User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/13/2007 8:46:12 PM EDT
www.knbc.com/news/13884052/detail.html
This sicko just won't stop doing it. I hope he ends up in jail for some reason where he can really appreciate how perverted he is.  What's more disturbing is that he did this in broad day light in the middle of campus. There is a kindergarten NW of campus. Wonder if he knew about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2007 8:48:25 PM EDT
[#1]
 problem solved. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2007 8:57:17 PM EDT
[#2]
They are releasing him on RO? That's messed up. The guy lives in his car, has no job and no permanent address. What could be more of a flight risk?
They should at least make him post bail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2007 9:01:50 PM EDT
[#3]
And what law did he break again?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2007 9:10:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Now lynch 'em.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:01:13 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:14:50 AM EDT
[#6]
Breathing within five million miles of me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:15:54 AM EDT
[#7]
Reading comprehension is key. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:43:43 AM EDT
[#8]
The restraining order was issued without him ever breaking any law that anyone knows of. the terms of the order are so restrictive its unlikely he could possibly go about his life without repeatedly breaking the order. I'm surprised it took this long. Hell if he drives his car and there is a mini van in the next lane over at a stop light he's violating the restraining order.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:19:39 AM EDT
[#9]
I've heard about this individual at my local am talk show Rick Roberts KFMB 760. During Rick Roberts interview, you can tell this guy is not going to stop what he's doing. He's just plain sick . It's time for a winnie roast for the SOB!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:21:18 AM EDT
[#10]
 OK, primate, maybe I should have drawn a more vivid picture. He didn't violate any law. The same thought processes which can ban THINKING about screwing little kids, can be used to ban THINKING about using guns. I'm going to pass out in a drunken stupor now, but I'm sure if you roll it around your skull a few dozen times, you can establish the difference between thinking or talking about something, and doing something. If this creep can get hammered for talking about pedophilia, we can get popped for talking about "voting from the rooftops". |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:30:06 AM EDT
[#11]
I don't like pedophiles. But I also don't like laws that are impossible to obey.
A RO saying he can't get within 30 feet of anyone under 18?  What if he is at walmart and a kid is on the other side of the shelves and he doesn't know? At a red light and a child is in the car next to him? He is at the doctor and in the room next to him there is a teenager? I could go on..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:38:51 AM EDT
[#12]
The RO was obviously aimed at forcing him to leave California...or become homebound. Of course, this fuck is not doing himself any favors by showing up places with a camera. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:44:23 AM EDT
[#13]
Normally a restraining order stems out of previous arrest or at least there must be some previous court proceeding. Has this guy been arrested before?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 2:52:55 AM EDT
[#14]
This pedophile tax leech (medically depressed?) should be put out of our misery.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:35:49 AM EDT
[#15]
Arrested for the second time
Obviously trying to pull something here. Keep it up sicko. You are walking a dangerous path
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:39:17 AM EDT
[#16]
My guess is he is doing this as lawsuit bait, and the ACLU (or some ambulance chaser) will be right there to back him (especially if he gets "roughed up" at all) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:42:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Not in California. I'm surprised SF has given him a key to their city and welcomed him there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 9:56:39 AM EDT
[#18]
Is telling a pedofile where to find little girls the same as telling someone where to find drugs? Is either a crime? I would guess he was previously arrested for tresspassing as he keeps going to places to film kids. Sometimes these are private places like the UCLA. The RO is obviously unconstitutional, but he has said on TV that he would have sex if the child wanted to. Isn’t that intent or conspiracy to commit a crime? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:02:01 AM EDT
[#19]
i do have one good thing to say about iran, china, saudi arabia etc.
they wouldn't put up with this shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:02:06 AM EDT
[#20]
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:02:37 AM EDT
[#21]
I assure you he is walking a dangerous path. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:03:28 AM EDT
[#22]
Uh, sure . . . except that screwing little kids is very illegal, while using guns is not. Good comparision, troll. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:03:29 AM EDT
[#23]
I think that would be like me saying I would build a F/A if I knew how. Or a can if I knew how. Just take everything this guy is doing and relate it back to guns and you will see the BIG picture. I am thinking this guy will be found in a dumpster from some father or whatever. No, I would not do either of what I said just for the record
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:13:58 AM EDT
[#24]
The scary thing is that at some point gunowners will be treated the same way....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:14:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Any one who thinks having sex with a kid could or would be fun should be shot. We let people like this on TV and we wounder why the world is all F up. If your worried about the RO let him come hang out at your house or around one of your schools. He is only thinking about it right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:15:37 AM EDT
[#26]
The ACLU will be on this like flies on shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:18:24 AM EDT
[#27]
On whose side?  In a parallel case involving somebody with guns, I highly doubt they'd defend a gunowner.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:18:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Or it could be like saying you would have someone killed as soon as you could find a hit man you would hire. The guy is trying to get attention for some reason. Hope this isn't a test case to get raping kids made eventually legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:20:53 AM EDT
[#29]
UCLA is public property. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:21:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Damn JBT's!
Maybe next time he will resist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:21:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Rehabilitation through reincarnation should be tested on him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:24:52 AM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:26:45 AM EDT
[#33]
My guess is he is looking for a beating as a route to a quick payday. The guy has already been on TV, the whole thing reeks as a set-up. My only thoughts on him is CA is right next to a big ocean with plenty of hungry fish... I'm just sayin... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:49:54 AM EDT
[#34]
You cannot conspire with yourself so there is no conspiracy charge. Now if someone got arrested and admitted that they used his site and talked to him about the best way to do horrible things to little children, then you may get a conspiracy charge. If they just use his website, even that probably won't be enough. Intent is not enough to hold someone criminally liable. If he acts upon this intent then he has done something wrong but just saying something is not enough (unless it is a threat). And to answer a potential question, I don't think that you can charge him with any threats for what he has done. Threats are aimed at a specific person so unless he actually identified a girl and said that he intends to do something to her, you cannot get him for a threat to a broad class of people. I think that this guy is an inhuman creep and I am not defending his actions in any sense. However, legally (IMO) he is getting screwed. I don't think that there is a valid grounds for the restraining order in this case since he had not done anything illegal before it was issued and there is no way that he can comploy with this order. The arrests in this case all stem from violations of the restraining order, he had never been convicted of anything prior to this to the best of my recollection (and he still has not been convicted of these charges). Without any specific illegal actions or particularized threats, I don't think that a restraining order should have been issued. This guy is complete scum, but if we allow the courts to start bending the rules to gain desired results for undesirable people, what is to stop them from bending the rules and putting a restraining order on anyone they feel like. The Constitution protects the lowest denominator of people in this country the same as it protects everyone else. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 10:58:50 AM EDT
[#35]
What no anti police JBT comments?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 11:16:15 AM EDT
[#36]
But "voting from the rooftops " Isn't legal, yet it gets a fair amount of airtime here. Ask yourself do you REALLY want thought police? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 11:41:39 AM EDT
[#37]
Actually most college campuses are private property allowing only those who have legitimate business with the university to be on the premisis of most buildings, except for truly public facilities like libraries. As such, campus police can remove someone who isn't associated with the university from most areas of the campus. As to the restraining order, I don't see how it can possibly withstand the inevitable ACLU court challenge. While the intent behind it is good, the legal basis for it is pretty darn shaky...his case certainly isn't helped by showing up where there are kids congregating and taking photos. A judge would probably rather be overturned than let this a$$hole get away with something.... That said, the best thing that could happen in this situation is for the guy to turn up floating face down in a river somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 11:43:16 AM EDT
[#38]
but he's doing more than just THINKING , he's actually STALKING. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 11:58:31 AM EDT
[#39]
I think for stalking you need a specific victim , not just "people" I also notice you failed to answer my question. Do you REALLY want thought police? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 12:01:33 PM EDT
[#40]
"I'll never say never...."
When asked if he would have sex with a child. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 12:04:03 PM EDT
[#41]
I think so as well. As detestable as this prick is, I don't think that he has actually broken any laws (other than violating the restraining order and no trespassing order). I don't think that this would qualify as stalking if he is just hanging out there taking pictures of everyone. If he is following around one person and taking pictures of them it is stalking. Just standing in one place and watching people go by is not. Think of this like he were in a park. If he is following around one family that could be stalking. If he is sitting near the enterance of the park just watching people go in and out that is not stalking. This prick seems to know the law very well and at least seems to have a good idea of what he can and cannot do. I just hope that he slips up and gets arrested and convicted of something before he can hurt any of these girls. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 12:08:16 PM EDT
[#42]
No one is saying that this guy is not scum. However, statements like the one above are not legally enough to arrest him for anything (IMO), and it is a slippery slope if you start bending the law to get a desirable result for an undesirable person. Arresting him based upon his thoughts when he has not actually done anything illegal really does start to bring about thought police and the possibility that people could be arrested because they think the wrong way even if they have not actually done anything wrong. This guy is scum, but until he does something illegal the courts and the police cannot do anything to him. As undesirable as this is, it is better than allowing rules to be broken and the Constitution to be disregarded. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:41:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted for truth. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2007 1:49:54 PM EDT
[#44]
He has already taken pictures of other people's children and put them on a pedophile site. That's more than just sitting on a park bench and watching the kiddies play. At the very least, the childrens' right to privacy has been violated. In addition, he is placing them at risk by posting their images on a site for other perverts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2007 12:10:40 AM EDT
[#45]
NO, Until yesterday at UCLA in violation of the restraining order and then for Trespassing (Forgive us our trespasses as???) for returning to the campus. As noted this guy is in trouble for thinking and posting about little girls, not for any illegal acts. Like us we talk and participate in legal acts that some people think are counterproductive and socially unacceptable, but even though not criminal should be banned and hounded from the state. You slippery slope guys should be getting real excited about this one. IMHO the restraining order was made ridiculously broad in order to get judicially reviewed just to find out what the law allows. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2007 12:13:05 AM EDT
[#46]
Except that he has never been accused of let alone convicted of any criminal activity. What part of that didn't you understand. No ARRESTS, NO CONVICTIONS, NO ACCUSATIONS. I guess reading comprehension isn't needed, I sure hope you like the gun banners because you sure think like them. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2007 12:14:51 AM EDT
[#47]
And that is less than what he did. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2007 12:17:36 AM EDT
[#48]
Right to privacy, isn't that the basis for Roe vs Wade? Can you show me in a quote from the Constitution where there is a right to privacy, especially when in a public place? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2007 12:24:43 AM EDT
[#49]
And has he screwed any children? This guy may be scummy, but this restraining order is unconstitutional, and it's going to be shot down when challenged. I figured a group of gun owners would recognize this "for the chilluns" knee-jerk reaction, rather than jump aboard the bandwagon. Disclaimer for those who'll knee-jerk to the above: this is not a condoning of the sick things this guy has done, but unless he's been convicted, has attempted to have sex with a child, or something else very similar, this is an unconstitutional RO. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2007 12:44:14 AM EDT
[#50]
Claw hammer to the scrot. Problem solved.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
