Man arrested for videotaping cheerleaders

[Wishfire 2]

Bee writer pleads not guilty in porn case

 

Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, March 29, 2008

Story appeared in METRO section, Page B2

 

WOODLAND – Gilbert Chan, a business reporter at The Bee, pleaded not guilty Friday to a felony charge of possession of child pornography.

 

Chan, 52, of Davis was arrested after trying to conceal a camera he was using to videotape a youth cheerleading competition at UC Davis on Feb. 3, police said.

 

Yolo County prosecutors filed a complaint alleging a single felony count of possessing obscene matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under 18.

Click here to find out more!

 

Chan's lawyer, Steven Sabbadini, questioned the charge. "What he did was film fully clothed cheerleaders during a public performance," he said. "The question is whether that fits the definition of child pornography."

 

The charge carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison. It also can be reduced to a misdemeanor.

 

Chan, who was not on duty at the time of the incident, is on administrative leave from The Bee.

 

Source.

 

Hmm... The big question is... why was he hiding the camera?

[TJ Phaserman 2]

i can think of several reasons i can't say on this board, but if he should be charged with stalking and not with child pornography if he has a concealed camera. but i still think it's a but messed up that he would do such a thing.

[Kor37 9]

I'm not quite sure what this guy did that was wrong. He took pics of a cheerleading competition. How is that child pornography?..... :lol:

[TJ Phaserman 2]

well you know how parents are now letting anything become child porn at th first site of a camera pointed at their kid. i mean touching on the shoulder, giving a five or a handshake or even a hug is considered automatic molestation even if the kid was the one that initiated first with the contact. but with this story, it just seems like a simple case of stalking and intent of child molestation.

[Kor37 9]

it just seems like a simple case of stalking and intent of child molestation.

 

I don't see that at all. How do you come to THAT conclusion?... :lol:

[TJ Phaserman 2]

it just seems like a simple case of stalking and intent of child molestation.

 

I don't see that at all. How do you come to THAT conclusion?... :lol:

 

if some pervert had a camera hidden away, possibly has no kid of his own to watch, not to mention he's looking at cheerleaders that are old enough to be my niece or my younger sister. thats how i came to my conclusion because it's common among some people that do these kind of things.

Edited March 31, 2008 by tj_hawk

[VaBeachGuy 12]

You can't really assume intent though, it could easily be more innocent than it may seem.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Two questions:

 

1) Why was he charged with posessing child pornography and not creation of child pornography?

 

2) If this is pornography then shouldn't the cheerleaders be charged with putting on a public sex show?

[ddillard 2]

I can't really see how they could determine his intent. Maybe he knew one of the cheerleaders, maybe he just likes cheer leading, or maybe he is an alumni of the school they represent. There is no real way to determine why he was video taping it.

[Wishfire 2]

Prosecutors said Chan was not arrested at the scene, but after further investigation, including a look at the videotape.

 

Source.

 

Maybe it wasn't what he was videotaping at the cheer competition that he was arrested for, but something else that was already on the tape.

 

Or, maybe, arrest quotas were low, and the police needed anything they could get their hands on.

 

I can't really see how they could determine his intent. Maybe he knew one of the cheerleaders, maybe he just likes cheer leading, or maybe he is an alumni of the school they represent. There is no real way to determine why he was video taping it.

 

If he knew one of the cheerleaders or if was an alumni, then what possible reason would he have to hide the camera?

 

Also, the video itself can reveal intent... if it shows that he tried getting a lot of up-skirt shots or close-up chest shots, well, that shows that's something's not quite right.

[TJ Phaserman 2]

You can't really assume intent though, it could easily be more innocent than it may seem.

 

while that may be true, we won't truly know until more details are given.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

You can't really assume intent though, it could easily be more innocent than it may seem.

 

while that may be true, we won't truly know until more details are given.

That's true and one reason for the legal principle of "Presumed innocent until proven guilty".

[Theunicornhunter 2]

it just seems like a simple case of stalking and intent of child molestation.

 

I don't see that at all. How do you come to THAT conclusion?... :lol:

 

I have to agree with Kor - if what these girls were doing was pornographic - well then they shouldn't have been doing it. And anything done in public is free game as far as photographs go - maybe he wanted to sell the photos, maybe he used a hidden camera because there was a no photographs rule because either the flash disturbed the competition or someone else had a monopoly on selling the photos.

 

I can't reiterate enough - if what the girls were doing on public display qualifies as pornograhy, then parents, schools etc should be up on charges.

 

Maybe there's more to the story and maybe he is a dirty old man - yeah could be. But being a dirty old man isn't against the law - and if it is okay to display it in public - then taking a picture of it shouldn't be a crime. Would I want someone leering over my little girls -absolutely not - but then I would object to them being cheerleaders to begin with.