On Friday, January 24, 2020, just before 11am, the Sanger Police Department encountered Arthur Perez. Perez had a warrant and was on parole. The context of the initial contact with Perez is not discussed mentioned anywhere. Following the requirements of the hug-a-thug laws that have been enacted over the last 10 years in California, the police cited and released Perez.
Less than three hours later, the police were called to the scene of a residential burglary where the resident found a man burglarizing their home. Being a self-sufficient person who does not leave their personal safety in the hands of the government, the resident was a gun owner. The resident held Perez at gunpoint until the cops arrived and arrested Perez for the second time that day. The cops then took Perez to the Fresno jail where he was booked into custody, for now…
For some reason, in their Facebook post the Sanger police made it a point to indicate the resident of that home had a valid CCW, but that is completely irrelevant to this entire situation. A CCW is not remotely needed in order to use a firearm to protect your home. As a cop responding to a call, yes I want to know if the homeowner is armed, but if they are holding a burglar in their home at gunpoint, I could care less if they have a CCW. But I digress…
Now, before anyone gets all pissed off at the Sanger Police for releasing Perez the first time, it is not their fault. California’s single party (Democrat) rule and their hug-a-thug laws are solely responsible for Perez’s initial release. Changes they enacted with AB-109 and both Propositions 47 & 57 have made it nearly impossible for the cops to lock up criminals. Ironically, the creators of those changes proclaimed they were designed to enhance public safety.
Back in the day, a guy like Perez would have gone back to prison even before his first contact with the Sanger police. You see, cops used to be able to get a parolee violated for committing new crimes. The fact that Perez had a misdemeanor warrant means that at some point prior to that 11am contact, he had committed a fresh crime for which he was failing to report to court to resolve.
The fact that there are parolees with warrants for fresh crimes wandering the streets of California, while not news to me, is maddening.
To be quite frank, back in the early days of my patrol career, it was very simple to get a parolee violated. Parole is still part of a convict’s punishment, not freedom. A prisoner is given the chance to serve out the remainder of their sentence on parole, rather than keep them in custody. One of the rules for parole is that you obey the law and comply with law enforcement. If you had a parolee refusing to cooperate, you could get him violated for that simple act.
Now? Now it takes an act of God, and the commission of a fresh felony before their parole will be violated and they get sent back to prison. This inability to put parolees back in prison was absolutely the intent of those laws.
That collection of hug-a-thug laws had one main purpose – to reduce the prison population. It had absolutely nothing to do with public safety like the Democrats who wrote and enacted those bills claimed. How does putting convicted felons back on the streets early, and making it next to impossible to put them back in prison help public safety?
The reason they wanted to reduce the prison population to reduce prison spending, that way they can use the money elsewhere. They are still pushing the issue even further. Right now, Gavin Newsom is planning on closing one of California’s prisons in order to get even more money freed up to spend elsewhere. At the same time, Newsom is commuting sentences of prisoners like he is going to win a prize for the most prisoners released.
All of these hug-a-thug policies that are being enacted do nothing to enhance public safety. As is evidenced by this particular incident in Sanger, California, they are actually responsible for creating additional crime victims. The cops know this. The politicians know this. The question is, will the voters ever figure out that being soft on crime makes absolutely no one safer?
