Soros funded California DA to police: "Determine offender's needs before charging them with looting"
Soros-funded Contra County District Attorney Diana Becton has issued guidance that police need to determine an offender's "need" before they charge them with looting.
www.lawenforcementtoday.com
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA- The latest liberal lunacy among DA’s is brought to you courtesy of Contra Costa County (CA) District Attorney Diana Becton. She puts the “loon” in lunatic. When a couple recently painted over graffiti in a roadway otherwise known as a Black Lives Matter “mural,” she had the couple responsible charged with a hate crime. We are not kidding. Now, she wants police officers, while investigating looting cases, to determine if the looters “needed” the stolen merchandise prior to charging them. Seriously.
Where to even start with this one. We have reported numerous times on the crazy, left-wing, Soros-funded district attorneys who are polluting prosecutor’s offices across the country, from Rachael Rollins in Suffolk County (Boston), Massachusetts to Kim Foxx in Chicago and Chesa Boudin in San Francisco.
All were elected through no small part by the fact that billionaire anti-American socialist George Soros dumped copious amounts of cash into their campaigns. What has that brought? Chaos, anarchy, and criminals who are emboldened, no longer concerned about the consequences of their actions.
RedState obtained a document which identifies so-called “Looting Guidelines,” which were provided to the outlet by a confidential source, however, have been verified as authentic by someone who is familiar with the office’s policies.
The document asks:
Was this theft offense substantially motivated by the state of emergency, or simply a theft offense which occurred contemporaneous to the declared state of emergency?
Factors to consider in making this determination:
- Was the target business open or closed to the public during the state of emergency?
- What was the manner and means by which the suspect gained entry to the target business?What was the nature/quantity/value of the goods targeted?
- Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?
- Is there an articulable reason why another statute wouldn’t adequately address the particular incident?
The Shouse California Law Group says:
“Under Penal Code 463 PD, California law defines “looting” as taking advantage of a state of emergency to commit burglary, grand theft or petty theft. Looting charges can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony and is punishable by up to 3 years in jail.”
Despite the fact that no specific state of emergency was declared in individual counties after the Black Lives Matter riots started in May, the whole state has been in a de facto state of emergency since March 4, when California Gov. Gavin Newsom instituted a state of emergency relative to the COVID-19 pandemic.
So, looking at Becton’s “guidelines” for charging looting, police officers are now apparently expected to obtain financial records from looters in order to determine whether or not they had a financial need to steal the 10 pairs of Air Jordan’s from the Foot Locker they broke into. Maybe they couldn’t pay Verizon for their cell bill for the $1,000 iPhone they were using to record their hijinks with, and they need to flip the kicks for some cold hard cash.
Maybe, as New York’s favorite brain-dead politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, they needed to flip their stolen merchandise so they could go down to 7-11 and buy a loaf of bread. It’s all about “need” after all.