4 ms·

In this case the problem is not law enforcement, but the DA's office that refuses to prosecute property crimes for ideological reasons.

• lesuorac 5y ago
  Whatever reason the DAs have to not prosecute these crimes, it's not the Special Directive 20-07 [1] called out in the letter [2]. UP is very clear that there is "armed robbery" which would count as a felony while the Special Directive 20-07 only deals with lowering "misdemeanor convictions". [1]: https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-20-07.pdf https://da.lacounty.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/SPECIAL-DIRE... [2] > UP and our goods movement partners strongly urge you to reconsider the policies detailed in Special Directive 20-07
  • beerandt 5y ago
    20-07 includes non prosecution for trespassing, which seems to be the only crime the DA is willing to either charge or plea out in the majority of these cases. Presumably because of its inclusion in the directive.
• seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  It might not even be for DA ideological reasons, but due to court/jail resources being limited. California, in particular, has been sanctioned multiple times for jail and prison overcrowding. The solution that doesn’t involve throwing more money at the problem (prosecute less) then leads to these kinds of problems.
  • fmajid 5y ago
    That is California's problem to resolve, not LA County's or its DA's.