Man ordered to keep 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in the state of CA

[BoyAlley]

Ok, the last thing I want to do is sound like I'm trying to defend a Pedo, cuz anyone that's ever read anything that I've written about the subject knows what I think should be done to them.

That said.

This man has been convicted of no crimes, accused of no crimes, and the police have publicly said there's no active criminal investigation against him.

YET

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A self-described pedophile who says he is attracted to young girls but doesn't molest them was ordered Friday to stay at least 30 feet away from every person under age 18 in California.

The temporary restraining order was issued against Jack McClellan by Superior Court Judge Melvin Sandvig, who also scheduled an August 24 hearing to discuss the matter further.

In Santa Monica, a mother saw McClellan in a restaurant and called police, who arrived in time to talk with him and ask if they could take his picture.

He agreed, saying he thought it would allow them to quickly clear him of any sex crimes in their city. But he was unhappy when they posted it on the Internet along with his driver's license photo and a warning to parents to call them if they see him.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/03....ap/index.html

Now like I said, the man and his blog are a fucking piece of shit, but the things that the government are doing to a man that's never been accused or convicted of a crime are kind of scary.

[OG LennyT]

Never convicted/accused means never been caught or he hasn't done anything yet

fuck him and the horse he rode in on

[tenderobject]

scary yes........ but but... pedo's are pedos...

[Silly Guy]

aww.....well did the self-described pedophile go up to police
and tell them what he likes?

[BoyAlley]

I understand the police are in a difficult position here, their job is to protect the public. In this case, they're trying to protect the most innocent and helpless amongst us, children.

But at the same time, if no laws are being broken, and if he's not threatened or attempted to break any criminal laws, under what authority are they posting his details online and asking for people to contact them everywhere he's seen?

And a TRO keeping him away from everyone in an entire state under the age of 18?

[candyflip]

Someone in Buffalo created a website dedicated to this guy.

http://www.jackmcclellan.com/

[Spunky]

Throw all those sick freaks on a island to fend for themselves

[Pleasurepays]

restraining orders have nothing to do with a crime being committed ... all they had to do was demonstrate to the judge that he posed a danger to their children and any other children around him. the guy openly admits to being sexually attracted to children and he spends a huge amount of time stalking children.

i think anyone that doesn't spend their days cowering in fear of "the man" would agree that he is a risk. believing that he would devote so much time to obsessing on "Little girls" as he puts it, that he is sexually attracted to and believing that he is not at serious risk of acting on his urges would be silly in my opinion. apparently the judge agreed.

[annomoterrace]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I understand the police are in a difficult position here, their job is to protect the public. In this case, they're trying to protect the most innocent and helpless amongst us, children.

But at the same time, if no laws are being broken, and if he's not threatened or attempted to break any criminal laws, under what authority are they posting his details online and asking for people to contact them everywhere he's seen?

And a TRO keeping him away from everyone in an entire state under the age of 18?

Maybe it is like someone who says he is a racist and he posts all about how he wants to kill black people.

Police might warn the black community that there is a guy out there that says he is a racist and he posts how he would love to kill some black people.

What about some looney who posts about killing the president of the us? The secret service and the government will arrest the mother fucker even though he hasn't DONE anything (physically). I guess he posted about killing the president so that is something physical. Well, all I know is . . .


WHO CARES?

TRY FINDING A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS WORLD YOU PATHETIC POS!

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by annomoterrace

TRY FINDING A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS WORLD YOU PATHETIC POS!

Ok, because I started a thread to talk about the legal and constitutional issues surrounding a particular case, I'm all of a sudden a pathetic piece of shit?

I'm certainly not trying to defend this man or the sick crap he posts about. But I think the ancillary legal issues being raised by this story are of interest.

PS: There are plenty of "real problems" in this world that I spend a great deal of time and money on, thanks much. Hunnay.

[Iron Fist]

I think he wants to be immortalized in your new blog DRAMA!!

[GreyWolf]

It's one of these strange scenarios which is technically not illegal, but felt there is a need to "do something" - and the judge as found another way to skin the cat - at least for a short time. LE appear to be poking their finger in the pie as well and trying to skin that same cat.

If legislators want to kill this - they can simply introduce legislation to make the promotion or advocating pedophilia an offense.

However - can then see that being used for other issues and possibly being applied to particular "legal" websites marketing on the basis of appealing to this area. Hell... who cares? Would not touch these websites with two pairs of rubber gloves on anyways.

[squizzel]

he should be shot and killed. If all pedos were killed they would be wiped out of the gene pool forever.

[st0ned]

Originally Posted by squizzel

he should be shot and killed. If all pedos were killed they would be wiped out of the gene pool forever.

Agreed!

[Corleone]

Originally Posted by Spunky

Throw all those sick freaks on a island to fend for themselves

and then nuke it.. I hate pedos

[After Shock Media]

I easily understand where boyalley is coming from.
I also have the same issues and I think pedos are the lowest of the low. However I am also against the whole monitoring them after they are off probation and all that shit. If we as a country feel they are a risk which they are, they should not be allowed out of prison in the first place. We do not monitor any others that are not on probation afterall. Typically you do your time and then your done, just with a record.

[SmokeyTheBear]

i think its perfectly reasonable to do what they did. They PROVED that he was a risk before a judge.. women get restrainging orders against men all the time that have not been charged with a crime and did nothing wrong. If they had not gone before a judge i might agree with you, but fact is they did everything legally. i totally understand where your coming from though. we shouldn't just blindly brand people as criminals if they aren't . He has shown he is a threat to the community

[annomoterrace]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

I easily understand where boyalley is coming from.
I also have the same issues and I think pedos are the lowest of the low. However I am also against the whole monitoring them after they are off probation and all that shit. If we as a country feel they are a risk which they are, they should not be allowed out of prison in the first place. We do not monitor any others that are not on probation afterall. Typically you do your time and then your done, just with a record.

Well captain stupid, think about it.

I haven't spent one minute thinking on this topic and somehow I see a difference between someone who robbed a bank and served his time and someone who raped a child and served his time. The bank robber might be reformed. The pedo is still a pedo . . . right?

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by annomoterrace

Well captain stupid, think about it.

I haven't spent one minute thinking on this topic and somehow I see a difference between someone who robbed a bank and served his time and someone who raped a child and served his time. The bank robber might be reformed. The pedo is still a pedo . . . right?

Might? Who cares about might. Change the laws and keep them locked up then.

It really is simple. You serve your time your done.

Plus was calling me captain stupid really required? Does nothing for your argument and did not really think about my reply.

[SmokeyTheBear]

Originally Posted by annomoterrace

I haven't spent one minute thinking on this topic and somehow I see a difference between someone who robbed a bank and served his time and someone who raped a child and served his time.

one is a bank robber one is a rapist ? if you have served your time you have served your time period..

"time served" is not at all related to recidivism rates ..

if it were we would never let crack smokers out hahah

dont get me wrong i understand what your trying to say but your using a foolish argument to base it upon..

the LAW says both are the same reformed when they finish their time served.
Not saying i agree with this , but thats what the law says.

Its like the "should we try a minor as an adult because they did an adult crime " of course not , we dont convict apples as oranges because the punishment for apples is too light. we need to make the punishment fit the crimes.

Knowing what we do about pedo's and their chances of re-offending there obviously needs to be different methods after they have "served their time"

[CDSmith]

Looks like a preventative measure to me. Right or wrong, if you "blog" about underage teens and being a predator who lusts after people's kids, is it so farfetched to expect some reaction from the public?

For years, McClellan maintained a Web site in Washington where he posted photos of children he had taken in public places. He also discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls, or "LGs," congregate.

Granting such a restraining order may very well be a violation of his so-called rights, but really, boo fucking hoo. If he doesn't like the attention he's getting maybe he should have kept his penchant for stalking and lusting after little girls private instead of plastering it all over the web.

He's a piece of shit who deserves what he gets.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by annomoterrace

Well captain stupid, think about it.

I haven't spent one minute thinking on this topic and somehow I see a difference between someone who robbed a bank and served his time and someone who raped a child and served his time. The bank robber might be reformed. The pedo is still a pedo . . . right?

So after the bank robber served his time and you walk into your bank and then he walks in you are not the least bit nervous?

How about a murder? What if you found out you neightbor served time in prison for murder and was paroled. They don't have to be monitored or have thier name on any registry. Child rape is bad but murder is worse.
Or are you suggesting murderers can be reformed.

[Pleasurepays]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

the LAW says both are the same reformed when they finish their time served.
Not saying i agree with this , but thats what the law says.

the law does not say that.

basically the law says... "if you're a rapist, you can't be trusted and are likely to be a repeat/serial offender... so for this reason, you might have to wear an ankle bracelet, you will be registered on a sex offenders list so the general public can know where you are at all times and you will live under constant fear for your life for as long as you live"

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Looks like a preventative measure to me. .

The future's so bright I need to wear shades!!!

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

It really is simple. You serve your time your done.

Personally, I'm in favor of that, with the single caveat that if the sex offender re-offends we put a bullet in through his skull.

Society and the justice system needs to quit pussyfooting around with these fuckheads.

[Matt 26z]

http://www.jackmcclellan.com/

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I understand the police are in a difficult position here, their job is to protect the public. In this case, they're trying to protect the most innocent and helpless amongst us, children.

But at the same time, if no laws are being broken, and if he's not threatened or attempted to break any criminal laws, under what authority are they posting his details online and asking for people to contact them everywhere he's seen?

And a TRO keeping him away from everyone in an entire state under the age of 18?

Under the same authority that they will one day post the photos and info of porn webmasters. Because you MIGHT take photos of someones 18 year old daughter, and thet MIGHT upset their christen parents.

[annomoterrace]

Originally Posted by GatorB

So after the bank robber served his time and you walk into your bank and then he walks in you are not the least bit nervous?

How about a murder? What if you found out you neighbor served time in prison for murder and was paroled. They don't have to be monitored or have their name on any registry. Child rape is bad but murder is worse.
Or are you suggesting murderers can be reformed.

Again, I haven't thought at all about this so it is off the top of my head. The murderer and the bank robber most likely acted in a particular situation. They just acted OUT and might never do it again. It is NOT like they were psychologically compelled to do the crime. They just did it.

The person who raped a child has a psychological attraction and compulsion to have sex with kids. They will never NOT have this desire to have sex with kids. The robber and the murderer might never repeat their crimes and they might never want to. The child rapist will always desire sex with children.
See, it isn't that hard to grasp the difference!

[pornguy]

One of the major problems that the US has, is that the laws are defined the wrong way about sex crimes. A woman arrested in public for showing her tits is charged as a sex crime, and usually listed as a sexual offender. Not all states mind you, but most. So should we put a bullet in her head when she does it a second time?

What about the bank robber. He most likely wont rob a bank again, but you can bet your ass he wont be working a 9 to 5 to make a living. His arrest history will prevent that, and he will have no other choice than to steal something to make a better living then cleaning the streets.

[annomoterrace]

OK, I just thought of a way to distinguish this shit.

How many of you have thought about pulling off a heist or fantasized about knocking someone off????

NOW, how many of you have thought about raping a child? What about fantasizing about having any sort of sexual contact with a child?


Seems to me that most might have some sort of fantasy about a huge heist or knocking off the biggest a-hole you know, but nobody would be fantasizing about raping a child or having sexual contact with a child.

If you are fantasizing about sex with a kid, then YOU ARE FUCKED! YOU FUCKING FUCK!

[Big_Red]

it would seem very difficult to keep that kind of distance from minors at all times. looks like the judge wants to make sure he goes to jail by making it impossible for him to adhere to the order. that being said, the fucker should be in prison, locked up and the key thrown away.

[Humpy Leftnut]

Wow, that's absurd. He should probably sue the police.

Don't take this the wrong way, but turning a blind eye to the reality that many men are sexually possessed by young children is obscene. It's a reality, and about time we deal with it.

I was in a mental hospital once as a juvenile. There was a kid there with me, and nobody really understood why he was there.. After a few weeks I guess he built up enough strength to tell us (his friends) and he said he couldn't stop thinking about having sex with young children. He was maybe 17.

Some of the kids couldn't accept it, but I felt like I should support him. He hadn't touched anyone, and was in a hospital to get help for his problem. What more could he do? He didn't want the thoughts, but they were there nonetheless. He wanted to kill himself before he touched a kid :/

It's easy to see these people as monsters, and honestly I'm 100% for capital punishment, 100% for abortion, etc etc.. But at the same time, pointing our fingers and banishing these people as outcasts isn't helping the problem.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

restraining orders have nothing to do with a crime being committed ... all they had to do was demonstrate to the judge that he posed a danger to their children and any other children around him. the guy openly admits to being sexually attracted to children and he spends a huge amount of time stalking children.

i think anyone that doesn't spend their days cowering in fear of "the man" would agree that he is a risk. believing that he would devote so much time to obsessing on "Little girls" as he puts it, that he is sexually attracted to and believing that he is not at serious risk of acting on his urges would be silly in my opinion. apparently the judge agreed.

This is a man that has a sexual desire to have sex with under age girls.

If I caught him withing thirty feet of my daughter I'd rip his heart of his chest with my bare hands.

[Profits of Doom]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This is a man that has a sexual desire to have sex with under age girls.

If I caught him withing thirty feet of my daughter I'd rip his heart of his chest with my bare hands.

That is where they might have something with the restraining order. They can argue they are doing it for his own protection, as angry parents will be tempted to attack him on site. If I caught him anywhere near my 3 nieces I would fucking kill him without even considering the consequences...

[ThunderBalls]

Originally Posted by annomoterrace

Again, I haven't thought at all about this so it is off the top of my head. The murderer and the bank robber most likely acted in a particular situation. They just acted OUT and might never do it again. It is NOT like they were psychologically compelled to do the crime. They just did it.

This is the first time you've ever thought about this? I'm psychologically compelled to put a 'kick me' sign on your back.

[collegeboobies]

Originally Posted by annomoterrace

Maybe it is like someone who says he is a racist and he posts all about how he wants to kill black people.

Police might warn the black community that there is a guy out there that says he is a racist and he posts how he would love to kill some black people.

What about some looney who posts about killing the president of the us? The secret service and the government will arrest the mother fucker even though he hasn't DONE anything (physically). I guess he posted about killing the president so that is something physical. Well, all I know is . . .


WHO CARES?

TRY FINDING A REAL PROBLEM IN THIS WORLD YOU PATHETIC POS!

The difference is this guy has said he wont break the law. IF IT WERE LEGAL he says. He said if it were illegal to do what he does online with his sites.... he wouldnt do it.

[gandalfuy]

Originally Posted by tenderobject

scary yes........ but but... pedo's are pedos...

[annomoterrace]

Originally Posted by collegeboobies

The difference is this guy has said he wont break the law. IF IT WERE LEGAL he says. He said if it were illegal to do what he does online with his sites.... he wouldnt do it.

So, how would you feel about a guy living next door to you who constantly told you he wants to have sex with kids?

He claims he hasn't had sex with a kid, but he spends all his time talking about how he would like to have sex with kids. Would you want to know about this? Would you want him to be legally restrained from hanging around kids? Your kids? Your friends kids?

Maybe you think he is harmless because he has never been caught?

[annomoterrace]

Originally Posted by Big_Red

it would seem very difficult to keep that kind of distance from minors at all times. looks like the judge wants to make sure he goes to jail by making it impossible for him to adhere to the order.

Either that or maybe the Judge believes that it will help provide an incentive for the guy who dreams about fucking kids to just stay away from kids.

[aico]

if he admits to being a pedo, the necessary actions should be taken.

he's not innocent anymore, he admitted to it.

[cashbot]

BOY ALLEY SUPPORTS THE PEDES

[Kevsh]

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

i think its perfectly reasonable to do what they did. They PROVED that he was a risk before a judge.. women get restrainging orders against men all the time that have not been charged with a crime and did nothing wrong. If they had not gone before a judge i might agree with you, but fact is they did everything legally. i totally understand where your coming from though. we shouldn't just blindly brand people as criminals if they aren't . He has shown he is a threat to the community

Exactly.
There is a difference between being arrested and being issued a restraining order and clearly this guy qualifies because of his behaviour.

Whether or not he's *known* to have committed a crime or not is irrelevant. A restraining order like his is to help prevent one from occurring.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by annomoterrace

The murderer most likely acted in a particular situation.

Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer, Speck and hundreds of other serial killers past and presently in jail and currently roaming the street agree with you.

[Libertine]

Absolutely appalling.

The man has committed no crime, yet this ruling effectively makes it impossible for him to lead a normal life. It is pretty much impossible for him to even leave his house during the daytime if he is to follow this restraining order.

Sure, there is something very wrong with this guy. No doubt about it. However, he has committed no crimes, and has explicitly stated that he has no intention to commit any crimes. Yet he has been placed under house arrest - because, let's face it, that's what this is.

Let's compare it to a very ugly straight guy. A straight guy so ugly that he's never gotten laid in his entire life. The only way for that straight guy to have sex with somebody might be rape. Should that guy be prevented from coming near women because he might rape them?

It's exactly the same with this guy. He's a pedophile, yes. That does not necessarily make him a (child) rapist.

I am rather surprised that so few people are opposed to the government taking away essential liberties from people who have committed no crimes. After all, if the government is given the right to do that to anyone, it has the right to do it to everyone. Where does it end? Suspected terrorists? People with rape fantasies? People writing abnormally violent fiction?

The idea that one is innocent until proven guilty (of a crime, not a fantasy) really isn't that bad. Nor is the idea that the government should be prevented from punishing the innocent.

(on a separate note: the guy should have been sent to a mental institution)

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Libertine

Absolutely appalling.

The man has committed no crime, yet this ruling effectively makes it impossible for him to lead a normal life. It is pretty much impossible for him to even leave his house during the daytime if he is to follow this restraining order.

Sure, there is something very wrong with this guy. No doubt about it. However, he has committed no crimes, and has explicitly stated that he has no intention to commit any crimes. Yet he has been placed under house arrest - because, let's face it, that's what this is.

Let's compare it to a very ugly straight guy. A straight guy so ugly that he's never gotten laid in his entire life. The only way for that straight guy to have sex with somebody might be rape. Should that guy be prevented from coming near women because he might rape them?

It's exactly the same with this guy. He's a pedophile, yes. That does not necessarily make him a (child) rapist.

I am rather surprised that so few people are opposed to the government taking away essential liberties from people who have committed no crimes. After all, if the government is given the right to do that to anyone, it has the right to do it to everyone. Where does it end? Suspected terrorists? People with rape fantasies? People writing abnormally violent fiction?

The idea that one is innocent until proven guilty (of a crime, not a fantasy) really isn't that bad. Nor is the idea that the government should be prevented from punishing the innocent.

(on a separate note: the guy should have been sent to a mental institution)

I'd be in favor of having him put in a mental institution, but I must say certain parts of your post leads me to wonder if you even read the cnn article at all. Did you?

I'll highlight a few of his own comments for you and then you can come back and tell me that society has no cause to put some restraint on this guy.....

For years, McClellan maintained a Web site in Washington where he posted photos of children he had taken in public places. He also discussed how he liked to stake out parks, public libraries, fast-food restaurants and other areas where little girls, or "LGs," congregate.

"Most libraries have frequent programs and events for children, and sometimes you can get quite close to LGs there," he said in one posting.

McClellan said his intentions are misunderstood and insisted he would never molest a child.

"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."

Yes, let's all uphold this fuckers "rights".

Like I said earlier, if he wanted to be treated like anyone else and have his rights and freedoms maintained maybe he should have blogged about something other than little girls, maybe he shouldn't have basically stalked people's kids and took pictures of them and put them on the wab talking about how much he is attracted to them.

Just a thought.

Sorry, his current predicament is a product of his own making. He is a risk, period. What, parents are just supposed to take him at his word that he won't offend?

Some fantasies really are best kept to oneself. I haven't the least bit of sympathy for this slimeball. He can count himself lucky that at least he is free to move, and move to a different country if need be. If he were a convicted criminal on parole there would be far more restrictive measures in place for him I'm sure.

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I'd be in favor of having him put in a mental institution, but I must say certain parts of your post leads me to wonder if you even read the cnn article at all. Did you?

I'll highlight a few of his own comments for you and then you can come back and tell me that society has no cause to put some restraint on this guy.....

Yes, let's all uphold this fuckers "rights".

Like I said earlier, if he wanted to be treated like anyone else and have his rights and freedoms maintained maybe he should have blogged about something other than little girls, maybe he shouldn't have basically stalked people's kids and took pictures of them and put them on the wab talking about how much he is attracted to them.

Just a thought.

Sorry, his current predicament is a product of his own making. He is a risk, period. What, parents are just supposed to take him at his word that he won't offend?

Some fantasies really are best kept to oneself. I haven't the least bit of sympathy for this slimeball. He can count himself lucky that at least he is free to move, and move to a different country if need be. If he were a convicted criminal on parole there would be far more restrictive measures in place for him I'm sure.

I did read the whole article, which is exactly the reason why I oppose this restraining order.

Of course, parents shouldn't take his word for it - they should keep their children away from strangers, and they should tell anyone taking pictures of their children to fuck off.

But precisely because this guy is so open about it, he's not much of a threat. He doesn't hide his desires, and he knows he's being watched, so he knows that the moment he does something - anything - he's going to get caught.

This guy would be much more dangerous if he didn't speak about it, or if he moved to a place where people didn't know him, because then he would probably get the chance to get in contact with children.

And not only does this restraining order have the potential to force this guy into (dangerous) hiding, it might also prevent other pedophiles from seeking psychiatric help. Making it clear to pedophiles that if their desires are outed, they're going to be cast out by society as a whole will drive them into hiding, making it harder to track them and protect children from them.

In my opinion, the government should encourage pedophiles to get psychiatric help, and track them at the same time - all without instilling in them the knowledge that being exposed would ruin their lives.

After all, what would you rather have, a pedophile who's under psychiatric treatment and is being watched by law enforcement, or one who's hiding his true nature, is not being treated and might very well get a job that involves dealing with children on a daily basis?

[Robbie]

I'd rather have this one asshole treated in the manner that people did in the past. A solid ass whipping/killing. Done.
But to give our govt. even MORE of our freedoms and rights? I don't trust those motherfuckers any more than I trust the piece of shit pedo.
I'm for taking care of things WITHOUT big brothers' help. People have been pedos' for millenium...sometimes it was accepted, in the last 40 or 50 years it has become a big "no, no".
But I still feel real uneasy about giving the govt. even more power over us. Those fucks already run our lives like puppet masters.
If the guy lived next door to me....I would watch him like a hawk. And then I'd move.
Unfortunately since he is now famous..my property rates would be destroyed so I'd take a beating because no one would buy my house with him living next door.
The whole thing is complicated I guess. But the one thing I am sure about is the govt. doesn't need ANY more power. And they will use this moron like a pawn to set precedents to new laws that may eventually affect people's rights in other areas. Just look at what they've already done in the name of fighting terrorism. I don't trust the pedo. And I trust the govt. even less.

[4Pics]

guess the fucker won't be going to Disneyland anytime soon!

[XXXzidane]

as the saying goes
when they came for this group, I said nothing
when they came for that group, I said nothing
When they came for me. there was noone left to speak for me.

If we take away his rights, then what is to stop us from taking away the rights of others. He needs psychiatric help, or another form of help that will help him get rid of the problem. Violating his rights makes it easier for it to be repeated for some other person. Also Punishing him for telling that will stigmatize treatment and drive people like him further underground which could result in more damage to children.

[CDSmith]

Originally Posted by Libertine

But precisely because this guy is so open about it, he's not much of a threat.

Sorry but I flat-out disagree with you. Plenty of seemingly "okay guys" have later lost their control and raped, killed, abducted, abused etc. This guy hasn't hidden the fact that he thinks about very young girls in a sexual way.

He is a time bomb waiting to go off no matter what the fuck he says.


Normally I'm one to stand up for someone's civil rights too, but in this particular case I have zero sympathy for him. Hard to figure out why anyone would when he basically brought it on himself.