The editorial page of the LA Times finally admits (kind of) that there are 30,000 illegal alien criminals (who largely prey on law abiding immigrants) in LA County who are - essentially - protected from the police. So do they - finally - directly address that issue in the editorial? Does the LA Times - at last - look the issue square in the eye and take a firm position on the subject? Can anyone on the LAT editorial page ever write a simple declarative sentence?
The answer to all these questions, of course - hell, no.
Instead, for FIVE paragraphs they whine and complain about the very idea that a police officer might ask a criminal suspect if he is in this country illegally. Then in paragraph six they finally - grudgingly - say that they "don't oppose the LAPD's power to go after convicted felons who have illegally re-entered the country."
And again - they do not support this, you understand - they just do not oppose it. The Times is simply incapable of saying that would support anything might make it easier for the police to protect the millions of immigrants in our community that these criminals prey upon.
And then, even, with their 'don't oppose' clause - the LA Times still demands a set of guidelines (such as police officer would have to get a supervisor's permission to even TALK to the suspect) that would make it virtually impossible for any officer in the field to question, much less detain anyone he suspects of being a violent criminal who is in this country illegally.
The truly wonderful irony here is that when it comes to 'protecting' the people of color being killed at King/Drew, the LA Times' editorial page is too afraid to make any recommendations. But when it comes to protecting criminals who prey upon people of color in the central city - then the LA Times is filled with recommendations and demands they are willing to make.
Someday someone will have to explain this all to me.