Los Angeles Times Unhinged on Pedophile & Civil Rights

Jack McClellan, a self described pedophile, made himself internationally known when he openly posted information on the Internet about Southern California locations where children congregate. He thereby facilitated pedophiles who might wish to exploit children from the areas he identified.

Two Southern California attorneys were more successful than they anticipated when they prevailed in obtaining a restraining order against the actions of McClellan. The judge granted far greater restrictions to McClellan’s freedoms than requested by the attorneys. Everyone is happy about the court ruling except McClellan, probably his fellow pedophiles, and the Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times. In a nut shell, the LA Times Editorial Board, in their piece “What to do with the innocent pedophile?,” feels that the court restrictions on McClellan are unreasonable.

We want to thwart him, but not in ways that that endanger our civil liberties.

The LA Times does not want to “…endanger our civil liberties?” Who is the “our” in “our civil liberties?” The only person who has his civil liberties restricted is McClellan, and those liberties were only restricted upon judicial review of the facts. Whether or not the judicial conclusions were correct or incorrect under the existing law is entirely of another matter to be addressed in a possible future judicial setting.

What the LA Times suggests as a remedy, instead of the current restraining order remedy, is as follows,

…we propose that the means be found within our existing systems.

Here’s a flash for the LA Times, a restraining order is “within our existing systems,” and it is actionable by the police.

The LA Times continues,

If parents are frightened of McClellan, then put up posters identifying him. If police sense a threat from him, then shadow him. If he jaywalks, arrest him.

What the hell does putting up posters do? So if a citizen recognizes McClellan when loitering around children, the citizen can then call the police. OK. Then when the police arrive and find McClellan not breaking any laws, the police do what?

In other words, the LA Times wants to do the following: Shift the burden to parents statewide; and task the police to watch McClellan twenty-four hours a day and selectively target him for prosecution for every conceivable offense no matter how minor. Lord Almighty, I can just hear the howls of protest from the LA Times and the ACLU if this were the common practice of law enforcement. Then some attorney like Steven Yagman would sue law enforcement for violation of civil rights. Standing right behind Yagman would be the applauding LA Times and the ACLU.

To do a proper “shadow him” operation would take a minimum of 6-8 trained surveillance detectives with access, hopefully, to helicopter or airplane assistance. That means up to 24 ground and 6 aeronautical personnel per day, seven days a week. That could be accomplished, if budgets were unlimited.

And, let’s say that during the surveillance that an undercover surveillance officer saw McClellan “jaywalk.” If law enforcement were to follow the LA Times model of pedophile management, McClellan must be contacted and dealt with. Let’s see how does that happen and the consequences.

First off, jaywalking is an infraction. And, while it is a technical arrest, which is what the LA Times recommends, it is only a traffic ticket. There is no arrest in the general public connotation of the term arrest. So now we have a member of the covert surveillance team witnessing the horrendous criminal violation of jaywalking. The covert officer can make contact with McClellan himself and issue the ticket and thereby reveal the existence of the surveillance. Or, the covert officer can try and contact a uniformed officer somewhere in the vicinity to respond and ticket McClelllan. That is a near impossible task given the pressures of uniformed law enforcement calls for service. And, let’s say that McClellan is issued a ticket. What did that accomplish? Virtually nothing except probably alert him to the existence of the surveillance. Not much of a return for an incredibly expensive surveillance operation.

The LA Times undoubtedly considers itself the champion and protector of the rights of citizens. What do you think? I think that they are a bunch of buffoons.

Click on the title below for the link mentioned in this blog:
What to do with the innocent pedophile?