Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception

Like or Dislike: 3  0

There’s Something About Jack

This is a perfect example of a modern day witch hunt. You hear things which do not conform to your beliefs and go after the speaker. Yes, he’s creepy, lurks in the shadows with his camera at the ready, but IT IS NOT ILLEGAL! This is why criminal defendants get let off death row decades later, because jurors get caught up in the emotions of allegations and fail to look at the facts.

People fail to come to grips with the fact a person (regardless of age) gives up rights when they walk out their front door. You do not need permission to take a photograph in public. Warren v. Fairfax County, 196 F.3d 186, 191 (4th Cir. 1999) (“The archetypical examples of traditional public areas are streets, sidewalks, and parks.”

Watch TMZ and you will see photographers blocking streets, sidewalks, etc. The age of the person being photographed is irrelevant. Brandenburg v. Ohio is also irrelevant since it deals with defining a threat. This issue pertains to taking a picture in public and the person publishing statements online–which do not come close to a threat since McClennan never spoke to a single kid. (Read the opinion)

I apologize for posting so late in the game, however the above seems like a soap opera. People presume McClennan has done what he has said, but not one child, mother, cop, prosecutor, has ever come forward to allege McClennan has touched a single kid. Not one.

Of course, McClennan is known to post blogs and produce websites advising others where to find children. I have one, the phone book—look under “Day Care”, “School”, “Parks”, etc. The fact McClennan publishes statements about where to locate kids in public is not illegal.

Fact, (1) is taking pictures in public of a person (regardless of age) against the law? No; (2) is making statements of mental thoughts against the law? No. Then what did Jack McClennan do? Look creepy and take pictures of kids in public? That’s what every day celebrity stalkers do when an A List celebrity is out with their kid http://www.celebitchy.com/13372/how_much_is_that_paparazzi_baby_photo_worth/

So, the ONLY difference is McClennan verbalizes his thoughts, but merely speaking without conduct is not against the law. For example, a parent may say, “I’m going to kill you when I get home if your home work isn’t done” but that isn’t illegal. If the parent made good on the statement, then that’s illegal. Likewise, if McClennan makes statements which if acted would be illegal with action, this doesn’t make statement illegal.

Keep in mind, McClennan never spoke to a single kid. Of course, he says he’s spoken to them, but after being on TV for months, no one has come forward. You can’t say the guy is crazy, then believe what you think fits to support your view. Competence is not convenience. Fact is, not one person has come up to say they have spoken to, or touched their kid. Truth isn’t a buffet.

Tellingly, could it be McClennan did it all for attention? Yes! It wasn’t long ago where a man made enough scares comments that he was responsible for killing Jean Bonet Ramsey. After John Mark Karr was extradited from Thailand, plastered on every news report as being the killer, numerous press conferences held by the police and District Attorney— His DNA didn’t match and he was let go. It was all a lie. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/24/national/main2117364.shtml

Anthony Zinnanti took a guy who violated no law, took pictures in public, and used that as a platform to promote himself thanks to his big sister Nancy Grace! Granted McClennan’s taste for publishing his thoughts is distasteful, all Zinnanti did was push McClennan and others further underground.

A person gives up rights when they walk out their front door. You do not need permission to take a photograph in public. Warren v. Fairfax County, 196 F.3d 186, 191 (4th Cir. 1999) (“The archetypical examples of traditional public fora are streets, sidewalks, and parks.”

Watch TMZ and you will see photographers blocking streets, sidewalks, etc. The age of the person being photographed is irrelevant. Brandenburg v. Ohio is also irrelevant since it deals with defining a threat. This issue pertains to taking a picture in public and the person publishing statements online–which do not come close to a threat since McClennan never spoke to a single kid. (Read the court opinion)

Zinnanti’s standing to file the restraining order is that his teenage daughters were at risk of McClennan. McClennan posted he liked “LGs” (Little Girls), teenage girls are far from Little Girls. In short, Zinnanti used his daughters as a platform to launch himself into the spot light.

Zinnanti has no major published cases, works by himself, and operates out of a little office. To say he is the “Best Attorney” is as true as saying McClennan likes adult women.
Perplexingly, it’s ok to write and publish books about how to forge ID’s, make bombs, and even the KKK which is responsible for dozens of murders gets to publish its thoughts—but McClennan can’t take a picture in public and speak or write about his fantasies. (?) See
http://www.kkk.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anarchist_Cookbook

The common bond Zinnanti shares with McClennan is that they each love the spot light.

Like or Dislike: 3  0

pedophilia is the sexual attraction towards humans of the prepubescent variety.
now come on!!!
sexual orientation is not a crime!!!
also this reminds me of when homosexuals were arrested at gay clubs, even though they did not commit sodomy.

Very interesting comment on the youtube movie.

Very true. It is amazing how homosexuals made it from a persecuted, criminal, and mentally ill class (homosexuality was in DSM as a disease category) not just to a tolerated class but to a protected class.