The race is on. While there are enough participants to field a heat, there are two favorites: California and New York.
The race is to see who can be the most anti-police, pro-criminal state in this country.
In an age where the “leaders” of these two states are so consumed with their hatred of President Trump and seeming disgust with the Constitution and the very values our country was founded on, it’s important to hold them accountable.
ESPECIALLY considering they are doing everything in their power to ignore the law, attack law enforcement, put criminals above law abiding citizens and create chaos in their cities.
Let’s start with the insanity coming out of New York.
Quite literally, it’s like the scene from Batman, when Gotham fell, and the inmates were running the streets.
On Thursday October 17th, the New York City council voted to close the infamous Riker’s Island jail facility a correctional complex with nearly 10,000 beds, by 2026. The island on the East river currently consists of ten jail buildings. According to The Washington Post:
“When it was first opened in the 1930s, Rikers Island was hailed as a cleaner, safer alternative to New York’s decrepit jail system. The facility, sitting on a 90-acre sliver of land between the Bronx and Queens, had been advertised as “the most perfect prison in the world.”
The council voted 36 – 13 to close those ten buildings and build four jails that are more modern and closer to main courthouses in the boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens. This means moving inmates into the city into smaller facilities, rather than keeping them contained on the island in the East River.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that chaos loving New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and other Democrats support the plan to shut down Rikers and replace it with an $8 billion plan that would replace the facility with jails in four of the city’s five boroughs.
Currently Riker’s Island holds mostly inmates awaiting trial. According to the New York Post, the new plan has a:
“Baseline estimate of how many inmates that system will be expected to accommodate by 2026 was recently revised down to just 3,544 — about half of its population today.”
That over half of the populations that Riker’s Island once held, will be released into the city, or will not be held after the year 2026, on charges they would have normally been incarcerated on awaiting trial on Riker’s Island.
As explained by the New York Post:
“When one considers the seriousness of the charges most city jail inmates are facing, the level of violence those inmates engage in behind bars and the potential for future crime increases, one thing becomes crystal clear: There is simply no way to cut the average daily jail population.”
Regardless of any plan that is in place “the city itself has described [the current and incoming jail population] as “more violent and difficult to manage” that much more without leaving dangerous criminals on the street, where you can be sure they will continue to diminish the quality of life in their neighborhoods.”
What does the pretentious Mayor of New York have to say about this grand plan of releasing inmates, and cutting the ability to incarcerate violent offenders nearly in half?
“Our city is a big step closer to closing Rikers Island — and ending the era of mass incarceration. This action today means that New York City is set on a new path. This is a plan that is about fairness and compassion. It’s about safety. It’s about valuing every human life.”
Except it seems the value of human life that will now be living in communities with more violent offenders.
But this should really come as no surprise to anyone. De Blasio has never been one to tout the benefits, of Law and Order. On the contrary, he thrives while his city stands in chaos. He is encouraged by other law makers that do not support law abiding citizens over criminals.
According to Fox News, City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, a Democrat who shepherded the plan through the governing body stated:
“Rikers Island is a symbol of brutality and inhumanity and it is time for us to once and for all close Rikers Island, as a city we must do everything we can to move away from the failed policies of mass incarceration.”
Officials in New York have stated that declining crime rate makes the downsizing necessary, according to Fox News:
“[official] anticipate New York City’s jail population will keep dropping because of criminal justice reforms and several district attorneys in the city saying they are no longer prosecuting small-time marijuana possession cases.”
It is also reported that police officer in New York City have been encouraged to write tickets for minor offenses instead of jailing them.
While its not hard to understand why this particular Mayor is pushing for such a change (considering his history in office), it is amazing to see that even from his own office, the theories behind closing Riker’s Island are not supported by the numbers. According to the New York Post:
“The most recent data from the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, 62 percent of the city’s pretrial jail population is facing violent felony charges; 30 percent are facing other felony charges. Just 8 percent of pretrial detainees are facing misdemeanor charges. The vast majority of these inmates are repeat offenders.”
So, if those numbers are correct, this proves that the Mayor is in support of the idea of having to release violent offenders into his communities. Not all members of the city council are in agreement with this wild idea, that criminal populations will be reduced.
One councilman, Carlos Menchaca, who voted no had this to say about the plan and the Mayor:
“There is nothing in the plan that guarantees closing Rikers. I do not trust this mayor. Do you?”
No, Councilman Menchaca, given this Mayor’s track record of not supporting Law and Order, we can’t say we trust him either…with anything!
Ok, so what about the people still inside the working prisons?
The city, lead by a mayor who has all but encouraged attacks on law enforcement officers, is taking things one step further – they’re continuing with a new trend to attack words.
Here’s the deal. The City Council is in the middle of considering new legislation that would give a guarantee of more “humane” living accommodations for inmates. That, of course, includes calling them by their preferred pronouns – not by how God created them.
Now the Department of Correction has restructured their rules for identifying inmates to make it more “prisoner-friendly”.
On Tuesday, an order was sent to agency commanding officers by DOC Chief of Department Hazel Jennings.
According to the note, “all department employees” are now “prohibited to refer to persons in … custody using terms such as i.e. packages, bodies, etc.”
She says those words are “unprofessional, demeaning and from this point prohibited.”
So what are they to be called?
They can only be referred to as “individuals” or “persons” in all radio transmissions, phone conversations and when speaking to others while on duty.
We spoke with a corrections officer in New York, who asked to remain nameless because he wasn’t authorized to weigh in on the controversy.
“This is just one more example of how our city puts those who break the law above those who enforce it,” she said. “It starts from the top down. The mayor, now that he’s dropped out of the presidential race because everyone hates him, is going to lead our city into a downward spiral to see how far left he can take us.”
So, what happens if you need to make a call on the radio? One DOC member commented to local media outlets:
“Now if you say on the radio you have five persons, does that mean inmates, visitors, construction workers, counselors, etc. It is confusing.”
Elias Husamudeen is the president of the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association. She told the New York Post that the order “is redundant because correction officers already address inmates by their names.”
“What’s concerning to us is this apparent emphasis from the City Council on increasing congeniality, rather than addressing the jail violence, which even the administration reports has risen significantly over the past year,” she said.
The order is part of a proposed “bill of rights” for local prisoners. It was written by Manhattan Councilman Keith Powers and introduced earlier this month.
That’s not all that goes into this proposed law. In addition to being called by preferred names, inmates would also get nicer prison cells, 24-hour “call buttons” to summon guards, kitchenettes and windows with sunny views, along with lots of ceramic and fabric.
The DOC Deputy Commissioner Peter Thorne is all in. He put out a statement saying Jennings’ “notification reinforces existing policy and advances our goal of creating a culture of mutual respect.”
“It is part of our ongoing commitment to remaking our jails into national models for modern correctional practice,” Thorne added.
NYC recently passed legislation banning words that they do not like.
They’ve made it illegal to threaten someone with a call to immigration authorities or refer to them as an “illegal alien”.
The restrictions were explained in a 29-page directive released by City Hall’s Commission on Human Rights.
So, what happens if you use one of the banned words or phrases?The violations are punishable by fines of up to $250,000 per offense.
This would include mandates on terminology used by law enforcement when referring to suspects, victims, witnesses and the general public.
A few examples of what made the list:
“‘Alien’ — used in many laws to refer to a ‘noncitizen’ person — is a term that may carry negative connotations and dehumanize immigrants, marking them as ‘other,’” reads one passage.
The memo goes on to further define the restriction.
“The use of certain language, including ‘illegal alien’ and ‘illegals,’ with the intent to demean, humiliate, or offend a person or persons constitutes discrimination.”
It breaks down several examples of acts and comments that would be considered a violation. That includes harassing people over their accents or grasp of English. It also lists the threat of a call to Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a tool of hate.
Despite all of this, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio claims that his city is as safe as it has ever been.
So, do law enforcement communities agree?
In a vote of “no confidence” in city leaders, the New York City Police Benevolent Association called for the immediate removal of Mayor Bill de Blasio and Commissioner James O’Neill from their positions.
NBC reported that PBA President Patrick Lynch slammed the two men in resolutions that were finalized on Wednesday, demanding that they step down or be removed from power.
“For years, Mayor de Blasio has demonized police officers and undermined our efforts to protect our city,” Lynch said in the police union’s resolution Wednesday.
The union has continued to call out the commissioner since his decision to fire Pantaleo from the force five years after Eric Garner’s death earlier this month. Lynch said that O’Neill’s political decision “deprived a dedicated and accomplished police officer of his livelihood”.
Police also said that the commissioner has failed to address issues within the department like mental health problems and quality-of-life issues.
“For years, Commissioner O’Neill has cravenly acquiesced to the mayor and his anti-cop allies,” Lynch said Wednesday.
According to the PBA, they’ve had enough. And they won’t rest until New York City police officers get the support they need.
But the department fired back, claiming O’Neill wholeheartedly supports his officers.
“As the Police Commissioner has said before, his heart and soul are with the NYPD, and he is honored to lead this Department as it continues to drive crime to historically low levels,” said Phillip Walzak, the deputy commissioner for public information of the NYPD.
The police union wasn’t done there. They additionally called for Governor Cuomo to enact his official power to remove Mayor Bill de Blasio from office after he “unlawfully interfered” in the decision to fire Daniel Pantaleo.
The Police Benevolent Association “calls upon Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to exercise his powers under the Charter to immediately suspend and ultimately remove Mayor de Blasio on charges of malfeasance and nonfeasance in the above-stated matters.”
Lynch said that the mayor has been creating an environment of distrust between the police and the public, continuously widening the divide between law and order and the chaos in the streets.
The mayor’s office fired back after Lynch released his statements, calling the city the “safest it’s ever been.”
“This is another attempt by the PBA to divide our city and we won’t stand for it. Under this mayor and Police Commissioner, our officers and the communities they serve are closer than ever and the city is the safest it’s ever been,” Freddie Goldstein said. “That isn’t changing.”
Since former NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo was fired five years after his fatal encounter with Eric Garner, arrests in the city have plummeted.
And experts say the two are directly connected.
“Who wants to be the last cop standing?” a Manhattan cop said in an interview with the New York Post. “If someone’s in trouble and needs help or if a cop’s in trouble, obviously, you do what you have to do as a police officer. But if it’s discretionary, why put yourself in harm’s way?’’
It seems that police are now fully aware of how much support they’ll get from the leaders of the city, and because of it, they’ve backed off.
Between Aug. 17, the day Pantaleo was terminated from the NYPD, and Aug. 25, arrests within the department dropped by 27 percent compared to the same period last year the New York Post reported.
According to that report, New York City cops made 3,508 arrests compared to 4,827 a year earlier during that time.
Seems like police have realized that the deck is stacked against them.
Not to be outdone by Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio, Governor Gavin Newsom is just a short 2,844 mile drive down the street. And he is doing his absolute best to keep pace.
Here is a quick look at what he, and other local leaders are doing.
For starters, Newsom couldn’t possibly send a clearer and more 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.
In contrast to this decision, Newsom DID recently sign into law 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.”
This same governor, after making national headlines for allowing murderers and rapists to serve on juries, is now telling the country that it’s okay to break certain laws, as they go along with the state’s narrative.
In a completely unprecedented move, California Governor Gavin Newsom just pardoned three convicted criminals, specifically to try and block their deportation.
Fox News reported that all three men involved in the situation broke the law as teenagers or adults and have been convicted of their crimes. Those involved hailed from El Salvador, Iran and Ecuador.
Newsom says that because each of the men have served their sentences and have taken steps to rehabilitate themselves, they shouldn’t have to face deportation.
The governor’s office released a formal statement this week addressing the decision.
“The Governor regards clemency as an important part of the criminal justice system that can incentivize accountability and rehabilitation, increase public safety by removing counterproductive barriers to successful reentry, and correct unjust results in the legal system,” the office’s statement read.
But according to Fox’s report, Newsom’s pardon doesn’t completely free the men from facing deportation. Instead, the move just takes their past crimes off the record for consideration during deportation proceedings.
The governor’s office says that the men came into the country legally as children and now all reside in Los Angeles County. Despite their legal status, federal officials can still move to deport known criminals for their actions at any time.
Let’s take a closer look at the list of crimes that the men are accused of committing on American soil.
38-year old Victor Ayala was convicted of felony robbery at age 21 after he stole from an electronics store and assaulted a security guard. Ayala also had four prior convictions for theft and a hit-and-run.
41-year-old Thear Seam was convicted of robbery after stealing a man’s wallet and backpack when he was 18. A year later he was convicted of additional offenses after leading police on a high-speed chase in an attempt to help a fellow car thief avoid being arrested.
42-year-old Arnou Aghamalian was convicted of helping his cousin set a club owner’s car on fire after they got into an altercation. Aghamalian was 22 at the time.
While all three men are not completely off the hook for potentially being deported, their past offenses have been wiped from their slate. Newsom swears that each of the men has left their past lives of crime behind.
In addition to those pardons, the California leader also commuted the sentence of 59-year-old Curtis Reynolds, who has dedicated his life to helping those struggling with addiction since being convicted of six felony drug distribution charges, as well as two men serving life sentences for armed robbery and attempted murder.
Each of the commutations allow for the inmates to enter parole hearings.
Newsom is apparently a huge believer in second, third and maybe even fourth chances, but only if it fits the narrative.
Now, with all of this going on, what would you do ifyou saw an officer in need of help… what would you do?
Most people would step in and offer assistance… no questions asked.
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.
But in California’s latest move to further the divide between the police and the public, citizens would now be legally allowed to refuse to help a police officer who needs assistance.
Governor Gavin Newsom signed their newest anti-police bill into law on Tuesday, the Sacramento Bee reported. State leaders have said that it now allows citizens to avoid “an untenable moral dilemma.”
Moral dilemma? From assisting an officer with an arrest if he’s in need of help?
We get it. Maybe there shouldn’t be a fine or a jail sentence associated with choosing to not get involved. Perhaps the original law from the 1870’s is a bit outdated.
But what is this bill really saying?
Essentially, it’s driving a bigger wedge between officers and civilians.
People now are essentially told to let a cop fend for himself if he’s being overpowered by a dangerous perpetrator. It affirms the decision to stand by and film or watch while a hero’s life is in danger.
The new bill would get rid of the old law – the California Posse Comitatus Act of 1872, which required a civilian to step in and assist an officer during an arrest if necessary. For those who ‘violated’ it, they could face up to a $1,000 fine.
9,999 times out of 1,000… an officer isn’t going to ask for an untrained bystander to step in and help. But sometimes it’s necessary… and it could mean the difference between life and death.
Let’s look at this objectively.
How many people were ever really charged with this misdemeanor? What Governor Newsom did was remind everyone that they have a choice — and basically push them to make the choice to carry on with their lives instead of getting involved.
Our question is… if this law had simply remained the way it was, how many people would have chosen to step in and help when they saw another human in need?
And how big of a drop-off rate would we see now that this bill is being pushed in the public eye? Will people see a police officer being attacked and because they don’t like cops, they choose to stand there and watch him die?
It brings back memories of the time when a bystander chose to broadcast an officer’s death to Facebook Live instead of putting down the phone and doing what they could to help.
Is this the country we want to live in?
This new law comes shortly after the state appeals court repealed the ‘Good Samaritan Law’, which protects those who take it upon themselves to help emergency personnel with a situation.
The law had read, “No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency medical or nonmedical care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission.” The law additionally says that a person won’t be held liable for civil damages unless their actions constituted “gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct.“
Thankfully, there are still a lot of incredible people in our country who would never think twice about helping someone who needed it.
And just like the Empire State on the east coast, it isn’t just the state level lawmakers that have lost their freaking minds…it is happening at the city levels as well.
Mayors who have tipped off members of their communities, in the country illegally, of impending ICE raids and turned their cities into sanctuaries, often for people who have been removed from this country numerous times, only to return and commit violent crimes, are merely “the tip of the iceberg.”
-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. All of this is in an attempt to make it too expensive for law-abiding citizens to be able to be adequately prepared to defend themselves.
-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, issued a proclamation deeming members of the NRA domestic terrorists.
-Recently, the governor also allowed the parole of a former Aryan Brotherhood member convicted of two brutal murders.
-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.
Currently, this race is too close to call. But for the people in these two states who actually have logic, common-sense and intelligence, there are no winners.
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.