Last week we brought you the story of Nichelle Holmes, a Deputy District Attorney in California who made social media posts proclaiming “We want more than a citation for vandalism” for the couple who painted over a Black Lives Matter mural in her jurisdiction. The office has now charged the couple with a “hate crime.”
Holmes’ boss, Diana Becton, is in her first term as elected District Attorney, one of a number of district attorneys heavily supported by lefty billionaire George Soros. Sources tell RedState that as soon as Becton took over she implemented major changes in the way the office was run and in the way crimes were charged and how aggressively cases were prosecuted. One recent change, which I’ll address further in a moment, has to do with charging people for “looting,” which is basically stealing during a state of emergency (i.e., protests or riots).
Becton is BFF’s with St. Louis’ Kim Gardner and Chicago’s Kim Foxx, who’ve been in the news for their terrible policies. This week she co-authored a Politico op-ed with Gardner, Foxx, and two other Soros-funded DA’s explaining their philosophy and 11-point plan for further ruining America’s cities.
The quintuplet started off by sharing their completely inane understanding of the origins of our justice system (apparently not understanding that criminal legal systems pre-date the colonization of North America):
“Our criminal legal system was constructed to control Black people and people of color. Its injustices are not new but are deeply rooted in our country’s shameful history of slavery and legacy of racial violence. The system is acting exactly as it was intended to, and that is the problem.
“We should know: We’re Black, we’re female, and we’re prosecutors. We work as the gatekeepers in this flawed system. And we have some ideas for how to fix it.”
Say what? And the fact that they’re the gatekeepers is scary as hell – not because of their skin color or their gender (wait, is gender actually a thing anymore?), but because they want to remove the blindfold from Lady Justice’s eyes.
Instead, these prosecutors place a duty to enact societal change upon their deputies and believe they must “rectify past wrongs”:
The decisions that prosecutors make can either work to rectify the inherent harms in the legal system or perpetuate them. Part of our responsibility, as elected public servants, is to be self-aware and recognize that we are part of the problem. It is our moral and ethical duty to start advancing racial equity-minded policies—and community advocates and voters should hold us accountable for doing so.
Working from within, we have begun the steps to rectify past wrongs. We are implementing policies that include declining to prosecute minor offenses, overturning wrongful convictions, refusing to take cases from officers with a history of racial bias and expunging marijuana convictions. And we are currently working within our own offices to make the system fairer and more just.
Becton, the Contra Costa County DA, is already putting “racial equity-minded policies” in place and enforcing them in her office. The following “Looting Guidelines” document was provided to RedState by a confidential source and verified as authentic by a separate source familiar with the office’s policies.
Under Penal Code 463 PC, 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.
Even without any State of Emergency declared after the Black Lives Matter riots started in various California counties, the entire state has been under that declaration since March 4, 2020, when Gov. Newsom instituted a State of Emergency over coronavirus.
In any event, Becton’s charging guidelines for looting read:
Theft Offenses Committed During State of Emergency (PC 463)
In order to promote consistent and equitable filing practices the follow[ing] analysis is to be applied when giving consideration to filing of PC 463 (Looting):
1. 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?
a. Factors to consider in making this determination:
i. Was the target business open or closed to the public during the state of emergency?
ii. What was the manner and means by which the suspect gained entry to the business?
iii. What was the nature/quantity/value of the goods targeted?
iv. Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?
v. Is there an articulable reason why another statute wouldn’t adequately address the particular incident?
So, let’s get this straight. Deputy District Attorneys and/or the county’s law enforcement officers are supposed to go through a flow chart, including a psychological and financial analysis, to determine if looting charges should be filed?