|
From: ehob [Peter]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 14:12
I think shooting the fuck wad still wouldn't be against his "rights". The shit head *has* no rights and maybe a bullet to the head would make that clear.
From: killbill [ISwindledTheFBI]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 14:37
Amerika , land where instead of cutting off the part that sins they give it a slap.
From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 14:40
Au contraire, Ehob. While I will agree that he is twisted perv, he hasn't actually committed a crime. Photographing people out in public isn't even misdemeanor.....ask any celebrity. Those rights of his you wish to so cavalierly ignore and violate, protect ALL Americans.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 15:50
I agree with ehob. Whether or not he has fucked little girls (or boys), doesn't change a thing. He made a website that showcased hot little twats and encouraged others to share his attraction for them. He's a piece of shit. Believing he might go the rest of his homeless life only looking at tight twat and not raping it, is fantasy. Even he admits there is a chance. Kill him.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 16:28
You can't sentence a man for his actions unless he's been convicted of a crime. It should be illegal to take a picture of someone without their permission, but it isn't.
From: bukweat [otay]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 16:36
Aulduron,many states are going to special commitments for repeat pedos and their ilk.(held beyond sentence) I know that isn't what your saying, but if you look at the 3 elements of a crime; means, motive and opportunity,the only missing prerequisite is an arrest.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 16:53
** Auldy: "You can't sentence a man for his actions unless he's been convicted of a crime. It should be illegal to take a picture of someone without their permission, but it isn't." Isn't it illegal to have a web-site like that? And isn't that a felony? I'm almost certain those 'tiny twat sites' in Florida were just shut down by the FED... because Florida could not act locally. (We had a story on it a couple of months back.) ** bukwheat: "the 3 elements of a crime; means, motive and opportunity,the only missing prerequisite is an arrest. " Wow. That's an interesting angle. But then again... I'd be in prison for my racism. I mean, who could believe that I wouldn't be a skinhead, someday? Opinion is too error-prone.
From: bukweat [otay]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 17:02
Wow. That's an interesting angle. But then again... I'd be in prison for my racism. ________________________________ It's not against the law to be a racist tss.
From: gargoyle1
Date: 4-Aug-2007 17:07
I'd be willing to bet this cumstain is under such close surveillance that if he so much as farts some cop knows how it smells. He should just move to the desert where he won't come into contact with anyone.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 17:11
...Isn't it illegal to have a web-site like that?... Not if the girls are fully dressed, not sexually suggestive, and he doesn't talk about molesting them. He's doing the same thing newspapers do. If they could prove he'd broken a law, he'd have been served a warrant, not a restraining order.
From: noracejusthuman [Alien From Earth]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 17:58
i must lean towards your opinion on this one tss...I have three beautiful daughters...all grown up ok, no thanks to this attention seeking .uck...
From: ohhellno
[steve-vo]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 18:00
Move them to the desert.... The British already did that. It's called Australia. Not a bad idea though. Have any place in mind?
From: texasman1000 [texas]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 19:04
This guy has done nothing wrong, and believe me that's hard to do. Leave him the fuck alone.
From: susiepseudonym [as bitter as burnt coffee]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 19:13
A pedophile walks into the woods, holding a small chid by the hand. The child says, "I'm scared." The pedophile replies, "YOU'RE scared? I'll have to walk back alone."
From: susiepseudonym [as bitter as burnt coffee]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 19:15
"I guess there is some small chance maybe someday I might be able to get some sort of friendship with a girl and maybe then I might worry would I cross the line," he said. "But right now, no. There's no doubt in my mind I wouldn't." That's a warning if I ever heard one. Kill him now.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 19:48
pedofiles are just the next 'ostracized group'. You had your negroes, your latinos, your lesbians, your faggots, your feminists, etc... Soon enough, you'll have your 'pedo-pride parades'. As soon as guys like him empower the others to collude like all those other groups did... you'll have to accept the kid fuckers like you have so many other things. I'd give it 20 years max. Just look at the public reaction. It's immense... just like every other build-up that leads to 'rights movements'. Auldy (as well as others) has a point, and it is a fact. There are no laws that can shut them up. The only laws we have that can apply, protect them, they're right to 'free speech', and their right to collude and set movements into motion. Everybody get wasted, and act like it's not happening. Maybe it'll go away. We did that with everything else.
From: strife75 [SomuchRottenSoLittleTime]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 20:27
Yup i agree with TSS on this i watched 30 seconds of that video and said hey he is a pile of feces. I say smash his prick with a hammer and let him die of blood loss.
From: ciaochowbella [I didn't do it and I wasn't there when it happened]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 21:22
From: ladyamethyst [Michelle] Date: 4-Aug-2007 20:28 Is it me, or is KB running out of "Amerika...the land of..YADA YADA YADA"s -------------------------------- He really is stretching it. At least I keep 'Christmas-y' confined to the holidays. Well, mostly.
From: 1fatboy [jhancock]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 21:23
The guy is a moron, but until he actually fucks a little girl, leave him alone.
From: ehob [Peter]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 21:25
Auldron, I can't speak for all of the USA, but in Canada it is illegal to take someone's picture and publish it without their consent. The only control on that is that the person being photographed must have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Ie. a crowd scene where it is obvious that camera's are present, but a private setting, such as a beach, this is not acceptable. As well, the statement of intent can be construed as a crime within itself. Even the desire can be seen as intent. Case in point is the number of times assorted fruit cakes are checked out by the Secret Service after sending letters of intent to see harm done to the president. In most cases these people are simply loopy and incapable of committing a crime. But, there enough nut bars to make it a worthwhile exercise.
From: strife75 [SomuchRottenSoLittleTime]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 22:06
From: ehob [Peter] Date: 4-Aug-2007 21:25 Auldron, I can't speak for all of the USA, but in Canada it is illegal to take someone's picture and publish it without their consent. The only control on that is that the person being photographed must have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Ie. a crowd scene where it is obvious that camera's are present, but a private setting, such as a beach, this is not acceptable. ---------------------------- Canadian Photo laws Privacy Law The unwritten industry standard for commercial photography dictates that any identifiable person in a photograph should sign a model release. However, in Ontario, the Privacy Act does not protect it's citizens against unwanted commercial use of their image (see Ontario's Privacy Act below). The beach would have to be a private one with no trespassing signs or a sign saying no photography because a normal public beach with say 2 other people on it is fair game.
From: abluecommunist
[Red is for republicans, dammit!]
Date: 4-Aug-2007 22:55
To be perfectly honest, girls over the age of 14 are hot. Sorry, but they are. Dad, I know it's your baby girl, but if there are tits, curves, pubes and well-rounded ass, she's attractive. It does not necessarily mean she is ready for some rowdy sex involving vegetables and catcher's mitts. I hate hearing about men who screw a 15 year old and get labeled as pedophiles and perverts who need to be monitored their whole lives. Pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children, not teenagers. Attraction to teenagers below the established age of consent is ephebophilia (but we all know that already). Indeed, it is a natural biological function to be attracted to the youngest, healthiest, and most fertile individuals of the opposite sex. Once you hit puberty, you are sexually viable. While you may not be mature enough to engage in an adult relationship, you are fully capable of having sex and having children. Mentally, you are still a bit young for that sort of thing, but biologically, you are primed and ready. Restrictive 'age of consent' laws have made men who find high school girls smokin' hot feel like sicko perverts, and those men who act on those urges are lumped together with rapists, child molesters, and other sexual deviants.  I seriously doubt any of the men on here wouldn't hit all four in a heartbeat.
From: hawkweed [crowley]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 00:24
To be perfectly honest, girls over the age of 14 are hot. Sorry, but they are. Dad, I know it's your baby girl, but if there are tits, curves, pubes and well-rounded ass, she's attractive. Actually, its more like an opinionated, mouthy little cow and at that age, they are slapping bloody pictures of themselves all over bloody blogs, myspace ect. Unlike most of theses fucked up weirdo's, this one seems to recognize that his 'interests' are fucked up, maybe they should institutionalise him and try & find out just what the fuck motivates people with this mindset. That said, I would still have twatted him (or anyone) taking unauthorised pics of my daughters when they were young uns.
From: strife75 [SomuchRottenSoLittleTime]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 00:24
Lol which one of them looks 15 or 16 ?
From: abluecommunist
[Red is for republicans, dammit!]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 00:41
Hawk: If I were their dad, I'd be pissed too. But I'm not their dad. Jailbait being 'bait' and all, if there weren't a market for said 'bait' there'd be no appeal for it. And the girls I posted are no more than 16, 17 tops. They're still hotter than a thermite grenade on a pile of radioactive waste.
From: aulduron
[Aulduron]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 00:49
I agree, I think he's a piece of shit, but he's not breaking the law. Until he breaks the law, or at least conspires to break it, we have to leave him alone. It's very easy to break the law in the waters he is treading, but he knows well his rights, and has staying on the right side of that line.
From: roaddog [pclynn]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 01:16
Save the taxpayers, parents, law enforcement and victims the turmoil this sick bastard will eventually present and just shoot the pond scum before he takes another breath.
From: teratomarty
[Self-made man]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 06:21
"I seriously doubt any of the men on here wouldn't hit all four in a heartbeat." Well, I wouldn't, but... you know. Seriously, they look shallow and self-absorbed, and like they would have difficulty conducting a long discussion about anything other than those topics contained in "People" magazine. Bring 'em back once they've taken Philosophy 101 and developed some interest other than Lindsay Lohan.
From: gobsmacked
[Real Wild Church!]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 06:43
Mclellann's problem is that he shoots his mouth off. Never speak the truth in a fucked-in-the-head, screwed-up world. He should have done the same as every other hetero man on rotten.com when aroused by an under-aged girl, have a wank and pretend to be appalled by pedophiles. Same with gays, get your cock sucked by a pretty transsexual and then say "Fucking faggots, I'd kill them all in a heartbeat." That way you fit in just fine with society.
From: flyndaran [Patrick]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 08:10
Why do so many seem to think that if someone is attracted to a particular type of person that it must automatically lead to rape? Don't we hate those women that call all men prospective rapists, because of that absurd premise?
From: fescue
Date: 5-Aug-2007 08:12
"I seriously doubt any of the men on here wouldn't hit all four in a heartbeat." ********************* Um, ewww. I'd probably do their dads, though. I have a thing for dads.
From: plumbob
Date: 5-Aug-2007 09:14
So... with adultery being illegal in my state, I suppose looking at some pr0n should get me barred from coming within 30' of any woman who's not my wife? Or since I like free money but wouldn't steal, they should bar me nonetheless from coming within 30' of a bank. Yay for preemptive justice.
From: mike2039 [mike]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 09:57
He says he likes little girls but hasn't actually touched one. What is the charge for that? Thought crime?
From: abluecommunist
[Red is for republicans, dammit!]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 10:13
jayb: Bring some crisco and a traffic cone. And maybe a small vise if you have one available. fescue: Dammit, you know what I meant. I was too drunk to clarify that almost all straight men would tap that. And I don't mean 'loving, caring relationship', I mean down and dirty sex involving several different types of furniture. Uh...that is, sex ON the furniture, not WITH the furniture.
From: thesickthsense
[iseewhitepeople!]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 10:25
Have any of you tards watched the video? That guy will never be normal. He'll never NOT be a danger. Allowing him to talk, to push his agenda... that's just insane. We don't need MORE people like him. I would prefer that he be thrown off a fucking cliff... we have the convenience of the Grand Canyon. Might as well start filling it up with demented motherfuckers like him. No more cost to me and you than driving his ass out there and chucking him off. "I want to fuck little giiiiiirrrrlllllsssss..... SPLAT!" If anything, finding some way to legally shut him up would be better than nothing. Which is what you propose! lol Think of it like this: Some guy is standing by you and your young daughter, and he mentions how he'd like to fuck her. Wouldn't you kill the bastard? Sooooo.....? Duh? Answering NO would imply that you only took offense because it was heard by your daughter. Unless you are a pedo who wants to fuck toddlers... you'd have a problem whether your daughter heard or not. So what the fuck is the difference with him doing national interviews that are viewed by millions (including children), running a website that is a fucking 'how-to' on child molestation... or standing next to you at the park and saying it? In the park, he's only telling one person. TV interviews and websites multiply his audience by millions. You'll take offense when it's just you, but say you wouldn't mind when millions heard? Yeah, riiiiiight. There us a hell of a difference between some guy who would poke a tight 15 year-old pussy (like commie's scenario), and some freak who would tear a 3 year-old. Get some fucking sense.
From: bartyboyo
[sean]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 11:58
seems our society has lost what our founding fathers wanted,Common decency.we all know what is acceptble in our society some folks wish to invoke our "rights" an interesting argument granted.Then again how decent where the founding fathers? I bet most marriges in the 1700s involved 15yr olds.Imo I think everyone is attracted by developed bodys of a nubile young girl.What seperates us from animals and pedos is the mental capacity to know right from wrong.
From: niebelung [oregonian]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 13:03
I think this sentence is wrong. He hasn't committed any crime, and now how is he supposed to live? Where can he go to buy food that there might not be a 17 year old waitress or cashier working? How can he shop for anything like socks or underwear since he can never know who is inside the store, or who may get in line behind him to check out? He can't go to church or to a movie or a library or a concert, even a concert of actual music, like an orchestra, without risking violating his parole. He can't enroll in even some rotten junior college to try to learn a new job skill. The punishment is unbelievably drastic and should be ruled unconstitutional.
From: abluecommunist
[Red is for republicans, dammit!]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 13:18
This guy isn't attracted to teenagers, he is attracted to the 3-8 year old age grouping. Simply put, fourth grade girls are too old for him. Does this help clarify his sickness? IMO, as long as he looks but doesn't touch, okay, but to be perfectly honest it's only a matter of time before he can't resist it anymore or some parent goes apeshit and kills him for taking photographs of their daughter. The dilemma here is that you can't jail someone for what they *might* do, especially if they haven't done anything prior. It's all speculation. I feel shitty about saying this, but he hasn't done anything illegal. I'd like to see him in jail, or at least in 24-7 supervised treatment, but if you haven't committed an illegal action, you are innocent of any crime.
From: ehob [Peter]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 13:46
As a little side bar to this discussion. What bugs the hell out of me about the "sex offender" laws is that a guy, or woman, found to be downloading porn, in any form, can be charged as a sex offender. Granted, that varies from state to state and country to country, but a testosterone-shocked teeneger caught jerking off to Pam Anderson can be labelled a sex offender. This label will then be carried for life. Another side line. Anyone flying through Kansas City International had better be ready for a surprise if you use their "wifi" and try to access rotten.com. We are officially "porn" to the bible thumpers and blocked. So happy to see that the wankers care so much about my soul. And strife75, I was involved in a documentary and releases had to be signed by everyone who was filmed or photographed. As well, public venues, such as paid admission parties fall under the Privacy Act. And regarding beaches, if a person takes my photo by accident I am legally capable of demanding to have the photograph deleted or destroyed. The point or case I was thinking of is thoes "voyeur" pictures you see on the 'Net of "nudist" beaches etc. In the case of public figures the rules change again. And this is why lawyers make a shit load of money. The commercial aspect you are speaking of dictates to news coverage as it is considered an "commercial venture". In regards to actual advertisements, under no cicumstances can a film crew use unasked pictures. When England instituted widened CCTV coverage they changed a crap load of privacy laws to allow this to take place and be used in court as evidence. Fortuantely, here in "The Colonies" we have not stooped so low. Aren't Privacy Laws such a hoot? Just ask me about the Bawdy House Act. Now there is a piece of unmitigated shit if there ever was one.
From: slyslick [andwicked]
Date: 5-Aug-2007 13:57
Since we have seemingly more of the kidnapping, rape and bury 'em alive, version of pedo down here in sunny Florida, I think I can speak for a majority of us living here on the issue of his "rights" being violated. Boo Fucking Hoo. Every one of the sick bastards that have been convicted of murdering little girls, (4 in the last 7 years) had a very public history of talking about their sexual attractions. Which led to sexual assaults, which led to them eventually killing their victims. Unless someone performs a lobotomy on this fucker, he will act his fantasies out. No doubt about it. Is it civility that keeps us from being preemptive about this asshole , or apathy? Fuck him and his precious fucking rights.
From: spiderviveka [viveka]
Date: 6-Aug-2007 13:04
First, let me say that I hate child abusers and sexual assailants of any kind. However, the pedophile in this instance has not committed any crime. It is a violation of his rights as a human being to bar him from going to places like the post office or super market. There is no evidence that he has ever sexually abused a child, and until he does, legally, they have no legitimate way to take out such restraining orders. You can't punish people for crimes that they may or may not commit in the future. Because once you do that to one person, then it will start happening to everyone. This man is being charged with thought crimes. Sometimes I fantasize about killing people, does that make me a murderer? No. Could I potentially become a murderer? Yes, we all could. I just think it is ridiculous that this person is being chased across the country and hasn't even committed a crime, while real predators like the man who molested me as a child, are allowed to walk the streets.
Updated: 9-Aug-2007 16:57
| 
