I'm not trying to defend the prosecution policies. I don't know what evidence the DA was presented with in those cases or how winnable they might be. I do think

I'm not trying to defend the prosecution policies. I don't know what evidence the DA was presented with in those cases or how winnable they might be. I do think it is reasonable to place some of the responsibility for rising property crime rates on the DA. That said, don't give the police a pass here. They have been actively hostile to the DA and spent a lot of money opposing this election. Their attempts to pass the buck to the DA for their failure to make arrests is a talking point that is part of their opposition to the DA. While the DA shares some blame for the rising property crime rates, the police share some blame for the lowered prosecution and conviction rates since the DA is dependent on the police to bring them strong, winnable cases. In reality, I think that both the DA and the police should be held to account for letting politics interfere with their ability to work together to solve issues that are their joint responsibility and require cooperation. Unfortunately, it is harder to hold the police accountable than the DA. > When called, the police did the right procedural things, but noted that since the animal had not been killed, it was unlikely any charges would likely be persued by the DA. Did they arrest the attacker, gather sufficient evidence and refer the case to a prosecutor? Or did they assume the case wouldn't be prosecuted because that assumption made their job easier?