foot inside.

BigOrangeAxe on August 14, 2007 at 1:53 PM

He has another site again? Last I heard he had two sites shut down already.

Whoever decides to host this creep (whether foreign or domestic) may hear some “unkind words” in the near future.

gekkobear: He’s taking photos of little girls, posting them on a pedo website, and telling the pedos who read it where to find these little girls. That goes way beyond “thoughts.”

Blake on August 14, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Actually, I think he is or was just giving out information about events and/or places where kids might be.

Also, from the Kong case:

A fact finder could also objectively conclude that the average person would be unhesitatingly irritated or offended by a photographer surreptitiously aiming his camera up a child’s dress rather than photographing her face or entire clothed body.

The prime argument seems to be that this guy should be locked up because he endangers the children he photographs.

Let’s say some violent pedo sees a pic of a girl he likes on this guy’s site. Is this pedo really going to travel to whereever the girl’s picture was taken to kidnap her? Seems like a lot of trouble to go to when said violent pedo probably spends most of his spare time hanging out at local kiddie haunts and also sees kids he ‘likes’ there.

That’s assuming that any info about where the pics were actually taken is posted on the site. I believe it is not as his argument to the legality of the pic-postings is based precisely on the anonymous nature of the photographs. As soon as he gives any info making the pics non-anonymous, that defence no longer holds. So I say he doesn’t give location information.