California DA Says Cops Can’t Arrest Looters if The Looters “Needed” the Stolen Stuff

California DA Says Cops Can’t Arrest Looters if The Looters “Needed” the Stolen Stuff

By Steve Pomper   

It really is astonishing how some prosecutors are able to wreak havoc within the American criminal justice system. They’re emboldened by what they have been able to get away with so far, which is a lot. And by they, I mean George Soros-funded prosecutors, which have proliferated across the nation.

It brings to mind something I read recently in a new book by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay called, Cynical Theories. While they were addressing the broader implications of taking over a society, this also applies to many prosecutors at all levels of government. They write, “The precise nature of this threat is complicated, as it arises from at least two overwhelming pressures, one revolutionary and the other reactionary….”

These two words, revolutionary and reactionary, tell the story. There are the socialist revolutionaries, activist politicians who are increasing their attacks on the criminal justice system and, by extension, the police. And there are the reactionaries who seem mired in, rather than ever going on the attack, responding to what “they” are doing next to America’s legal system.

Now, people in Contra Costa County are reacting to their district attorney, Diana Becton. You may not recognize her name, but you will recognize her fellow Soros-funded pals, St. Louis’ Kim Gardner and Kim Foxx of Chicago. Well, they may be better known, but they’ve got nothing on Becton.

Pushing the social justice envelop, DA Becton has taken a tough stand amid all the rioting and looting going on. But not tough on the looters, tough on the cops. According to redstate.com, “Soros DA Diana Becton Requires Officers Consider Whether a Looter ‘Needed’ Stolen Goods Before Charging.” Yes, you read that correctly.

This is one of those things you read that makes your brain shut down and refuse to allow anything else in. It’s like matter colliding with antimatter, but, in this case, it’s rationality that is obliterated. Further critical thought is held in abeyance. At least, there is no more thoughts until your brain has had time to extract the stupid you just read into your brain. I’ll be right back….

Okay, I’m back. It took a while, but I can think again.

The statute states: Theft Offenses Committed During State of Emergency (PC 463), 1. a. iv. “Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?” By the way, this is yet another instance of politicians not allowing a “crisis” to go to waste.

Think about how this law would work in the real world. An officer sees a guy come running out of a store, glass crunching under his probably stolen Nikes, silhouetted by the inferno behind him, a brand-new, clutching a still-in-the-box, laptop computer under his arm. Does the officer have to find out if the looter “needed” the new computer before or after arresting him?

Since the story refers to “before charging,” we’ll assume the officer will have to discern whether the looter’s motivation qualifies for Becton’s social justice benefaction. Anyone else think after this loophole, so big an elephant could walk through it, gets around that looters will have their stories ready?

“Officer,” the looter begins. “My sister’s kid has to be home-schooled because of the Chinese Covid. Little tyke needs it so he can participate in his online classes, like the one that teaches how Marxism and hating cops will save the world.”

Well, except for the cynical Marxist crack, which is truer than you think, would this excuse qualify for the looter “needing” what he looted? If not, why not? Becton may want you to think that most people looting big box stores are doing it to get food for their starving babies, right? How many of those are there? To create such a ludicrous policy betrays the district attorney’s warped agenda: lawlessness over law and order.

These politicians who are supposed to be the top prosecutors in their jurisdictions have run for elected offices with no intention to honor their oaths of office. They abjure the oaths that require them to prosecute lawbreakers, treat people equally, and use their discretion appropriately with public safety uppermost in mind.

Instead, these social justices have inverted the criminal justice system, placed the criminals’ interests above the victims’ rights, and have made the police officer’s job even more difficult. Voters have it in their power to stop the devastation their prosecutors to the criminal justice system. It’s actually simpler than they think. They must vote these people out of office if they want to restore sanity to their prosecutors’ offices.

Leave a Reply