Friday, October 05, 2007

Former KHOG Met Guilty in Picture Taking Incident

Source: The Morning News A former television weatherman accused of harassing an 11-year-old girl by taking surreptitious pictures of her was found guilty in a bench trial Tuesday in Fort Smith District Court.

Justin Povick, 25, was charged with the Class A misdemeanor in connection with a June 12 incident at Creekmore Park, where the girl was swimming.

Povick has not been employed by KHOG since shortly after the incident was reported.

District Judge David P. Saxon withheld sentence.

The offense is punishable by up to a year in county jail and/or a maximum $1,000 fine. The state recommended a one-year suspended sentence and counseling by Larry Gant, a local counselor highly regarded in the legal community.

If the defense chooses to appeal, Saxon indicated he would set an appeal bond and the case would be forwarded to Sebastian County Circuit Court.

65 Comments:

At 2:34 AM, October 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hopefully, they'll throw the book at him. The station was smart to "wash their hands of him" as soon as this happened.

 
At 6:22 AM, October 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I just want to say Justin needs Psychartic help.Because no normal person would be talking pictures of minors like that.

 
At 8:33 AM, October 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is the deal with lower legs and feet?

 
At 9:57 AM, October 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This goes to show that sexual predators come in all shapes and sizes(from U.S. Senators to television weather personnel). Parents have to be on guard and responsible for the welfare and protection of their children.
I hope Justin gets the professional and spiritual helps he needs.

 
At 12:56 PM, October 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

ESPECIALLY tv weather people. Pervs.

 
At 1:22 PM, October 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i hope he gets help, he needs it.

 
At 12:45 AM, October 06, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

WINTER STORM!!!!!!!!!

 
At 2:13 PM, October 06, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's the deal? Supposedly all his pics were of lower legs and feet...
??

 
At 7:24 PM, October 06, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn' matter what the "deal" is. No one should be taking photos of children he does not know, without the persmission of the parent--legs, feet, ear lobes, whatever---you just don't do it, especially not at a public swimming pool. There is no reasonable, acceptable explanation. This man is a pedophile, and the only fortunate thing about this situation is that he was discovered while only taking photos of children instead of touching them.

 
At 11:25 PM, October 06, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i didn't mean it was "ok" to be taking pictures of lower legs and feet of kids..i agree with you. Just found it bizarre--pictures of feet?

 
At 11:56 PM, October 06, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A foot fetish, maybe?

 
At 10:19 AM, October 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You people are supposed to be employed by media and in the business and don't know that anyone can make photos of anyone in a public place? It's called no reasonable expectation of privacy.

 
At 11:57 AM, October 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah--we use that all time! Photogs can shoot from the street, the median, the curb...anything that isn't considered private property.
hmmm...the pool where he was taking pictures was public property...but he was taking them secretly. I guess it would fall under the same guidelines we use when taking pictures of children at a public school. We are supposed to have a release signed because they are minors.
I wouldn't want him taking pictures of my daughter, even if it were just her feet.

 
At 12:26 PM, October 07, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's right, but he was not, repeat not broadcasting them or publishing them so no release was needed as would be in your case. All he needed was a good lawyer.

Don't get me wrong, I know what accused of doing was shady but when it comes to the law, he was perfectly within his or anyone else's rights. Had it been a private pool, private residence, country club, etc. it would be different.

 
At 12:00 AM, October 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This whole story was just creepy I hope its done. I agree you just don't know who is a ped these days, its the people who you probably wouldn't suspect either. I can't watch the news the same either just makes you think especially ch 40.

 
At 12:19 AM, October 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The poster at 11:57 brings up a good point about schools requiring a signed release from the parents before their children's faces can be photographed for the news, etc. But even at my child's daycare, you are not allowed to take photos of OTHER people's children without their consent. And there's no broadcasting involved there at all. There is, however, the idea of creeps like this guy posting pics on the internet on child porn sites. Now what? It's not "broadcasting," as 12:26 points out, but it's sure putting the photos out there for other creeps to view. And as for needing a good lawyer...if I caught a guy like that taking photos of my child, the only one who'd need a good lawyer is me...for assault charges.

 
At 12:55 AM, October 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

. . . and, if it were in a public place, you WOULD need a good lawyer to defend you because no charges could be filed agains him. A PUBLIC place. That's the key word here.

 
At 6:57 PM, October 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Public place or not...if I see someone taking photos of my child and I tell that person to stop, and he refuses or tells me it's his "right" to take photos of my child...believe me, there is going to be a major problem. The above poster is evidently not a parent. You'd drop this "public place" argument if you were.

 
At 10:08 PM, October 08, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't take pics INSIDE a public facility without permission, it would have been different if he was on the curb or on the street.

Don't believe me? Next time there's a trial by jury show up in court-on public property-and snap away and see what happens.

 
At 1:44 AM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is so easy being a tv weatherman. I mean you could make snow predictions for January and be wrong and no one will care. If you are right you will be talking about how right you were and you made the prediction back in October. Yet it takes no brains or skill to make this prediction. Its pretty ridiculous really.

 
At 7:49 AM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I can see that you have not been in the news business very long. Have you never seen photographers working in a court room? Yes, some proceedings don't allow photos but to say that a court room is a public area is a far cry from a park, or on a sidewalk or street. A little more experience is what you need, both in gathering news and the law as it applies to what you can and cannot do.

 
At 7:51 AM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Public place or not...if I see someone taking photos of my child and I tell that person to stop, and he refuses or tells me it's his "right" to take photos of my child...believe me, there is going to be a major problem. The above poster is evidently not a parent. You'd drop this "public place" argument if you were."

And you would do what?

 
At 8:27 AM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is so easy being a tv weatherman. I mean you could make snow predictions for January and be wrong and no one will care. If you are right you will be talking about how right you were and you made the prediction back in October. Yet it takes no brains or skill to make this prediction. Its pretty ridiculous really."

All of the forecasts come from the weather bureau. The local guys and gals just change it a little in order to have a weather segment in the newscast so more commercial time can be sold. Sales rules!

 
At 11:46 AM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"All of the forecasts come from the weather bureau. "

The forecast from KFSM comes from the Tulsa N.W.S...just ask them last winter when they followed the N.W.S and forecasted a major winter storm...whoops! Nice try guys...

 
At 11:53 AM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think any weatherperson is stupid enough to rip off the tulsa weather bureau, especially after they blew the major tornado in '96.

Sounds more like petty competitors trying to puff themselves up.

 
At 12:13 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Sounds more like petty competitors trying to puff themselves up."

Sounds like a KFSM homer who holds a mississippi state certificate

 
At 12:19 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Huh?

 
At 12:36 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

who is the reporter with the dancing eyebrows and weird upper lip? i've never seen him before

 
At 1:16 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That would be Russell Jones

 
At 3:05 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am friends with a KFSM reporter and she says that guy is scary weird.

 
At 5:36 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Taking pictures from public property and taking pictures of kids at the pool are two seperate issues.

It's not about privacy versus public view. It's about the sexual exploitation of children. Taking pictures of an underaged girl changing her shirt, even if she was near an open window and you took the picture from your property, is illegal because that would be considered sexual exploitation of a minor. You're not invading her privacy (because it's public view... she's in a place that can be clearly seen by the public) but it's still illegal because she's under 18.

I'm pretty surprised that so many so-called "informed" posters here don't know this... especially those seeming to be photogs. Guess you shouldn't have skipped ethics class.

 
At 8:51 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

russell jones?
indiana jones?

 
At 9:37 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

did he take pictures of a girl changing her shirt? I thought he took pictures of feet.

 
At 10:27 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The hateful personal attacks on this blog make you realize how shallow & jealous TV 'talent' is to other TV 'talent'.

 
At 11:27 PM, October 09, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is getting dreary..if you're talking about a child changing her shirt in a bedroom near an open window, I think you do have some expectation of privacy in your own bedroom. But be that as it may...we are talking about MINOR children here. Whether this nutball was taking photos of feet or anything else, at a pool or in a house, or anywhere for that matter...it's still sexual exploitation of a minor. He was doing something weird, and it involved a minor child.

 
At 8:25 AM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm pretty surprised that so many so-called "informed" posters here don't know this... especially those seeming to be photogs. Guess you shouldn't have skipped ethics class."

Ethics are not laws. Something can be unethical but legal. I am surprised that you haven't researched this in the law library. If it's in public view, you may photo it. Case closed.

 
At 2:21 PM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

8:25 AM, October 10, 2007:Ethics are not laws. Something can be unethical but legal. I am surprised that you haven't researched this in the law library. If it's in public view, you may photo it. Case closed.

No, you cannot take pictures of minors in a sexually charged fashion. Even if they are in public, and everyone can see them. It's against the law... something you would have learned in an ethics class, where they discuss what's legal, what's illegal, and what's legal but unethical.

Once again: this case wasn't an issue of privacy. It has nothing to do with where Povic was when he shot the video. It's an issue in the percieved sexual abuse of a minor, through covertly shooting video of them in a sexual or inappropriate manner. At least that's what the judge believes.

God I hope you're not a photog anywhere. Your station is set to get the crap sued out of them.

 
At 3:45 PM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are you friends with? Let me guess if its who I think it is she isn't all that.

 
At 5:03 PM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"something you would have learned in an ethics class, where they discuss what's legal, what's illegal, and what's legal but unethical."

How many photogs in this market actually have a college degree...yeah, there's the problem!

 
At 10:44 PM, October 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish 40/29 would have added more blue to their set.

 
At 7:48 AM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

percieved

That's the word. I could not have said it better. You just made my case. Also, the judge has no say so if it's a jury trial. The accused gets his/her choice you know. Or do you.

How much time do you have in a courtroom, other than watching?

 
At 9:11 AM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can a misdemeanor offense be heard in circuit court. Oh, wait, that's pretty close to Oklahoma isn't it.

 
At 11:55 AM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alot of people have a foot fetish. I for one do and think that Ashley Ketz and Ashley Beck have the cutest feet. I've seen upclose pictures of them on my friend's cell phone who works at Channel 5 and takes candid pictures of their feet.

 
At 3:55 PM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

some of you people are just wrong. i can't help but laugh at some of this bs though. did you take those pics at the electric cowboy or central mall? you guys are just crazy, i'd love to know what kfsm reporters are posting on here i know for almost a fact there is one she knows who she is.

 
At 4:48 PM, October 11, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It isnt just a former KNWA/current KFSM reporter on here. Most everyone at KFSM is involved here in some way or other. The amount of gossip and rumors that goes on there and comes out of there is simply amazing.

 
At 4:10 PM, October 13, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The foot pictures of Ketz and Beck have been passed around quite a bit. I've seen them myself. I'm not into that sort of thing but there are more people that are than you might think. The ones that are did say that they both have very sexy feet.

 
At 8:48 PM, October 13, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Povick? Is that you?

 
At 2:25 AM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

enough, enough this isn't even funny.

 
At 2:32 AM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to know who from "The Nickel" is posting here? I have my suspicions don't you guys? I think she is a good reporter in all seriousness if its who I think it is. I really don't want to say a the name on here.

 
At 8:23 AM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you must be confused. I was following you UNTIL you said "I think she is a good reporter". Anyone who watches "The Nickel" knows there are no good reporters there.

 
At 1:29 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The girls over at 5 like to frequent the Cowboy. And they do go by the motto "Save a horse, ride a cowboy".

 
At 1:51 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The ones that are did say that they both have very sexy feet."

Can you see any toejam?

 
At 1:52 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These 5 news girls sound fun any of them on Myspace?

 
At 1:53 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard the stories about a girl the name starts with "A" at the electric cowboy.

 
At 1:59 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok I suppose you're right, there aren't really "good" reporters on there. I just think the one I think is posting here is the best of what they got which isn't saying much I guess. This Electric Cowboy seems like a jumpin' joint I heard about it many times so plenty of the hotties go there? Thanks for the tip.

 
At 3:17 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are NO "good" reporters, anchors, or weather talent at 40/29, 5, or 24/51.

Don't be so smug, you suck too.

 
At 4:28 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Met some gals over there at that Cowboy place, Ashley and Sara were their names.

 
At 7:31 PM, October 14, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ashley and Sara still hang out? Even after Ashley stole Sara's man? If they tend to run together, it seems like a case of forgive and forget.

 
At 8:31 AM, October 15, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That guy has cheated on everyone he has ever been with. He can't help it.

 
At 12:37 PM, October 15, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even after Ashley stole Sara's man?

That sentence doesn't seem right.

 
At 2:49 PM, October 15, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who cares what 5 news chick is at the Electric Cowpie, who are they anyway?

 
At 3:43 PM, October 15, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

just because people are on tv, they are not celebrities. they are just people.

 
At 2:22 PM, October 18, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That guy must be stupid, leave that for that?

 
At 7:45 PM, October 20, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Meredith Mitchell is the hottest babe on THV. All of the other women on there look either old or ugly. The only one on there that is even somewhat pretty (other than Meredith) is Melissa Dunbar.

 
At 12:34 AM, October 22, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We are so lucky to have such hotties telling the news to us each day thank you god!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home