"Tuscumbria" Makes National News?

The Wartburg Watch is an online news magazine dedicated to following what it calls Christian trends. An article published today deals with sex offenders in prison re-entry programs and offers a thought provoking read on the subject. Specifically, the author, identified as "Dee," mentions Chester McKinney's outreach within the Tuscumbria police jurisdiction. In case you're wondering, the spelling is courtesy of Dee.

Here's the link: Difficulties with Re-Entry Programs

We've learned some interesting things from the article, including the fact that the SRP overseeing McKinney's project bans sex offenders. Now that's an amazing tidbit. Doc Larry and our Johnny Mack should be chomping at the bit to quash this program and have a serious talk with the DOC should the Four-Way Motel project ever rear its pallet shaped head again.

*****

Do we agree with the entire article? No. 

Dee states that watching child pornography is as serious as actually sexually molesting a child since it encourages children to be raped to produce more porn. That's certainly partially true, but not in every case.

Imagine that you're leaving a Walmart restroom just as police arrive to announce that Pete Wesson (who always claimed that he really only wanted to watch adult porn) had planted cameras in the stalls. Yes, you had been filmed while in the midst of a bodily function. Are you as mad as Peter Finch? Sure. Were you physically hurt by this? No. Were you traumatized for life by this? We're going to guess not.

So, no, not all child porn hurts the subject who may not ever be aware that he or she was videoed while urinating, bathing, or even simply changing clothes in a store dressing room. Is it wrong? Definitely. Are the men who engage in watching this sick? Most definitely. If police receive a call of a deviant filming children in a restroom at the same time they're notified of a child being attacked, which call should they answer first?

*****

Now some comments about phone policy, or at least events, at the Colbert County Sheriff's office. Dee says she spoke with "a woman" there who refused to give her name. Did Dee ask the woman's title? An experienced writer would have. 

Dee did ask the woman's name, and the woman refused to provide it. Most public offices, especially in law enforcement or other areas which regularly encounter those who may be just slightly ticked off, not to mention mentally unhinged, have a policy of not giving out last names. In this way, Jack the Ripper won't be visiting Annie Mae's home that night to teach her a thing or two about arresting his innocent stepson who didn't manage to kill anyone even though he was certainly giving it the old college try when he fired that shotgun through a glass door.  Nevertheless, the woman who answered the phone should have given her first name. 

We don't know if this person made up her own policy or if her superiors had instructed her to refuse to identify herself. Let's hope each Colbert County Department takes this under review.

Next, the woman gave an official statement to a national publication. Was she speaking for the sheriff's department? Was she speaking for the Colbert County Commission that oversees the sheriff's department? Speaking of the commission, it needs to come up with some written guidelines concerning public statements. Either that or Colbert County and Tuscumbria will continue to look just a little foolish.