> Why is police choosing not to make arrests (at high physical risk to all involved) in cases where the DA has announced intent to not prosecute “not doing their job”
The specific claim made upthread was that this was justified by DAs pursuing alternative/restorative justice. Not arresting because they don’t like DAs doing that instead of seeking prison is very much not doing their job.
Similarly, not arresting because they don’t like DAs charging misdemeanors rather than felonies.
Not arresting in specific circumstances where DA has indicated no action of any kind will be taken, if done consistently, is reasonable; but even here, police are very inconsistent, and will frequently arrest nonviolent protestors (and engage in viewpoint discrimination as to which protestors get this treatment) – for possibly legitimate offenses, sure – in circumstances that they know will not be prosecuted, while using the lack of prosecution as an excuse not to arrest for equally legitimate offensea of other kinds. This is, itself, a form of political lobbying while on th4 clock as civil servants.
The worst of the worst list is especially interesting, though the numbers for at least three arrests are more indicative.
Whatever it is we're doing, it's not working. The people who lose in this case are the victims.
As for differential treatment, it's not too hard to see arrests of protesters who start becoming aggressive with officers as a means of nipping something worse in the bud.
Compare that with the upthread example where a guy was running after having stolen something. The threat of violence was over, there wasn't a risk of escalation unless the officer ran after him.
I think the real challenge you’re running into is that the line between enforcement-worthy and not enforcement-worthy crime is in the eye of the beholder. But the DA saying _x_ is no longer a felony would seemingly be a clear signal about how police should be prioritizing their work.
The DA is a political actor too and could be pressuring cops to funnel people to their restorative Justice programs if they wanted to.
Police don't get to choose the method of justice. That's up to the judge, and depends on what the DA's orders are regarding what charges are actually filed (i.e. felonies won't qualify, so drop charges to a misdemeanor).
The specific claim made upthread was that this was justified by DAs pursuing alternative/restorative justice. Not arresting because they don’t like DAs doing that instead of seeking prison is very much not doing their job.
Similarly, not arresting because they don’t like DAs charging misdemeanors rather than felonies.
Not arresting in specific circumstances where DA has indicated no action of any kind will be taken, if done consistently, is reasonable; but even here, police are very inconsistent, and will frequently arrest nonviolent protestors (and engage in viewpoint discrimination as to which protestors get this treatment) – for possibly legitimate offenses, sure – in circumstances that they know will not be prosecuted, while using the lack of prosecution as an excuse not to arrest for equally legitimate offensea of other kinds. This is, itself, a form of political lobbying while on th4 clock as civil servants.