Gascón’s Soft-on-Criminals Policy Blows Up in His Face

On June 14, two El Monte police officers responding to a domestic violence call were shot and killed by a habitual felon free on probation due to the reduced-sentencing policy of Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón.  According to the Los Angeles Times the shooter, Justin Flores, a gang member with multiple priors, served 10 days of a 20-day sentence in county jail for a 2021 gun and drug conviction that made him eligible for a three-year prison sentence.  Under Gascón’s ban on sentence enhancements for criminals guilty of multiple offenses Flores was free to kill the two officers.  The County Coroner has concluded that Flores shot himself as other officers closed in on him.   Eric Siddall, Vice President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys, has this post on the fallout from these two murders.

Under California law, Flores should have been in a state prison cell on the day he murdered the two officers. Instead, because of George Gascón’s policies, he was in a hotel room in El Monte beating his girlfriend until two officers responded for the call for help. Now two officers are dead.

As word spread of Gascón’s role in this killing, Gascón’s press operation attempted to misdirect the media about the consequences of his bad policy. His spokesperson—not an actual prosecutor—stated that “the sentence he received in the firearm case was consistent with case resolutions for this type of offense.” Later, the same spokesperson said, “experienced managers in the office have reviewed the facts of the case and the criminal history of Mr. Flores and determined that this [plea deal] offer was on par with offers in previous administrations.”

I challenge these “experienced managers” to come forward and explain why a career criminal gang member, who under the law is required to serve a state prison sentence, served ten days in county jail. Further, I am curious how they can explain why Flores served less time on illegal possession of a gun, ammunition, and drugs than he did for petty theft or a suspended license violation.

Gascón’s spokesperson continued the misdirection: “The sentencing directive is presumptive. We empower DDAs to rebut that presumption if they believe extraordinary circumstances exist … No such request was made in this case.”
These claims are false. First, Gascón’s policy had no exceptions regarding strikes. In relevant parts, his policy stated: “Any prior-strike enhancements (Penal Code § 667(d), 667(e); 1170.12(a) and 1170.12 (c)) will not be used for sentencing and shall be dismissed or withdrawn from the charging document.”

There was no appeal process nor exceptions to this policy. Another part of the same policy stated, “if the charged offense is probation-eligible, probation shall be the presumptive offer absent extraordinary circumstances warranting a state prison commitment…Extraordinary circumstances must be approved by the appropriate bureau director.” On a practical level, this meant no exception.

As reported by ABC News, the Recall Gascón’ campaign had collected 566,857 signatures on Tuesday, June 14, the day the two El Monte officers were murdered.   While that is the number of signatures required to qualify the recall for the November ballot, the campaign is pushing to have over 700,000 by the July 6 deadline.  It appears that Gascón’s policies and blatant dishonesty will help them to achieve that objective.