He couldn’t possibly send a more clear and overwhelming message to law enforcement in California- you are not supported.

There was overwhelming bipartisan support for a bill that would have offered disability coverage to school resource officers. 

Yet in one of his last moves of the 2019 legislative session, we’re just now learning that California Governor Gavin Newsom shot down a bill that would have offered temporary disability coverage to SROs.

We’re talking about California Assembly Bill 346.  It was passed unanimously by the state assembly and state senate.  Under the details, it would have provided police officers who work in the school a paid leave of absence should they become disabled on the job.

Right now, the law offers disability coverage to certain officers along with firefighters and a number of state and local public employees.  It’s NOT currently extended to school resource officers.

AB 346 would have given a leave of absence, without loss of salary, to officers.  It would have been in lieu of temporary disability payments if they are disabled by injury or illness as a result of doing their jobs.

According to labor unions and police groups, it was obviously the right thing to do.  They argue that school resource officers put themselves in harm’s way when they respond to school shootings or other violent situations on campuses.

They also argued that SROs should get the same wage protection as firefighters and other public employees who work in the schools.

And yet despite the overwhelming bipartisan support, on October 13 he decided to veto AB 346.

“While I appreciate the Legislature’s intent, and do not take lightly the important public service provided by police officers in educational settings, this bill would significantly expand 4850 benefits that can be negotiated locally through the collective bargaining process,” Newsom gave as an excuse.

He wrote the explanation when he kicked it back unsigned.

“Many local school districts face financial stress, and the addition of a well-intentioned but costly benefit should be left to local entities that are struggling to balance their priorities,” the governor said.

He said he recognizes that “local entities” like police departments are struggling.  Yet he made it very clear that he wouldn’t make the school resource officers protecting the state’s students a financial priority.

Newsom’s veto had the support of liberal educators and the deep pockets.

The Association of California School Administrators, cities and counties, and the California Coalition on Workers’ Compensation, backed the veto… having complained about the cost of extending the disability coverage to school resource officers.

“Local agencies typically fund workers’ compensation costs out of their general fund, and every dollar spent on special enhanced benefits must come from somewhere,” was their argument.

What he DID recently sign into law was something that, instead of supporting law enforcement, focused on giving new rights to murderers and violent criminals.

We’ve reported on states changing laws to allow felons to vote.  Then you’ve got California releasing murderers because it “feels right” to give them another chance.

Now, in another sign that the inmates are running the prison, the governor of California has approved “The Right to a Jury of Your Peers”.

It’s a move that will allow people with a prior felony conviction to serve on juries in California for the first time.

Prior to this, there was a law in California that excluded felons from jury service.  Local media backed the legislation, saying it’s not right to prevent someone with a graffiti or drug conviction from serving on a jury.

That’s why they introduced SB 310.

The legislation, signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom this week, allows a person with a prior felony conviction to serve on a jury.  That is only unless the person is on parole or probation, or a registered sex offender for a felony conviction.

The state Assembly approved the legislation on a 47-26 vote.  The Senate gave its final OK on a 29-10 vote.

“SB 310 will ensure that Californians can be tried by a true jury of their peers,” said the bill’s author.

That’s Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), who released a statement on the legislation.

“Currently, 30% of African-American men living in California are denied the basic civil right to serve on a jury. SB 310 will right that wrong.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, along with many other social justice warrior groups, were thrilled. 

Among those who applauded it was Brendon Woods, Alameda County’s Public Defender.  He wrote a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle about it:

“During my 20-plus years as a public defender in California, I have handled thousands of criminal cases. I can’t tell you how often I’ve sat at the defense table with a young African American client who was excited to prove his innocence, only to see his enthusiasm replaced with hopelessness and dread once he saw the jury,” he said.

He wrote the op-ed in July:

“It’s difficult to tell a young man that he shouldn’t feel defeated when faced with the fact that not a single person who will be deciding his future looks like him. He is immediately confronted with the reality that he will not be getting a jury of his peers.”

He said this was a personal vendetta for him.

“As an African American male, I am faced with the harsh reality that if I am ever arrested and charged with a crime, under current law, it is almost guaranteed that I will not have a jury of my peers,” he wrote. 

Obviously many are against SB310.  Those fighting against it argued that people with felony convictions are too biased to ever serve on a jury.

Even California district attorneys lobbied against the bill, saying they didn’t want sex offenders and people on felony probation to serve.

But according to Skinner’s office, once the bill was amended to exclude those categories of people, the prosecutors dropped their formal opposition.

California joins more than 20 states which allow people with prior felony convictions to serve on a jury, including states such Colorado, Illinois, Maine, and Oregon.

Only Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma will still have lifetime bans on jury service for people with felony convictions.

Proponents of SB 310 say it won’t interfere with the right of prosecutors, public defenders, and judges to reject jurors… nor would it prohibit the “use of a preemptory challenge to remove a prospective juror from the jury pool.”

California is clearly trying to push as far left as possible.

Last month, California Governor Gavin Newsom commuted the sentences of 21 violent offenders.  Among them were four men who have convictions related to murders in Sacramento County.  

The four who were convicted of separate murders in the 90’s were Jacoby Felix, Crystal Jones, Andrew Crater and Luis Alberto Velez.

All of them, who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in Sacramento County, have now been granted commutations by Newsom.

The decision for them and 17 other state prisoners was announced Friday in a statement from the governor’s office.  Their press release explained the reasoning for commuting their sentences.

“The Governor carefully reviewed each application and considered a number of factors, including the circumstances of the crime and the sentence imposed, the applicant’s conduct while in prison and the applicant’s self-development efforts since the offense, including whether they have made use of available rehabilitative programs and addressed treatment needs,” said the statement.

Out of the 21 commutations, 15 involved inmates convicted before the age of 26, and so Newsom says youth offender status was another important factor considered.

The four convicted in the murders were all between ages 18 and 26 at the time of their crimes.

The first was Velez, who was 26 at the time of the murder in 1991.  He was convicted of killing an armed guard during a robbery and has served more than 28 years of his sentence.

Then there was Felix, who was 18 when he fatally shot a man in 1993 during a carjacking.  He has served 26 years. 

In 1999, Jones was involved in a drug-related murder.  He has served nearly 20 years.

Then there was Crater. He was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of musician Jim Pantages, after he supplied the gun, car and plan.  His crimes took place in June of 1995 during a crime spree that included a string of armed robberies – he’s served more than 24 years of his sentence.

Thanks to these commutations, each offender is now up for suitability hearings with the state Board of Parole Hearings.

It’s now up to the California Supreme Court to upheld or reject the commutations.  In his final weeks in office, former Governor Jerry Brown had 10 clemency actions blocked by the court.  It was the first time since 1930 that a California governor’s commutation requests had been denied.

That might not happen in this case, according to that news release.  Why? Because Velez and Jones’ cases have already been reviewed and recommended by both the Board of Parole Hearings and the California Supreme Court.

State law requires those advance reviews for any commutation case involving an applicant with multiple felony convictions.

Now Velez, Felix and are eligible for parole suitability hearings in 2020.

In 2023, Jones will be up for it after serving 25 years of his life sentence.

Included in Newsom’s disturbing commutations are a number of other violent murderers.

One is Marcus McJimpson, who has served 31 years of two life terms for a 1988 Fresno County double murder.

Then there’s 80-year-old Doris Roldan, who has been imprisoned since 1981 for the first-degree murder of her husband.

Roldan, who is from Los Angeles County, now uses a wheelchair… so was recommended for clemency by her warden.

Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans?  It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans.  Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice.  Check it out today.

It gets worse.

As California Governor Newsom sees how far left he can take his state, he’s made a major move towards putting criminals ahead of law and order… yet again.

California will now end the use of private, for-profit lockups in America’s largest state prison system.  On top of that, they’ll stop using federal immigration detention centers in the state. The move comes under a measure that he signed into law on Friday.

Here’s what it means.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation can’t enter into or renew a contract with a private company to run a state prison after Jan. 1, 2020.  The exception is if it is needed to meet court-ordered inmate housing limits.

On top of that, it will ban California from incarcerating anyone in privately run facilities altogether from 2028.

The measure passed the California legislature last month.  It doesn’t apply to privately owned prisons operated and staffed by the state corrections agency.

Newsom said it was part of his campaign promise to abolish private prisons in the state.

Why his move to put criminals first?  Because he claims these prisons:

“Contribute to over-incarceration, including those that incarcerate California inmates and those that detain immigrants and asylum seekers.”

Apparently his own personal values are now those of the entire state.

“These for-profit prisons do not reflect our values,” Newsom said.

Of course the bill has other far left supporters.  They say private prisons are “driven to maximize shareholder profits, lack proper oversight or incentives to rehabilitate inmates and have contributed to a culture of mass incarceration by making it cheaper to lock up people”.

Right now, there are a total of seven low-security facilities collectively housing more than 5,000 people at stake.

Currently, they are all operated either by Florida-headquartered GEO Group, or Tennessee-based CoreCivic.

The companies that run them said they provided vital extra space when detentions in California’s prisons exploded to more than double the system’s capacity.  That sparked lawsuits that led to court-ordered cuts to inmate populations.  Because in California, keeping criminals behind bars is less important than statistics.

“For 10 years, we provided safe, secure housing and life-changing re-entry programming for inmates that had faced extreme overcrowding,” CoreCivic spokeswoman Amanda Gilchrist said.

On top of that, GEO Group referred to its record as “an innovator in the field of rehabilitative services”.  It also said the bill worked against the state’s goal of lowering inmate recidivism.

The last three remaining privately run prisons in California’s corrections system have a total of 1,400 inmates.  As of right now, they’re going to have to close in four years under the new law when their contracts with the state expire.

But here’s the even bigger issue.  Also under this new law, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency will lose four privately run detention facilities.  Right now, they are holding about 4,000 people in California.  They’ll have to shut down unless the ban is challenged in court.

GEO Group put out a statement about it, and called California’s newly enacted prohibition on privately run ICE detention centers a violation of the U.S. constitutional doctrine. That doctrine gives the federal government supremacy over the states.  In issuing the statement, they effectively positioned that a legal challenge is in the making.

Before the legislation was signed, ICE said its detainees would ultimately be transferred to facilities outside California.  That, of course, would trigger Democrats into more protests that the move effectively forces friends and family of the detainees to travel greater distances to visit their loved ones.

There have been a number of states, including New York, Illinois and Nevada, that have adopted similar bans on private prisons. 

According to Kara Gotsch, director of strategic initiatives for the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice reform group, nearly half of all states have no such facilities.

California’s total prison population is nearly 126,000.

To give context, we can look at Texas.  They were the first state to outsource incarceration to private companies in 1985. They also had far more inmates than any other state in for-profit facilities in 2017 at nearly 13,000, or 7.8 percent of its total, said Gotsch.

Last month, a veteran wrote for Law Enforcement Today about how in order to save America, we need to break off California.  In case you missed it… here are his words.

So, I was thinking, which is often a dangerous activity.

Many Californians are in favor of open borders. The bulk of their metropolitan cities are sanctuary cities for persons not in the country legally. The state and its city municipalities are taking aim constitutional rights of law-abiding American while providing everything for free to those who enter our borders in violation of federal law. So, I say, let’s give it to them.

We have seen countless stories recently coming out of California.

-The state signed a bill that requires a valid California identification to purchase ammunition for legally owned weapons. It also requires a new background check at every purchase. All at the purchaser’s expense.

-The governor signed into law a bill that makes it more dangerous for law enforcement to do their jobs. Use of Force laws are now designed to make it next to impossible for officers to defend themselves.

-San Francisco, which is wallowing in piles of human excrement all over their streets and sidewalks, just issued a proclamation deeming members of the NRA domestic terrorists.

-California is now offering opportunities for convicted felons to vote. They are also moving towards allowing them to serve on juries. These are not simply being awarded to petty criminals. These new laws are intended to allow murderers, rapist and child molesters the chance to ‘be normal” again (more on that below).

-Governor Newsom also signed legislation allowing citizens to refuse to assist an officer in need of assistance. People are now legally allowed to let an officer be murdered rather than aiding. Apparently, Newsom is helping citizens from being put into a moral dilemma.

-Recently, the governor also allowed the parole of a former Aryan Brotherhood member convicted of two brutal murders (more on that below as well).

-California is reducing the number of school resource officers that can be on a campus. Why? Because “people” believe it strikes terror in the hearts of students and creates a hostile learning environment.

-Most local law enforcement agencies in California are prohibited from assisting federal agents, like CBP, from doing their jobs.

-Sacramento’s mayor wants to pursue prosecutorial measures against officers that are involved in fatal shootings, even after the shootings have been deemed justifiable and the officer(s) involved have been ‘no-billed’ by the grand jury.

-Democrats in the state are proposing legislation that allows you to commit violent crimes and get away with it. All you must do, is be the one to report the crime. The bill sates “a person who is reporting a crime of sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, robbery, assault, kidnapping, threats, blackmail, extortion, burglary, or another violent crime shall not be arrested for a crime …”

-A murder suspect was stopped during a routine traffic contact in Ohio. Ohio authorities turned him loose. Want to know why? California didn’t want to deal with the hassle of extradition.

-They passed a law last year no longer allowing people to be charged with murder when they were not directly involved in a killing. The law overturns the state’s felony murder rule that holds an accomplice in an offense such as robbery liable for a homicide that happens during the crime, regardless of whether the defendant was involved in the killing.

Hopefully I have provided enough insight into my idea.

President Trump is building a wall along the southern border. What if we turn the wall north at the Arizona / California and have it span the entire length of the interior California state lines with Arizona, Nevada and Oregon?

That way, their southern border with Mexico is wide open. That is what they wanted after all.

We can remove their electoral college votes. They seem to want that as well. We will also remove the relevance of their votes on the national landscape.

Wait, what about the right-minded people living in California? Surely there are people who love this country and want to see its citizenry protected.

Great point.

We will continue to use existing migration laws. We will put a point of entry every few hundred miles along the wall. Those who wish to seek asylum in the United States will be able to do so. They will be able to file based on fear of violence, a lack of general law and order, seeking to flee a socialistic regime and persecution for having a differing political ideology.

Seems logical to me. They can give away all the ‘free’ stuff they want to give to immigrants. Although, the give-a-ways won’t last long after we cut off all federal funding.

California can become the free-for-all that they so badly desire. The rest of the country can then continue moving forward to being the nation we were intended to be by our founding fathers and all the amazing patriots that have been willing to put their lives on the line to keep this nation free. 

So what started this all?

The story LET ran earlier today.

We’ve reported on states changing laws to allow felons to vote.  Then you’ve got California releasing murderers because it “feels right” to give them another chance.

Now, in another sign that the inmates are running the prison, the California Legislature has approved “The Right to a Jury of Your Peers”.

It’s a move that will allow people with a prior felony conviction to serve on juries in California for the first time.

There’s currently a law in California that excludes felons from jury service.  Local media is backing the legislation, saying it’s not right to prevent someone with a graffiti or drug conviction from serving on a jury.

That’s why they’ve introduced SB 310.

The legislation would allow a person with a prior felony conviction to serve on a jury.  That is only unless the person is on parole or probation, or a registered sex offender for a felony conviction.

The support is there from lawmakers.  The state Assembly approved the legislationon a 47-26 vote.  On Thursday, the Senate gave its final OK Thursday on a 29-10 vote… sending it to Gov. Gavin Newsom for consideration.

“SB 310 will ensure that Californians can be tried by a true jury of their peers,” said the bill’s author.

That’s Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), who released a statement on the legislation.

“Currently, 30% of African-American men living in California are denied the basic civil right to serve on a jury. SB 310 will right that wrong.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, along with many other social justice warrior groups, were thrilled. 

Among those who applauded it was Brendon Woods, Alameda County’s Public Defender.  He wrote a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle about it:

“During my 20-plus years as a public defender in California, I have handled thousands of criminal cases. I can’t tell you how often I’ve sat at the defense table with a young African American client who was excited to prove his innocence, only to see his enthusiasm replaced with hopelessness and dread once he saw the jury,” he said.

He wrote the op-ed in July:

“It’s difficult to tell a young man that he shouldn’t feel defeated when faced with the fact that not a single person who will be deciding his future looks like him. He is immediately confronted with the reality that he will not be getting a jury of his peers.”

He said this was a personal vendetta for him.

“As an African American male, I am faced with the harsh reality that if I am ever arrested and charged with a crime, under current law, it is almost guaranteed that I will not have a jury of my peers,” he wrote. 

Obviously many are against SB310.  Those fighting against it argued that people with felony convictions are too biased to ever serve on a jury.

Even California district attorneys lobbied against the bill, saying they didn’t want sex offenders and people on felony probation to serve.

But according to Skinner’s office, once the bill was amended to exclude those categories of people, the prosecutors dropped their formal opposition.

California joins more than 20 states which allow people with prior felony convictions to serve on a jury, including states such Colorado, Illinois, Maine, and Oregon.

Assuming the governor signs the bill, only Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Oklahoma will still have lifetime bans on jury service for people with felony convictions.

Proponents of SB 310 say it won’t interfere with the right of prosecutors, public defenders, and judges to reject jurors… nor would it prohibit the “use of a preemptory challenge to remove a prospective juror from the jury pool.”

Earlier today, we reported another story out of California that will leave you speechless.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has commuted the sentences of 21 violent offenders.  Among them were four men who have convictions related to murders in Sacramento County.  His office made the announcement Friday.

The four who were convicted of separate murders in the 90’s were Jacoby Felix, Crystal Jones, Andrew Crater and Luis Alberto Velez.

All of them, who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in Sacramento County, have now been granted commutations by Newsom.

The decision for them and 17 other state prisoners was announced Friday in a statement from the governor’s office.  Their press release explained the reasoning for commuting their sentences.

“The Governor carefully reviewed each application and considered a number of factors, including the circumstances of the crime and the sentence imposed, the applicant’s conduct while in prison and the applicant’s self-development efforts since the offense, including whether they have made use of available rehabilitative programs and addressed treatment needs,” said the statement.

Out of the 21 commutations, 15 involved inmates convicted before the age of 26, and so Newsom says youth offender status was another important factor considered.

The four convicted in the murders were all between ages 18 and 26 at the time of their crimes.

The first was Velez, who was 26 at the time of the murder in 1991.  He was convicted of killing an armed guard during a robbery and has served more than 28 years of his sentence.

Then there was Felix, who was 18 when he fatally shot a man in 1993 during a carjacking.  He has served 26 years. 

In 1999, Jones was involved in a drug-related murder.  He has served nearly 20 years.

Then there was Crater. He was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of musician Jim Pantages, after he supplied the gun, car and plan.  His crimes took place in June of 1995 during a crime spree that included a string of armed robberies – he’s served more than 24 years of his sentence.

Thanks to these commutations, each offender is now up for suitability hearings with the state Board of Parole Hearings.

It’s now up to the California Supreme Court to upheld or reject the commutations.  In his final weeks in office, former Governor Jerry Brown had 10 clemency actions blocked by the court.  It was the first time since 1930 that a California governor’s commutation requests had been denied.

That might not happen in this case, according to that news release.  Why? Because Velez and Jones’ cases have already been reviewed and recommended by both the Board of Parole Hearings and the California Supreme Court.

State law requires those advance reviews for any commutation case involving an applicant with multiple felony convictions.

Now Velez, Felix and are eligible for parole suitability hearings in 2020.

In 2023, Jones will be up for it after serving 25 years of his life sentence.

Included in Newsom’s disturbing commutations are a number of other violent murderers.

One is Marcus McJimpson, who has served 31 years of two life terms for a 1988 Fresno County double murder.

Then there’s 80-year-old Doris Roldan, who has been imprisoned since 1981 for the first-degree murder of her husband.

Roldan, who is from Los Angeles County, now uses a wheelchair… so was recommended for clemency by her warden.

Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans?  It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans.  Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice.  Check it out today.

In August, Newsom made headlines for a similar disturbing move where he allowed the parole of an Aryan Brotherhood member convicted of two murders.

He was convicted of two murders in 1975. He was handed additional life sentences for murders behind bars. Now, after nearly 45 years in prison, a former high-ranking member of the Aryan Brotherhood has been freed from prison.

The former white supremacist, Michael Lynn Thompson, 67, was handed his release after describing to the parole board commissioners how he did not fight back during a 2015 attempt on his life, in keeping with his, “vow of nonviolence.” California Governor Gavin Newsom had the ability to reverse the decision, but chose to take no action, and Thompson went free.

Michael Lynn Thompson

Michael Lynn Thompson

He was paroled Aug. 12, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The details of his release and where he is now haven’t been made public, citing his status as a dropout makes him a target by the Aryan Brotherhood or its allies.

While parole boards typically look for admission, remorse and change, Thompson was granted parole despite denying he was directly responsible for the two murders he was convicted of in 1975.

He told the parole board he had been recruited by several prison gangs upon entering the system in 1975. He was 6′ 4″, could bench about 600 pounds, and was a skilled knife fighter.

“There was no sneaking behind somebody and hitting them or anything else,” Thompson said. “If I called a man out, and he didn’t have a knife, I gave him a knife and we went head up, and that’s the way you did it back then.”

According to Mercury News, the Aryan Brotherhood, also known as the AB and The Brand, started in the California prison system in the 1960s. Its members use the shamrock as a symbol, but also sport swastika tattoos and other Nazi symbolism.

Its members commit horrific acts of violence in hopes that others will be too scared to challenge them. This past June, federal prosecutors linked 24 members and associates to four murders and five murder plotsthroughout California.

Michael Lynn Thompson

Michael Lynn Thompson

Thompson’s decision to drop out and cooperate with police in the early 80s shook up the structure of the Aryan Brotherhood and led to several prosecutions. He cited the actions of Curtis Price — an Aryan Brotherhood hitman who killed a dropout member’s father — as his reason for leaving the gang.

Since dropping out, Thompson has testified multiple times as a prosecution witness. In one case he was snuck into a courthouse in a vending machine, with the insides taken out, because of concerns he would be assassinated.

After leaving the gang, he vowed to live a life of nonviolence. That pledge was put to the test in 2015.  A ‘Mexican Mafia’ hitman attacked him. Thompson told the parole board that he disarmed the man but chose to lay down on top of the weapon rather than fight back.

“There was a window of opportunity. I saw it. I played it through in my head. I knew what I could do to him,” Thompson told the parole board. “And instead, I took the weapon, and I put it underneath me, and I laid down until staff got there. And that was in keeping with my vow of nonviolence.”

It was this incident that was cited by commissioners as a reason for granting Thompson parole. He had petitioned for parole more than a dozen times previously.

Based on court documents, Thompson, along with John Solis, was convicted of murdering Rue Steele and Butch Nunley, two alleged marijuana traffickers who owned ranches in Southern California. According to authorities, Thompson wanted to move in with Nunley’s wife, so to get him out of the way he invented a bogus story that Nunley and Steele wanted to kidnap Solis’ children. Solis believed Thompson and told him and another man, Mike Sesma, to kill Nunley and Steele.

Thompson told different story altogether. While he says he had heard that Solis’ kids were in danger of being kidnapped, and he definitely did warn Solis. However, he said he was working at a pigsty at the ranch weeks later when another man told him not to dig too deep because two bodies were buried there.

“I’ve never killed anybody,” Thompson told the parole board.

Except for the people he killed that landed him additional life sentences.

To the contrary of Thompson, Governor Newsom denied parole for Rene Enriquez, who is more or less Thompson’s counterpart in the Mexican Mafia. As almost his mirror image, Enriquez was a high-ranking member of his prison gang, who also dropped out and began cooperating with police, was convicted of two murders, and is believed to have knowledge of dozens more. Enriquez has been tentatively granted parole several times.

According to Mercury News, Thompson told the parole board he planned to work with Live, Learn and Prosper, a nonprofit he founded that preaches nonviolent means to conflict resolution, with a curriculum geared toward incarcerated people.

President Trump signed the Next Step Act to assist with criminal justice and prison reform. It was not intended to free violent offenders.

Perhaps the board and the governor believed that he was a transformed man. Only time will tell.

But even at the age of 67, we have seen violent offenders released, only to strike again.

They said he was too old to pose a threat.  So, they released him from prison.  It’s safe to say there’s blood on their hands.

Albert Flick, a 77-year-old who spent decades in prison for fatally stabbing his wife was released because of his age.

This week… he was convicted of a nearly identical crime.

Jurors in Maine took less than an hour to find Flick guilty in the 2018 murder of a homeless mother, Kimberly Dobbie.  Flick stabbed her at least 11 times while her twin sons watched.

It’s a crime that’s strikingly similar to the killing that sent Flick to jail for 25 years in 1979. He stabbed his then-wife Sandra Flick 14 times in front of her daughter.

He was let out of prison in 2004, then sent back in 2010 after assaulting another woman.

The recommendation was for a longer sentence, but the judge ignored that.  He said Flick wouldn’t be a threat because of his age and it didn’t make sense to keep him locked up.

Four years later, in 2014, he was released and moved to Lewiston.

According to prosecutors, he met Dobbie, a 48-year-old mother, and became infatuated with her. He started stalking her and dining at the homeless shelter where she was staying.

Assistant Attorney General Bud Ellis told jurors Flick knew Dobbie was planning on leaving town. Ellis says Flick thought to himself: “If I can’t have her, I will kill her.”

According to prosecutors, two days before the murder Flick purchased a pair of knives at a Walmart… then attacked Dobbie in broad daylight in front of a laundromat, puncturing her heart and lungs.

Her 11-year-old twin sons watched her murder.  So did a surveillance camera.

Elsie Clement is the woman who was a child when she watched Flick stab her mother to death.  In court, she said the judge who set him free will have to answer to Dobbie’s children.

“I would like to just see [everyone involved] in a line and stand there and tell [Dobbie’s] boys, explain to them how this man was on the streets and how it’s OK,” Clement said.

“How the law makes it alright for their mom to now be gone and for them to have to witness it.”

Now Flick faces life behind bars when he’s sentenced in August.

In the meantime, as we reported in April, some politicians are pushing a bill to free rapists and murderers over age 55 from prison.

If it seems too crazy to be true… chances are, it’s coming out of New York, California or Connecticut.  And this proposed bill is a straight up slap in the face to law enforcement officers and law-abiding citizens.

Law enforcement officials and New York City Republicans are fuming over a proposal by city Democrats.

Get this.  It would grant parole eligibility to older inmates who have served some prison time.  It’s being dubbed the “elder parole” bill.

Felons who are currently serving time, including rapists and murderers, would be released onto the street if the controversial state bill passes.  Any inmate aged 55 and older who has served at least 15 years in prison would be automatically eligible for parole.

On Fox and Friends First Monday, New York City councilman Joe Borelli blasted the “elder parole” bill and its automatic eligibility.

“These are not people that stole a candy bar, they’re not people that smoked a joint and got caught,” he said.

He pointed out anyone in jail for 15 years or more has likely committed a “heinous crime” that “at 15 years prior, a judge and jury thought you deserved to be put away for almost the remainder of your life.”

It slams it as “basically an amnesty program” for murderers, rapists, child molesters and others with Class A and Class B felonies.

He cited issues with the New York State Parole Board.

“So, when they say eligibility of parole, given the history of this state’s parole board, we should all be concerned that this is going to be almost an amnesty program,” the Republican said.

According to the New York Post:

The legislation has quietly flown under the radar since being introduced in the Assembly in February by Queens Democrat David Weprin. The release of Weather Underground terrorist Judith Clark, paroled earlier this month after serving more than 37 years in prison, gave the bill’s backers a new talking point.

Senator Brad Hoylman, a Democrat from Manhattan, introduced the accompanying Senate bill about a week before Clark’s release.  She praised her parole:

“There are so many more Judith Clarks out there” and “we must work to fight for their freedom.”

Lest you think there’s no way this outrageous bill could pass, here’s what you should know.

It’s already moved through crime committees in both the Senate and Assembly.

If it becomes law, at 900 convicts could have a chance at freedom, according to Hoylman’s office.

Borelli, referencing the example of Judith Clark, gave a hard reality check:

“This is someone who for most of us – back here on planet earth and most of New York State, really – deserve to be, should be in jail for the remainder of their life.” 

He slammed the bill as “misguided”.

“These are families who aren’t going to get their loved-ones back when they turn 55 or after 15 years,” he added. 

It’s almost as if it’s a push to see who can go further left. 

“It’s just the New York State Democrats trying to win the contest of who could be the craziest,” Borelli said.

He also debunked the argument critics have made about the expense of keeping the criminals behind bars, at taxpayer expense.

“It is expensive to keep people against their will in a place that prevents the rest of us from getting raped of murdered,” Borelli snapped. “Prison still has a punitive aspect to it. We should be following through on the commitment we made to the victims years prior and keep these folks in jail for the remainder of their sentence.”

To be clear, even those serving life without parole sentences could benefit from the bill if it passes into law.

Criminals could be released such as ‘90s serial killer Joel Rifkin, the Queens Wendy’s massacre mastermind John Taylor, and Bronx child rapist Clarence Moss.

“The loved ones they lost are not coming back when the defendants turn 55 — they are never coming back,” Assistant District Attorney John Ryan said.

Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez is in support of the bill.

“If someone has gone through the process of changing themselves . . . there should be a mechanism for them to then appear before a parole board that will fully vet them,” he said.

Hoylman argued that “we are looking at billions of dollars . . . that could be used toward a lot of other worthwhile purposes”.  It’s an argument quickly dismissed by Borelli.

“We’ve seen this act before,” he said Monday. “This is a summation of the priorities of the Democratic Party in 2019. They care more about the inmates than the corrections officers, they care more about the suspects than the cops, and – with respect to this – they care more about the criminals than the victims who’ve suffered.” 

The bill was approved by the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Correction.  It’s chaired by State Sen. Luis Sepulveda, D-Bronx. There was absolutely no debate on the bill at the meeting.  Sepulveda and other Democrats bragged about it being a money-saver for the state that would change the lives of aging parolees.

“This is, in terms of fiscal policy, a no-brainer,” Sepulveda said. “If you look at the recidivism rate of people over 55 that are released, it’s minuscule.”

It was proposed last year, but Republicans controlled the State Senate and it never stood a chance with them.  

The Release Aging People in Prison campaign is being led by Jose Saldana, who is pushing the bill on the advocacy side.  The push has been happening for years, but now that Democrats have a majority of both houses of the Legislature for the first time in nearly a decade… it’s likely to go through.

“It would impact hundreds of elderly incarcerated men and women who are mentors and educators to countless people they’ve been incarcerated with,” Saldana said. “The bill offers hope and an opportunity for people to return to their families and home communities to continue to repair the harm they caused.”

His group is one of several pushing Gov. Andrew Cuomo to fully staff the state parole board. State law says there are supposed to be 19 commissioners on the board, but there are currently 12.  Only Cuomo can make appointments to it.

“Too many people have been unjustly denied release because of understaffing,” said Anthony Posada.  He’s the supervising attorney of the community justice unit at The Legal Aid Society.  “This devastates their families and communities, creates a lack of due process in the system and requires immediate action.”

The Governor’s spokesman said he’s deliberately slow-walking the appointments, as has been done in the past.

“Governor Cuomo has filled vacancies on the Board of Parole at the same level and pace as previous governors have for the past several decades,” the spokesman said. “He has prioritized the appointment of individuals with a diverse range of professional expertise, such as mental health professionals, attorneys, psychologists and others with criminal justice experience. The Governor has also supported additional reforms to the parole system.”

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

 
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
 
Facebook Follow First

 

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

 
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
 
Facebook Follow First