Bizarre story in the NYT about pedophiles:
The search for the self-described pedophile in the large-brimmed black hat commences nearly every day here, with findings posted on chat rooms frequented by mothers.
He was spotted at a fair in Santa Clarita. He recently emerged from the Social Security office on Olympic Boulevard. He tapped away on a computer at the library in Mar Vista. Warnings have gone out. Signs have been posted.
And yet unlike convicted sex offenders, who are required to stay away from places that cater to children, in this case the police can do next to nothing, because this man, Jack McClellan, who has had Web sites detailing how and where he likes to troll for children, appears to be doing nothing illegal.
This story is interesting for two reasons. First, why do most pedophiles (the ones outside of the Rectory, that is) look like extras from the set of Deadwood:
Yech. Is this some sort of Darwinian process in which we are able to spot out perverts (for you Creationists- is this God’s way of pointing out perverts)?
The other reason this story is interesting is because a bunch of mothers are going to band together to pressure the CA legislature to do something about this guy. What, I do not know, but it is always interesting to see what kind of assault on our Constititution hysterical moms and craven politicians can launch.
Extra bonus- Eugene Volokh is quoted at the end of the article.
Roger Ailes
In this case, it’s probably because the guy lives in his car and doesn’t bathe or shave.
Other pedophiles, say, former Waterbury, CT mayor and Republican candidate for U.S. Senate Philip Giordano, or former U.S. Representative Mark Foley, attended to their toilet quite regularly in their heydays.
A vigilant parent do well to keep her or his eyes on Chamber of Commerce types, and not just Aqualung.
Roger Ailes
“parent would do well…”
yet another jeff
Like a really really really wrong version of “Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego”
Paul L.
Two can play this game.
Democrats
Gerry Studds
Department of Homeland Security deputy press secretary Brian J. Doyle
I give you MADD and the ever rising drinking age and ever lowering BAC for determining a DUI.
jake
GoneZo to the rescue!
Newsflash: There are disgusting, mentally unhygenic people in the world and you can’t do a damn thing about them until they break the law. Right now the only thing an individual parent might be able to get is some sort of restraining order but they’d have to prove freakazoid was after their kid.
I just hope to god these parents aren’t so busy scanning the streets for this one freak that they don’t notice a perfectly presentable gent is trying to lure their kiddies into his nice clean car.
I also hope these parents are equally vehement about corporations and ad campaigns that encourage little girls to be sex objects.
If they aren’t now, they will be when these corporations step in to modify what ever law the CA legs. might produce.
JWeidner
So your contention is that it is our Constitutional right to drink as much as we want and get behind the wheel of a car?
Your logic is astounding, and clearly unassailable.
Paul L.
I am unaware of any Constitutional right to drink.
If I looked in the penumbra of the Constitution, I guess that the Twenty-first Amendment (the repeal of Prohibition) could be argued as a “right to drink”. Like the second amendment only applies to militias.
I was pointing out the results of laws passed by hysterical moms and craven politicians.
As to “drink as much as we want”, how about the other side that you can not drive a car if you had one beer or glass of wine in the past 4 hours and a drinking age in the mid-20’s.
Also remembered another democrat for Roger Ailes.
Mel Reynolds
myiq2xu
Let’s see, he hasn’t broken any laws yet (since his release from prison) so we need to change the law so he can be put back in prison.
He went to the fair, the Social Security Office, and a Library. OMG! He might go to a store or get a job somewhere next!
As for his appearance, perhaps we should start arresting anyone who looks like a pedophile. They are obviously easy to spot.
jake
You do realize that you’re arguing that you have the right to drink and drive, don’t you?
Just checking.
Sirkowski
Shorter Paul L.: Seatbelts are for Stalin.
Paul L.
I am arguing that people can consume small amounts of alcohol and not be impaired to operate a car.
I guess you are one of the people who want to ban talking on cell phones while driving.
demimondian
Dear Mr. L —
Thank you so much for the jackalope specimen you sent us today concerning drinking and driving. It’s classic form of the beast — argument from ignorance, lack of factual basis, and complete rejection of repeated empirical studies makes it a model of the genus _Specious_ and the species _genius_.
Thank you,
demi “clippy” mondian
PS Please stay off the roads after you’ve drunk “a small amount of alcohol”. We appreciate your protection of oour lives. Thanks again.
Shochu John
While drunk driving could not reasonably be considered a good thing, it has become the subject of political overreaction due to the aforementioned mothers with too much time on their hands. Case in point, vehicle checkpoints set up to catch drunk drivers. I usually associate vehicle checkpoints with the sort of countries in which the government is something to be feared, not countries that have the principle of freedom from unreasonable search and sezure written right into their constitutions.
BIRDZILLA
Should,nt there be a poster reading WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE 25:000 PASAQUAS?
yet another jeff
MADD didn’t exactly lobby for 4th amendment rights, you have to admit. Search and seizure, punishment for merely being accused…it’s up higher on the PATRIOT Act slippery slope. Law of unintended consequences/mission creep. It’s good to get dangerous drivers off the roads, but .08 just fills up jails, it doesn’t make us safer.
Phoenician in a time of Romans
I am arguing that people can consume small amounts of alcohol and not be impaired to operate a car.
Perhaps they can, perhaps they can’t. The term “impairment” is undefined above.
What it comes down to is how much alcohol should *you* be allowed to consume in exchange for an increased risk to *my* life or the lives of those I love. And the answer is “none”.
We know alcohol impairs driving. It is up to you to demonstrate conclusively and precisely that “small amounts” do not.
Having known someone who had her face sanded off by a drunk driver speeding through suburbia, my conclusion is that anyone driving under the influence of any amount of alcohol shoul have the car they are driving confiscated (even if they don’t own it), their license revoked for five to ten years, and spend about a month in jail. If you can afford a beer, you can afford a taxi.
yet another jeff
Perhaps we’ll get to that point, but it’ll take a few years.
Paul L.
I don’t drink. However I do not like DUI checkpoints (supported by MADD) that assume you are guilty until proven innocent.
grandpa john
Damn jackalope attack
re driving , last I heard driving was considered a privilege, not a right, therefore making it subject to any conditions that the state may apply when giving one the privilege to drive
And I realize that to ask for a logical explanation by our resident jackalope herder as to how the use of DUI checkpoints make an automatic assumption of guilt is an exercise in fantasy posting.
yet another jeff
Without the emotional reaction, it’s not that different on paper. Putting people through the stupid human tricks at a checkpoint, punishing them if they don’t consent to them and/or having their breath analyzed. Is it a jackalope or basically a smaller degree of the “if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about?”
We’ve already consented to a loss of 4th amendment rights to fight the terrorist drunk drivers, just sets up the legal precedents to push the envelope some more to go after the “terrorists.”
Of course, now the MADD analogy is too emotionally laden for some to see the parellels. The jackalope here is the idea that anyone is saying that there is a right to drive and that drunk drivers are a good thing.
yet another jeff
Without the emotional reaction, it’s not that different on paper. Putting people through the stupid human tricks at a checkpoint, punishing them if they don’t consent to them and/or having their breath analyzed. Is it a jackalope or basically a smaller degree of the “if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about?”
We’ve already consented to a loss of 4th amendment rights to fight the terrorist drunk drivers, just sets up the legal precedents to push the envelope some more to go after the “terrorists.”
Of course, now the MADD analogy is too emotionally laden for some to see the parallels. The jackalope here is the idea that anyone is saying that there is a right to drive and that drunk drivers are a good thing.
yet another jeff
Without the emotional reaction, it’s not that different on paper. Putting people through the stupid human tricks at a checkpoint, punishing them if they don’t consent to them and/or having their breath analyzed. Is it a jackalope or basically a smaller degree of the “if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about?”
We’ve already consented to a loss of 4th amendment rights to fight the terrorist drunk drivers, just sets up the legal precedents to push the envelope some more to go after the “terrorists.”
Of course, now the MADD analogy is too emotionally laden for some to see the parallels. The jackalope here is the idea that anyone is saying that there is a right to drive and that drunk drivers are a good thing.
grandpa john
GEE jeff where did I get the idea that someone might consider driving as a right rather than a privilege? try reading the entire thread especially Paul L’s first post. as for giving up constitutional rights , refer to the first part of my post. I don’t think driving was covered in the constitution
Anne Laurie
I look forward to future artists, writers, & librarians trying to defend vile, pedophiliac-friendly smutpeddlars like Maurice Sendak (what, you don’t understand that “Where the Wild Things Are” is about encouraging young children to reject their wise parents’ restrictions, thereby enabling them to fall into the hands of… MONSTERS?!!!) Not to mention the filth-enabling chain restaurants who advertise their “Kid Friendly” menus or “Kids Eat Free” Wednesdays. Heck, I’d await the parents-with-pitchforks massing to assault the pervert-encouraging owners of Disneyworld, except that (a)megacorporations doing stuff for money fall outside the Terrarist remit by definition; and (b) Most Disney ads these days are aimed at adult vacationers anyway, possibly because retirees, childless gay couples, and corporate conventioneers are the only ones who can afford Disney prices.
Fun side fact: Kate Greenaway, one of the founders of children’s illustration, got her start drawing soft-core (clothed) sketches of adorable little girls for John Ruskin, who kept imploring her to “stretch her talents” by sending him more… anatomically correct pics. As Tom Lehrer said, “I could tell you things about Peter Pan / And the Wizard of Oz — *there’s* a dirty old man!”
It’s all smoke and mirrors. Parents can’t protect their kids from lead paint in their Chinese-made toys, or poison in their Chinese-made toothpaste, much less the potentially carcinogenic additives in hamburgers & french fries or the myriad rumored dangers of high-fructose corn syrup. They can’t keep their kids safe from air pollution, groundwater contamination, or global warming. They sure as hell can’t guarantee a future with decent health care, jobs, or even education. But every parent can help form a lynch mob to insist that Something MUST BE DONE!!11!! about the scary unshaven homeless guy hanging around the local playground. Or at least they can pester their legislators to spend more time worrying about such immanent threats as scary potential pedophiles and less time worrying about what the present government is doing to gut the Constitution. (Which, of course, only helps ensure that their kids will not get decent educations, have access to health care, or inherit a liveable world. But, hey — at least they’ll be able to point to a strong uptick in scary homeless guys locked up for thoughtcrimes!)
Paul L.
I guess that you are right. Nothing about cars in the Fourth Amendment.
I guess will want to remove the radio, cell phone or anything else that will distract attention from driving(children) from the car.
demimondian
Rather than make fun of you, Paul, I’m going to point out that there have been a series of studies of exactly that question.
It turns out that talking on a cell phone, hands free or otherwise, is considerably more distracting than having passengers in the car. (In fact, at least one study indicates that conversing with passengers yields no marginal increase in risk. I’m not sure I’ll believe that without follow-up, though.)
Phoenician in a time of Romans
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I’m all for your constitutional right to be secure in your car – provided you’re not operating it. With the engine off, feel free to insist on a search warrant before any cop can so much as open the door. Laugh at them and give them the finger. Go hog wild.
With the engine on, you’re no longer just in your car. You’re also on our roads. Being allowed to operate a car on the public roads is a privilege, not a right. Our roads – those belonging to the community.
Feel free to insist on your right to a warrant – as long as your car is parked, or on your own property. You don’t have a right to drive it in public without being subject to reasonable restrictions – and if one of those restrictions is being asked to occasionally blow into a bag, start puffing.
You don’t wanna blow into a bag, don’t exercise the privilege of driving on a public road. Seems fairly straightforward.
ConservativelyLiberal
Hey Paul L, here is a site that you can reference for the latest happenings on the right!
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
;)
merlallen
I’m pretty sure that anyone who works for DHS in any capacity is a Republican.
chickengeorge bush doesn’t hire Democrats.
Nancy Irving
Our problem with pedophiles could easily be solved if we would just agree to stop regarding it as a criminal justice problem, and start treating it as a mental-health problem (which it is).
In most jurisdictions, the criterion for involuntary committal to a mental institution is that a person be “dangerous to self or others.” This is an extremely broad standard, and the person’s right to challenge such committal is practically non-existent. (Compare with rights under the criminal-justice system.)
But, stupidly, the public insists on its “vengeance” through the criminal-justice system, because putting these sickos in the hospital, where they belong, would be to “let them off.”
In other words, we are morons.
jake
Nope, just the jackalopes.
Shochu John
A phonecian says:
“Feel free to insist on your right to a warrant – as long as your car is parked, or on your own property. You don’t have a right to drive it in public without being subject to reasonable restrictions – and if one of those restrictions is being asked to occasionally blow into a bag, start puffing.”
Really, so the Fourth Amendment only applies on private property? If I am walking down the sidewalk, a cop can stop me and search me for no reason whatsoever? This is quite a restrictive view of our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. What can I say? I disagree. I like being free, and I like the Fourth Amendment, and if my life is marginally more dangerous for not having to deal with police checkpoints, I am willing to accept that risk. I think some people, many of whom may be found in MADD, would prefer that we live in a nerf foam-covered totalitarian state so nobody ever gets hurt. I suppose I just value different things.
ConservativelyLiberal
Who needs the fourth amendment?
These checkpoints save the police the trouble of actually having to observe anyone breaking the law. You pull everyone over on that road, and they are guilty until proven innocent. After all, if you have done nothing, you have nothing to worry about. This saves valuable police time that we citizens pay for, and frees up the officers for more important things.
I think that the police should stop bicyclists at these check points too. The same with skateboarders, rollerbladers and even pedestrians. These same people can (and do) cause accidents via negligent acts. Being on public property does not give them a free pass either. All it takes is one drunk skateboarder, pedestrian or rollerblader doing something stupid and the next thing you see is an accident. Sometimes these accidents can cause deaths.
In fact, lets designate a family on every city block across America that collects information and forwards it to the police for action, like a nationwide BlockWatch program. Having family and neighbors turn in miscreants in their neighborhood would save the police even more legwork. Imagine an America where everyone will be afraid to do any wrong. It would be a utopia for all.
Get the whiteout and delete that damn fourth amendment. It is an archaic concept that does not work in the modern world.
grandpa john
Really, so the Fourth Amendment only applies on private property? If I am walking down the sidewalk, a cop can stop me and search me for no reason whatsoever?>
Hmmm where I live I don’t need a license issued by the state to walk down the side walk, but I do need one to operate a motor vehicle . In order to get that license, I must agree to abide by certain restrictions and conditions as established by the state legislature and enforced by police/highway patrolmen. If I oppose those restrictions , I can stay home and not drive, or I can work to get the legislature to change those laws/conditions.
jrg
Wow. I saw the perv story on CNN this morning. Pretty sick. I predict this will spark increased interest in background search capabilities on dating sites.
The roads are a public place. A checkpoint is not the same as putting someone on trial. A checkpoint is not even like peeking in someone’s window, tapping their phone, or making them pee in a cup.
Being against checkpoints is like being against game wardens counting the ducks you shot on public marsh land.
This is not a case of “If you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide”, this is “you are on public land, and have fewer privacy rights than you do on private land or in a private business”.
Rome Again
I suppose every bar in America (and restaurants too) should have a mandatory chill out area where you have to go and sit (watched by a Nanny of course) to ensure you haven’t had a drink in four hours? And if you escape before the four hour period is up, should you then be visited by policemen?
yet another jeff
Whatever it takes to keep the children safe.
Randolph Fritz
Why is this news?
As for why he looks a mess, aside from the possibility that the *Times* went out of its way to pick a bad photograph, pedophiles are psychological disabled people; it’s not surprised that many of them look a mess.
TenguPhule
But you don’t have the right to run over little kids while boozed out of your mind.
We’re not worried about you. We’re worried about the people you might kill and the cost of paying for your braindead body on lifesupport after you wrap yourself around a telephone pole doing 90. Otherwise, knock yourself out.
TenguPhule
I might be more sympathatic to the sarcasm if it were not for the traffic fatalities resulting from drugs/booze we’ve been having this year…and the year before that…and before that…and before that….
Paul L.
So it is ok if I get pulled over at a DUI checkpoint and the officer spots my digital camera on the back seat, he can turn in on and look at the photos for child porn to “protect the children”. After all the car has to be licensed and on public road, if I want to keep the picture private I would have left the camera at home.
grandpa john
Damn, another jacklalope attack
MBunge
Uh, why doesn’t someone just beat this guy’s ass until he stops doing what he’s doing? It used to be understood that some guys just need an ass beating. But if a society is going to believe that every question must be answered and every problem solved through the law, you eventually come to point where the laws congeal into a police state OR people must simply agree that there are certain problems that can’t be solved. Unfortunately, it seems like most people would rather choose the police state.
Mike
jrg
Back away from the tinfoil hat.
The contents of your digital camera do not impact your ability to operate the car you are driving. Searching your car during a traffic stop, without probable cause, is not the same as verifying that you are not driving drunk.
Clearly there are (and should be) limits to what the cops can do during a checkpoint, even if you are on a public road, your car (and it’s contents) belong to you.
I’m saying it’s a fine line.
For example, I’m not comfortable with K9 units searching cars at checkpoints, because dogs can detect things that are not in plain sight, therefore, it seems like an unreasonable search (if there is no probable cause).
yet another jeff
I was hoping we’d get to some hair splitting on the issue. Are you comfortable with checkpoints without the guise of DUI prevention?
Filthy McNasty
No surprise that Cole is concerned with civil liberties and the rights of pedophiles before the safety of children.
Now, if this McLellan character targeted kitty cats instead of kids, Cole would want the guy thrown onto the electric chair.
Not only are people like McClellan unfit for society, so are their enablers, such as John Cole (and, presumably, his sidekick Tim).
jrg
I am comfortable with traffic stops when the purpose is to enforce vehicular laws. I am not comfortable with traffic stops involving K9s because they seem like a fishing expedition.
If someone acts like they are under the influence of something other than alcohol, that would provide probable cause to search the car. Without such probable cause, a search does not seem reasonable.
I realize that “vehicular laws” could involve drug trafficking, but I do not know where the legal line is drawn.
IANAL, so my opinion and $5.00 will get you a latte. All I’m saying is that you will not find me marching in the street to protest DUI checkpoints, because I don’t consider my car to be as private as my home or my person.
TenguPhule
Shorter Paul L: I look at child porn.