In mid-June, two El Monte Police Officers were callously murdered by career criminal Justin Flores who was out on probation. Under California law, Flores should have been in a state prison cell the day he murdered these two officers. But, because of the policies of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón, he was given probation.
When he was elected as the Attorney General for Los Angeles County last year, George Gascón issued an order that all criminal offenses convicted by the prior district attorneys were not to be used in sentencing guidelines, essentially changing the initial verdict to “Not guilty.” He ordered that all cases eligible for probation should be given probation. Those were his orders, and he was in charge and the boss of Los Angeles Officers who file between 30 and 50 thousand felonies each year.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office is the largest local agency that handles criminal cases nationwide. It is charged with prosecuting every state felony and almost all misdemeanors within Los Angeles County; with approximately ten million residents, it is the most populous county in the country and more crowded than forty U.S. states. It has 32 branch offices plus the main H.Q. in downtown Los Angles.
Handling an operation of this size requires delegating most of the decisions to the local office and the assistant D.A.s in charge of that office. Under that system, most decisions are made by experienced local prosecutors or their immediate supervisors. Elected County D.A.s are rarely involved because they have other duties, like granting leniency or immunity, structuring their respective bureaus, and implementing policy. They have five bureau directors that manage the individual case settlements of approximately 50,000 cases—an almost impossible job.
Gascón’s new policies required a bureau director’s approval on any non-probationary offers. Five bureau directors were now responsible for making offers on all cases if the deviation was from the “give them probation policy.” This meant probation was the default and given on many troubling cases, including Justin Flores. This was because requiring bureau director approval for any other than probation became very hard to obtain and indicated the director was a non-team player.
In February 2021, Flores – a gang member, was charged with felonies; possession of a firearm, possession of methamphetamine, and illegal possession of ammunition. Under California state law, Flores was ineligible for probation and faced a minimum sentence of 32 months in state prison. Instead, because of Gascón’s policies, he was released on probation.
As a result of probation, in a small El Monte, California motel on June 14, 2022, Justin Flores was beating the hell out of his girlfriend. Someone called the cops, and officers Santana and Paredes responded to the call. In their final act, they rushed to help a person in trouble. For their sacrifice, their families are now left without a father.
San Francisco just recalled a DA with almost the exact same policies as Gascon; maybe San Francisco is more intelligent than L.A. But why is it important to a small town in the heartland of America? Because liberal DA’s like the one in Los Angeles and San Francisco are popping up everywhere and releasing career criminals who are being released all over the United States.
We must not let it happen here in Nevada, where all career criminals belong in jail.
Mike Young has been writing opinion articles for most of his life, having been published in multiple periodicals. He is the author of numerous articles and a book on Public Speaking. A member of President Bush’s task force on infrastructure protection for water and power systems, he is presently on the Board of Trustees for Overton Power District #5 as the Secretary/Treasurer. He currently resides in Mesquite, NV.
6 thoughts on “Vantage Point: Letting Career Criminals Out of Jail is Inexcusable”
Two things: I notice how you cleverly stay away from topics of interest that will give away your position on hot button issues like the abortion ruling by the Supreme Court and the GOP Great Replacement Theory just to dig up some California issue to slam democrats. Very cowardly for a writer.
Here’s one you could have written about: last December, a Tucson police officer shot and killed a 65 year old disabled man in a wheelchair nine times in the back who was suspected of misdemeanor shoplifting. The Republican county attorney Laura Conover refused to charge the officer with anything. The shooting under Arizona statutes qualifies as murder. To this day the officer walks free.
When you write garbage you open up Pandora’s box. So, what’s your take on the abortion ruling and the Great Replacement Theory, Mr. writer?
The Supreme Court did what it is supposed to do, rule on whether an issue is Constitutionally correct. Since the constitution states that things that are not given to the Federal Government belong to the states. The federal Government was never intended to run your personal life.
The “Great replacement theory” is an idea that comes out the open borders that the Democratic party seem intent on allowing. Gone is the idea that a country can absorb just so many people and retain it culture and values. And I might add, can support, now our citizens have to support an extra 2 million people per year. next year anther 2 million and so on. Notice how many are young men, a few families but compared to the single men about 10%. Also, how many are paying taxes verse those taking benefits? Question, what do you think they are here for?
Work. We need workers.
You mean the kind that get paid in cash so pay no taxes but still receive benefits?
So, a police officer killing an old man in a wheelchair and not charged by the Republican county attorney is OK? Under your theory, if a Republican does it, it is correct but if a democrat does it, it is wrong. Or is it because one was white and one was Mexican?
So, when trump gets indicted for sedition (or tax fraud or RICO), you are good with that because it is a constitutionally correct legal procedure? Note: I said indicted nothing else.
Is indicted like convicted? Or is like the Jan6 committee? Lying, here say witnesses, altered e-mails entered as fact, only part of speech shown? No cross examination, no penalty for lying under oath or maybe just like the Kavanaugh’s hearing?