Patterico's Pontifications

6/7/2017

Proposition 57 Attracted This Violent Criminal to California

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:20 am



This is a press release by the Torrance Police Department from May 30, 2017:

On May 29th, 2017, at approximately 10:35p.m., the Torrance Police Department responded to the 3600 block of Sara Drive regarding a call of suspicious activity. Upon arrival, responding officers heard a female screaming as two male suspects ran from the residence.

One suspect was immediately detained, and the second suspect was later discovered hiding in the victim’s garage approximately 1 ½ hours later during a canine search. Upon arrest, a private citizen appearing to be filming the incident inquired why the suspect was there. The suspect replied, “Prop 57”.

The preliminary investigation reveals both suspects, a 17 year old male and 18 year old male both from Colorado, worked in concert to commit a home invasion robbery, wherein a 73 year old victim was attacked. It was further discovered the suspects were connected to another residential burglary and were driving a vehicle stolen out of Colorado as well.

The victim was transported to a local hospital, and later released with minor injuries. This call for service was initiated by an alert neighbor who immediately called police when they observed suspicious activity in the neighborhood.

Both suspects were found to have warrants from Colorado, the 17 year old has a warrant for murder, and the 18 year old has a warrant for robbery.

The Torrance Police Department continues to encourage its residents to report all suspicious activity, as this can easily save a life –See something Say something.

Sergeant Ronald Harris
Torrance Police Department Public Information Officer
(310) 618-5688
rharris@torranceca.gov

I see something! I see Proposition 57, a poorly conceived ballot measure (written by defense attorneys) that has endangered the public safety.

The benefits of Proposition 57 go beyond attracting violent criminals like the one described above to our state. Thanks to Proposition 57, people facing murder charges in adult court all over Los Angeles County have been returned to juvenile court to see if they should be tried as adults — even though at the time their cases were filed, Deputy D.A.s were legally entitled to file on them in adult court. These “juveniles” (many were adults, some in their 20s, at the time they were returned to juvenile court) often have co-defendants who were adults at the time of the crime, meaning the adult case and the juvenile case get split up. The result is one of two things: either the entire trial is delayed for months while the adult waits for the juvenile, or the adult moves forward in adult court and the case is tried twice, putting witnesses through two trials instead of one.

The proposition doesn’t explicitly say this is what should happen. But at least one court has interpreted the measure that way, and so here we are.

I don’t think the voters realized any of this was going to happen.

I see something, so I am saying something.

{Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

30 Responses to “Proposition 57 Attracted This Violent Criminal to California”

  1. Yay California.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. The juvenile court system (I won’t give you a couple of pages of copypasta of its history, you can look it up yourselves if you care) illustrates the adage about the road to Hell and good intentions. Infancy should be an absolute defense to crimes the same as insanity but the cutoff should be around age eleven. Older children should be tried the same way as adults, with all the procedural protections adults have (for example, there is no bail or trial by jury in juvenile proceedings),and consideration for their tenderness of years should be given at sentencing, as to kind of sentence, length, and type of facility.

    nk (9651fb)

  3. Finally California does something for the rest of the country by attracting our violent criminals. Now you need to pass some laws to attract our civil criminals too. It’s too much to hope for that you could pull our “native criminal class” the politicians to you.

    agesilaus (72bf77)

  4. Doug McIntyre talks about this all the time. The police in the Valley say there are burglary crews from all over the US coming to CA for a crime spree, since the proposition passed. One upscale neighborhood he talked about has been hit many times; cars stolen from driveways in broad daylight, etc.

    But the voters…I dunno, they’re nuts. They could have listened to one radio show or read one post online to know this was going to be horrible.

    And agesilaus, we already have taken your homeless and drug addicts off your hands with our generous benefits, so you’re welcome!

    Patricia (5fc097)

  5. Of course the whle idea of the age of 18 as a threshhold is terrible and just prmotes crime and I hate to see it. The cpncept of ajuvenile offense sis really wrong, at least for seriopus crimes.

    Later on, the criminals discover they can no longer get away with things so easily as when they were younger, but in the meantime they were trained and misled.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  6. burglary crews from all over the US coming to CA for a crime spree,

    This would be another case of gangs or oters recruiting people under 18 beause they are subject to less punishment. Bringing them in from out of state means it is not so easy to fnd experiemned criminals under 18. Also, out of state they are in adult jails and so become known to planners..

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  7. Greetings:

    I grew up in the Bronx of the ’50s and ’60s. By the time I was 14, I was about 74 inches long and about 175 pounds wide. I routinely spent my weekend playing sports against the menfolk of our neighborhood in accordance with the Bronx tradition of no quarter asked and less given.

    It strikes me as borderline sophomoric that the physical size of the alleged juvenile perpetrators never seems to come into the discussion.

    Somewhat similarly, there’s the burgeoning “brain development” science scam. Apparently, there’s another one of those 97% settled scientific consensi that it takes 30 or so years for an alleged juvenile perpetrator’s brain to the point of full criminal culpability. (No doubt soon to be followed by new and better brain deterioration science that begins promptly at 30 years of age and continues indefinitely mitigating any behavioral lapses.)

    I spent 13 years in various Catholic education venues and those folks seemed to think that around seven years one reached the “age of reason” at which one was responsible for one’s actions.

    So lost are we.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  8. Dunno about this post or Prop. 57.

    But I’ve just been watching junior Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) beclown herself, and prove herself a charlatan and an idiot, in her questioning if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Repeatedly — like four times in two minutes, until Grassley very sharply interrupted her and cautioned her to let him answer — she interrupted Rosenstein and insisted that he give a “yes or no” answer to the question of whether he would write a order giving Robert Mueller complete independence and plenary authority independent of the Attorney General, something far beyond the legal authority created for the appointment of special counsel in 28 C.F.R. part 600.

    She was demanding — “Yes or no? Yes or no?!?” — that Rosenstein agree to exceed his and the DoJ’s legal authority in essentially recreating the “independent counsel” position for which statutory authority was deliberately allowed by Congress (both parties, not a single dissenter) to lapse.

    She’s grandstanding with a “when did you stop beating your wife” question, and she damn well knows it. She’s despicable.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  9. If Rosenstein did what she asked — that is, go beyond what the regulations and law allow — then Mueller’s appointment would be constitutionally invalid and any conviction he might obtain would be void.

    She’s a nasty piece of work — exactly what the California Democrats deserve, but alas, surely a pestilence upon any Californian of honor and intelligence and integrity.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  10. She’s grandstanding with a “when did you stop beating your wife” question, and she damn well knows it. She’s despicable.

    You’re assuming she knows he has no authority to do that. She ought to know–but given what I’ve seen about her, can you safely assume she does know?

    kishnevi (0de685)

  11. Beldar,

    My guess is that Harris, who in spites of claims to the contrary (don’t they all?), has her sites set on the White House, and is getting an early run on establishing her “she persisted” badass bona fides. It had far less to do with Rosenstein and far more with self-promotion.

    And, as expected, the Twitterverse is crying a double-whammy foul of sexism and racism after being rebuked by male colleagues (Grassley and Burr). She knows how to play it.

    Dana (023079)

  12. Flaw in the law. Perp actually said “Prop 57?” Jaysus.
    ______

    8/9/10/11. Stonewalling.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  13. Beldar (fa637a) — 6/7/2017 @ 9:29 am

    she interrupted Rosenstein and insisted that he give a “yes or no” answer to the question of whether he would write a order giving Robert Mueller complete independence and plenary authority independent of the Attorney General … She was demanding — “Yes or no? Yes or no?!?” — that Rosenstein agree to exceed his and the DoJ’s legal authority in essentially recreating the “independent counsel” position for which statutory authority was deliberately allowed by Congress (both parties, not a single dissenter) to lapse.

    Why didn’t he just answer “No.”?

    I know it could be misleading to the public, and that wss Kamaa Harris’ intention, but is Rosenstein interested in public relations? He gave an explanation once or twoce saing he does not have that power, that should be enough for anyone watching the testimony. So it will be on the evening news. There are people who can explain, if this ever gets used in an argument.

    In any case he’s there essentially because he has to be.

    I thought his whole philosophy is that investigators should not be interested in public relations, because that’s essentally ihis complaint about Comey dicussiing the e-mail case. (there’s also the fact that Commey made any prosecutorial decision at all.

    And besides once

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  14. 10. kishnevi (0de685) — 6/7/2017 @ 9:36 am

    You’re assuming she knows he has no authority to do that. She ought to know–but given what I’ve seen about her, can you safely assume she does know?

    I didn’t see his testimony, but I assume he was telling her that. She’d have to be able to understand what he was saying just to gte into law school.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  15. Breaking NBC News– Text of Comey testimony made public before hearing.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  16. I see california in the news, I expect it to be f’d up. After all, look how you vote. You earn your just rewards.

    Jim (a9b7c7)

  17. kish — I’m evaluating Sen. Harris’ integrity in the same way I do that of other practicing lawyers, of which Kamila Harris was one (having graduated from Hastings Law and managing to pass the CA bar on her second try). She was reading from past DoJ orders that made direct reference to 28 C.F.R. part 600, the regs regarding special counsel. Rosenstein attempted to fill her in on those regs and how they followed after, but differ from, the independent counsel statute. The timing of her interruptions and speak-overs is a giant neon sign that she knows what she has to obscure and is willing to be brutally rude to try it.

    She gets no benefit of the doubt from me. She’s not stupid. She’s dishonest. Yes, that’s a value judgment that requires me to argue inferences about her mental state, but I’m entitled to do so in this court of public opinion.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  18. 15. That would be Comey’s prepared opening remarks – not his answers to questions he will get.

    Sammy Finkelman (375edc)

  19. Mr. Finkleman: The question couldn’t be answered simply yes or no because it included among its premises the proposition that Rosenstein could, consistent with the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the U.S., actually do what she was demanding. Giving a “yes” or “no” answer as she demanded would have validated the question, but it was an invalid question. He certainly couldn’t answer “yes,” and he tried to explain why that was. He’s entitled to explain his answers, but she would not give him that opportunity, speaking over him until called on the carpet by Grassley.

    However, your willingness to fall for her tactic suggests that it will be effective on a certain segment of the public, the same ones who think Michael Moore is a great filmmaker.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  20. @ Beldar,

    The question couldn’t be answered simply yes or no because it included among its premises the proposition that Rosenstein could, consistent with the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the U.S., actually do what she was demanding. Giving a “yes” or “no” answer as she demanded would have validated the question, but it was an invalid question. He certainly couldn’t answer “yes,” and he tried to explain why that was. He’s entitled to explain his answers, but she would not give him that opportunity, speaking over him until called on the carpet by Grassley.

    Harris is not stupid, far to the contrary. She knew this too, and was setting him up, so to speak. She is the Democrat to watch for in 2020.

    Dana (8a96e4)

  21. Gosh, Dana, I hope so. She’s shrill, a younger Hillary.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  22. No, too soon on KH….I say if any of the 2018 up for reelection Dem Sens in red states survive, that plus Roy Cooper or Mitch Landrieu is the way they go. Trump is capable of shifting gears though, which would make him more of a disappointment in Patterico land.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  23. She’s not stupid. She’s dishonest.

    I was operating on the premise that she’s both.

    kishnevi (ec71b1)

  24. The Okies moved out here from the dust bowl.

    Felons move out here because property crimes are almost always a misdemeanor or pleaded down to one. The prison system is set up to release you back into society as soon as possible.

    Which migration is worse? The Okies. They vote Republican and legally own guns, two unforgiveable sins

    steveg (e8c34d)

  25. Yup, I think I sent the Beldar character into hiding for awhile. I’ll check back tomorrow see if he came out of hiding.

    Do any of you other shills want to pledge your reputation on Comey’s testimony today? C’mon, I’m looking for that real confident Comey defender to come out all guns ablazn and heralding the performance and I’m not seeing this.

    jcurtis (3ed235)

  26. I beg your pardon? What on earth are you talking about?

    The only thing I’m interested in discussing with you is the amount of our bet, whether it’s in buttons or something more valuable, how long a time period you want to wait before you’ll concede it ain’t happening (I’ll propose two years, incredibly generous to you, but if you press I’ll go three), and the size of our respective stakes, to put in the hands of the escrow holder, at 100-to-1 in the meantime.

    I’ve said what I think of Comey’s testimony already. The 100-to-1 odds I’m offering tell you what I think of your prediction that Mueller will ever be called to testify at a perjury trial in which James Comey is the defendant, based on anything he said today. Put up or shut up. Actually, put up or I’m just going to ignore you from now on. Fish, barrel, bang — boring.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  27. And why did you post this here?

    Have you been imbibing tonight, jcurtis?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  28. She’s grandstanding with a “when did you stop beating your wife” question, and she damn well knows it. She’s despicable.

    Yes, she is. But she is no long the CA Attorney General and her replacement can only be saner. Instead, she is in the Senate where she can do no more harm than the woman she replaced. And there is always the chance, with her higher visibility, of a “Guam capsizing” moment.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  29. They used to hang armed burglars, under the reasonable assumption that bring a weapon to a burglary implied a willingness to kill the householder.

    Now I think we give them diversion.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  30. A couple of seventeen-year-olds moved to California because Prop 57 made it less likely they’d be tried in an adult court?

    I’m calling BS. This reeks of fake news.

    bacchys (352fb7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1043 secs.