Local News

Man faces 200 child exploitation charges

Posted October 28, 2008

Map Marker  Find News Near Me

— A Durham man was charged Tuesday with 200 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, police said.

Bruce Edward Eckard, 63, of Wildwood Drive, faces 100 counts each of second-degree and third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. He was being held in Durham County Jail under a $1 million bond.

Investigators served a search warrant at Eckard’s home last month after receiving a tip, and they confiscated computer equipment and computer hard drives, police said.

15 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Scrofula Oct 29, 2008

    "are you saying that you think it it ok to possess pornographic material of children? "

    No, I'm saying that a picture that purports to be a child, but isn't in actuality a child, isn't illegal. Under this statute, even a cartoon would be sufficient grounds to charge someone, and that's taking it too far.

    "Despite the true age of the subjects in the material, if someone is under the assumption that the subjects are indeed children and that is what is motivating their possession of such material, is that not a crime?"

    No, it isn't. We don't criminalize thought in this country. We criminalize action. Consider: I've thought about choking my neighbor to death when he jams his stereo at 4am. I haven't actually done it. Should I be charged with a crime for thinking about it?

  • Scrofula Oct 29, 2008

    "So you're sympathizing? Where did this man work? Did he have contact with children at work or in his community? Possessing child porn is OK with you? Sick!"

    No, I'm saying that the charges are misleading and people are jumping to an inaccurate conclusion.

    Judging from the charges, he had no sexual contact with children anywhere. If he had done so, the charges would be different.

    And I didn't say that possessing child porn is ok. I did say, however, that for it to be criminal, it actually should be of a child. If it isn't, you are proposing to charge someone with essentially having dirty thoughts, and that's a slippery slope.

    Compare it to a law that hypothetically says that thinking about bon dage is illegal. Nobody's done it, they just thought about it. Shoudl that person be sent to jail for doing nothing?

  • Eduardo1 Oct 29, 2008

    As a grandmother of 7, I am disturbed by this action of this person. But I do not think he should be imprisoned, I think he should be in a mental health facility. I feel that he is a sick person, who gets off at looking but not touching. But husband of
    over 40 years, loves to give 2nd & 3rd looks at the scantly clad woman on the beach and is fixed on the same almost undress woman on "Deal or No Deal", He gets thye swim issue of Sports Ilustrated, He has been getting Playboy for at least 25 years, which I bought him his first 12 month subscription. With all that I have said, I would hate to think that anyone feels that he is a threat to woman. I am happy to see that he still appreciates what we used to refer to as "A turn of a pretty ankle" I am also happy to say, after all of these years, he does not even need a little blue pill

  • kopfjaeger2001 Oct 29, 2008

    Instead of facing life in prison, he should face the gallows.

  • VT1994Hokie Oct 29, 2008

    I agree with kathy8791. She brought out some interesting information. Yes. I think that he is a sicko too.

  • kathy8791 Oct 29, 2008

    This is another one of those incidents where the title of the charge is misleading.

    Second and third degree sexual exploitation of a minor, in NC, is basically possession of child pornography. The absence of any other charges suggests that he doesn't have any direct victims, RB.

    These laws are a tad flawed for two reasons: They enable charging a person twice for the same activity (receiving it is a crime - 2nd degree, and possessing it is a crime - 3rd degree.) They allow for the criminalization of material that doesn't actually show minors. It's enough under NC law to be charged if the material claims to show a minor.

    In essence, they're criminalizing thought. If I sent you a picture of a 20 year old, and labeled it as being a minor, we'd both be going to jail.

    danriverboy
    October 29, 2008 8:49 a.m.

    ***

    So you're sympathizing?
    Where did this man work? Did he have contact with children at work or in his community?
    Possessing child porn is OK with you?
    Sick!

  • mrtwinturbo Oct 29, 2008

    what a sicko!!!

  • heather76 Oct 29, 2008

    I completely agree with you FOI. The fact that a person would want the material because it was supposed to be a minor is criminal. Meaning that this person gets turned on by the "thought" of a child. It's really no different than having an adult dress as a baby or small child for sexual gratification.

  • FullOfId Oct 29, 2008

    danriverboy - are you saying that you think it it ok to possess pornographic material of children? Despite the true age of the subjects in the material, if someone is under the assumption that the subjects are indeed children and that is what is motivating their possession of such material, is that not a crime?
    I agree that possession of pornographic material is quite different than someone having direct physical contact with a child...but should we not protect children from being the subjects in pornographic material?

  • Scrofula Oct 29, 2008

    This is another one of those incidents where the title of the charge is misleading.

    Second and third degree sexual exploitation of a minor, in NC, is basically possession of child pornography. The absence of any other charges suggests that he doesn't have any direct victims, RB.

    These laws are a tad flawed for two reasons: They enable charging a person twice for the same activity (receiving it is a crime - 2nd degree, and possessing it is a crime - 3rd degree.) They allow for the criminalization of material that doesn't actually show minors. It's enough under NC law to be charged if the material claims to show a minor.

    In essence, they're criminalizing thought. If I sent you a picture of a 20 year old, and labeled it as being a minor, we'd both be going to jail.

More...