California Insider

(PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA) Sept 10, 2022 — Why did theft and robbery go rampant in California? Why are the statistics not reflecting the rising crime?

My guest today is Vern Pierson, District Attorney of El Dorado County from Northern California, He also served several years with California Department of Justice as Deputy Attorney General.

Transcript [Auto Generated]

0:00
some people are saying theft in
0:01
california is legal now what we’ve done
0:04
is we’ve convinced a large number of
0:06
people here in the state that there is
0:09
no consequence for their action and so
0:11
we have this increased lawlessness that
0:14
comes from it the view is i can take
0:16
other people’s property because nothing
0:18
will happen to me so what happens if
0:20
somebody steals at the store most
0:23
retailers
0:25
have learned that if they call law
0:27
enforcement for a theft of less than 950
0:30
dollars that either law enforcement will
0:32
not respond or if they respond at most
0:35
what they will do is issue a citation my
0:38
guest today is vern pearson district
0:41
attorney of el dorado county in northern
0:43
california he also served several years
0:46
with california’s department of justice
0:49
as deputy attorney general
0:51
you have to hold people accountable for
0:53
their actions that is the practical
0:55
reality and if you tell people you’re
0:57
not going to hold them accountable for
0:59
their actions there’s a consequence for
1:01
that and the consequence is increased
1:03
crime
1:04
why is theft and robbery out of control
1:07
in california
1:08
and why are the statistics not
1:11
reflecting this rise in crime we’ll find
1:13
out in today’s episode i’m siama korami
1:17
welcome to california insider
1:23
well thank you for having me pleasure to
1:25
be here
1:26
we want to talk to you about theft some
1:28
people are saying theft in california is
1:30
legal now is this true
1:33
well technically not legal but not
1:36
enforced is probably the better way to
1:37
put it certainly if it’s less than 950
1:40
dollars so
1:42
with the passage of prop 47
1:44
about eight years ago what we did was we
1:47
we looked at most property crimes
1:50
and uh that were being prosecuted that
1:52
time and said
1:54
many of them that were felonies are now
1:56
misdemeanors and many that were felon
1:59
misdemeanors are essentially nothing and
2:02
there’s a lack of enforcement for them
2:04
so what happens if somebody steals at
2:06
the store or if somebody steals
2:09
yeah well and one of the the core areas
2:12
to understand here is that there’s this
2:15
um
2:16
used to be what was called petty theft
2:18
of the prior in other words if someone
2:20
steals and they have any amount of
2:23
property on them when they’re they’re
2:24
caught by law enforcement uh if they
2:27
have a history of that same type of
2:29
theft they could be charged with a
2:30
felony hence petty theft with a prior
2:34
and nowadays what happens and we’ve seen
2:36
it with some of these swarm
2:38
uh uh smash and grab robberies in stores
2:41
where the 15 people are running out with
2:44
with stolen property
2:46
nine are detained let’s say
2:49
two of them have a large quantity amount
2:51
of money
2:53
of theft that’s been stole property
2:54
that’s been stolen and the other seven
2:58
have uh four five six seven eight
3:00
hundred dollars worth of property
3:02
they’re only going to be charged with a
3:04
misdemeanor depending on the
3:05
circumstances and in california the way
3:08
it works is that essentially
3:10
misdemeanors have very little
3:11
consequence certainly as it relates to
3:14
property crime so can you explain very
3:16
little consequence what it means
3:18
well in the practical reality is is that
3:22
most retailers
3:24
have learned that if they call law
3:26
enforcement for a theft of less than 950
3:29
dollars that either law enforcement will
3:32
not respond or if they respond at most
3:35
what they will do is issue a citation uh
3:38
to the person who is stealing that
3:40
property so the practical reality is
3:42
most retailers in in california has some
3:46
type of policy
3:47
telling them telling the employees not
3:50
to report low-level property crimes and
3:53
and that’s for a number of
3:54
understandable reasons one is there’s no
3:56
consequence for if if they do report it
3:59
and number two if the person is
4:02
emotionally disturbed in some way
4:05
fights with their employees
4:07
injures an employee
4:09
something like that happens
4:11
then
4:12
oftentimes what will happen is that this
4:14
the store or will be sued by the person
4:17
that they attempted to arrest so from a
4:21
liability standpoint oftentimes
4:24
retailers are just saying the thief can
4:26
actually go and sue the store and the
4:28
stores are afraid of that lawsuit right
4:30
right we’re a very litigious society
4:32
here in california and the stores are
4:35
and their insurance carriers really are
4:37
afraid with being sued
4:39
for uh
4:40
trying to stop a crime
4:42
that has little or no consequence
4:44
you mentioned when somebody has a
4:46
misdemeanor they would get a ticket
4:48
right uh what does that mean would they
4:50
end up having to pay a fine would they
4:52
have to would they end up going to
4:53
prison or would they
4:54
the practical reality is over the last
4:57
several years they would get a citation
4:59
citing them into court and they probably
5:01
would never show up to court and there
5:03
probably would never be any consequence
5:06
for the most part and depending on what
5:08
city you’re talking about san francisco
5:10
los angeles there’s little or no
5:12
consequence for for theft and so what
5:14
we’ve done is we’ve convinced a large
5:17
number of people here in the state that
5:21
there is no consequence for their action
5:23
and so we have this increased
5:24
lawlessness that comes from it the view
5:27
is i can take other people’s property
5:29
because nothing will happen to me
5:32
and if you do that enough times and
5:34
we’ve seen it there’s been a number of
5:36
different studies that has been done
5:38
that said we have the same people that
5:40
are stealing over and over again and
5:43
when they’re caught there’s no
5:44
consequence
5:46
and what is the impact of this is this
5:48
going to affect us in any bigger ways
5:51
when we watch we turn on the news or we
5:53
watch turn on youtube and you see the
5:55
smash and grabs taking place or large
5:57
scale
5:58
thefts and then you have
6:00
walgreens let’s say closing their stores
6:03
or starbucks more recently saying we’re
6:06
going to close stores in certain areas
6:08
because we can’t uh deal with the the
6:11
crime that’s associated with it
6:14
and it’s it i think it’s a
6:17
it’s something that increases over time
6:19
in terms of
6:21
where society at large is saying
6:24
there’s no consequence for for
6:26
criminality then
6:29
we’re kind of losing a big part of
6:31
society itself and so people
6:34
don’t feel comfortable walking the
6:35
streets of san francisco you have large
6:39
associations that say we don’t want to
6:42
have our conference in san francisco or
6:44
in los angeles because
6:46
we don’t want to have our our people
6:47
being robbed or or other otherwise
6:50
harmed
6:51
um in that manner now do you think this
6:54
could spill into other types of crimes
6:56
or is it going to stay with what it is
6:59
no i think it is i mean
7:02
when we as a society say
7:05
that
7:06
low-level crimes have little or no
7:08
consequence i think the effect of that
7:10
is that more serious crimes
7:14
increase as well and i think that’s
7:16
what’s happened over the last several
7:17
years
7:19
some people and some newspapers are
7:21
actually looking at the data and they’re
7:23
saying that crime is not
7:25
up right despite all the videos that we
7:28
see on social media and what are your
7:30
thoughts on that
7:31
well
7:32
it’s wrong the the data is is uh
7:36
incorrect at this point and let me
7:37
explain what i mean when we when we when
7:40
prop 47 decriminalized certain types of
7:42
drug crimes and low-level property
7:44
crimes it changed the way we report
7:47
crimes in other words
7:49
if it was a misdemeanor before it became
7:52
essentially nothing many felonies became
7:54
misdemeanors so
7:56
when
7:57
when people say
7:58
they feel in their communities as though
8:01
their neighbors or houses are being
8:02
burglarized uh they see videos of
8:05
walgreens having as many as 20 different
8:08
shopliftings in it in a day
8:10
and then they ask the question
8:12
where’s the reports of this when when we
8:14
look at the numbers why isn’t the data
8:16
following that and this what this goes
8:19
back to is this this problem with
8:21
retailers not fully reporting the crimes
8:24
in other words
8:27
if there’s a disincentive to report for
8:29
a retailer other words you might if you
8:31
call law enforcement number one they not
8:34
might not respond number two if they do
8:36
respond they’ll only issue a citation
8:39
at most and there’ll be no consequence
8:41
so retailers have kind of shifted the
8:43
way they deal with that
8:44
the the more accurate numbers
8:47
within the data of where crime is are
8:51
things around
8:53
shootings because those are reported to
8:55
law enforcement
8:58
crimes involving automobiles in other
9:00
words a car burglary
9:02
a car theft insurance companies here in
9:06
california and throughout the united
9:07
states require people to to have a
9:11
police work even if it’s simply a police
9:13
report where you call in and you take
9:15
have a police report taken by by phone
9:17
call or you go online and taking it
9:19
there’s an accurate record of that and
9:22
what we’ve seen in the last
9:24
six or seven years is those types of
9:27
crimes have gone up dramatically
9:29
auto burglaries auto thefts are up
9:32
dramatically and that’s a truer
9:35
set of data for where crime actually is
9:38
in california what about the shootings
9:40
what’s the difference between shootings
9:42
and homicides because the homicide
9:44
numbers are very up the homicide numbers
9:47
are up but we’ve been told by experts to
9:49
only trust the homicide homicide numbers
9:51
because well and that’s true because
9:53
there’s an accurate reporting for
9:54
homicides but it’s also not true in
9:56
other words the the shootings are up
10:00
even more than the homicides are up and
10:03
what’s happened post 9 11 is most trauma
10:06
centers throughout the united states and
10:08
particularly here in california are
10:10
staffed with doctors and and nurses who
10:14
have
10:15
developed a high degree of expertise in
10:18
dealing with gunshot wounds a lot of
10:20
them are veterans or observed either in
10:22
the military or supported that
10:24
and the the various techniques for
10:26
treating gunshot wounds means that your
10:28
survivability today is significantly
10:31
higher than it was back in the the peak
10:33
of crime in the 1990s
10:35
so we’ve gotten better at dealing with
10:37
shootings right um but we have a lot
10:40
more shootings so we have less homicides
10:42
right that is that yeah we have a
10:44
proliferation of guns
10:46
there’s a lot of firearms here in in the
10:48
united states and here in california and
10:51
because of various policies that have
10:53
gone into effect
10:55
more people are carrying firearms when
10:57
they’re committing crimes
10:59
and then ultimately there’s more
11:00
shootings but the treatment for for
11:03
people who have been shot the the
11:05
likelihood of surviving is tremendously
11:08
higher today than it was back in the
11:10
1990s
11:12
now what about the policymakers so
11:15
you have been involved with the district
11:17
attorneys you you’ve led the
11:18
organization what what are the policy
11:20
makers thinking when they’re seeing all
11:22
of this well i i think they’re the
11:25
legislature here in california is
11:28
largely disconnected from the people
11:30
they represent and i just don’t know
11:32
there’s any other way of describing it
11:35
i’ll give you for instance
11:37
recently
11:38
over the last few years there was a
11:40
effort to go to what’s called zero
11:42
dollar bail in other words bail where
11:44
the person is not required to to they
11:47
can be released without putting up any
11:48
money they mentioned bill was racist
11:50
right because there’s
11:51
all sorts of arguments about if you’re
11:53
poor you can’t afford right and and so
11:55
there was a there was a bill that passed
11:57
and then there was a referendum where
11:59
the people of the state of california
12:01
rejected that uh referendum uh uh
12:05
rejected that law so it’s not on the
12:07
books today and there’s an effort going
12:09
on again in the california legislature
12:12
to come back to it so in other words
12:14
that’s what i mean by disconnect in
12:15
terms of the voters spoke very clearly
12:18
we don’t agree with letting people out
12:20
of custody who have committed crimes
12:23
without some type of consequence or some
12:25
type of
12:27
a string tied to them to ensure that
12:29
they come to court and that they don’t
12:31
commit other crimes the voters rejected
12:34
that type of zero dollar bail and yet
12:36
the legislators are seeking to do it
12:38
once again and what about the rest of
12:41
the california government so you guys
12:43
the district attorneys and there is the
12:45
police and then there’s other factors
12:48
how much
12:49
say do you guys have or how much can you
12:51
guys do or have you been doing it well
12:54
the district attorney in any given
12:55
county has a lot of influence over how
12:58
crimes are prosecuted
13:01
and from county to county there’s a huge
13:04
variety in other words or
13:06
a huge difference is probably the better
13:08
way to put it in los angeles county you
13:11
have george gascon who when he came into
13:13
office he made certain policy decisions
13:16
that
13:17
zero bail letting people out of custody
13:19
not not using three strikes not
13:22
differentiating on offenders
13:25
that had significant criminal history
13:27
versus ones that have
13:29
little or no criminal history not
13:31
prosecuting people for for using
13:33
firearms in the commission of a crime
13:36
and and then you you compare that to
13:39
certain other jurisdictions and the
13:41
district attorneys
13:42
[Music]
13:44
are very aggressive with dealing with
13:45
crime and the differences are pretty
13:47
stark in terms of you know counties like
13:49
my county uh placer county have the
13:53
lowest
13:54
per capita crime
13:56
uh in california and among the lowest in
13:59
in the united states and law enforcement
14:02
has a very good relationship with the
14:04
communities versus in other
14:05
jurisdictions where law enforcement does
14:07
not have a very good relationship the
14:09
da’s do not have a good relationship
14:11
with the community and crime is very
14:12
high
14:13
so do you think certain counties in
14:15
california based on the district
14:17
attorneys that they have
14:19
they’re going to be very different from
14:21
rest of
14:22
california yes you’re going to have a
14:24
completely different experience living
14:26
in l.a
14:27
versus you live in san diego or you live
14:29
in orange county is that how it’s going
14:30
to be in the near future well it really
14:33
shouldn’t be that way that there’s a a
14:35
different quality of life from
14:37
jurisdiction to jurisdiction but we we
14:40
you know the practical reality is that
14:42
you have certain communities where
14:45
there’s been a
14:47
philosophical
14:49
shift there is a political shift
14:52
um to
14:53
to
14:55
what i can characterize as a culture of
14:56
lawlessness
14:58
and we’re
14:59
the the d.a
15:01
behaves more of a public defender and is
15:03
sympathetic to defendants
15:06
as opposed to sympathetic to the victims
15:09
of crime
15:10
and uh
15:12
that’s a kind of at its core what the
15:14
differences are in my view the way i was
15:16
trained in in my experience in terms of
15:19
my career as a prosecutor for 30 years
15:22
is that you know we look for first and
15:24
foremost to take care of the victims of
15:27
crime
15:28
uh and
15:29
we can acknowledge and recognize that
15:32
that sometimes people uh get involved in
15:34
criminal activity for whatever reason
15:36
might be
15:38
and i’m certainly not an advocate for
15:39
what’s been characterized as mass
15:41
incarceration but you have to hold
15:44
people accountable for their actions
15:46
that is the practical reality and if you
15:48
tell people you’re not going to hold
15:50
them accountable for their actions
15:52
there’s a consequence for that and the
15:54
consequence is increased crime
15:56
now do you think criminals are actually
15:58
looking at different districts and
16:00
saying okay i
16:01
in here i can do if i’m in san francisco
16:05
it’s okay for me to break into a car and
16:07
take the backpack
16:08
versus i shouldn’t do that in some other
16:11
yeah and that’s an excellent point so
16:13
with with uh car burglaries car thefts
16:16
uh the city of san francisco versus uh
16:19
san mateo county where the the
16:22
the
16:23
sfo the airport in san francisco is
16:25
actually located in san mateo county
16:28
which is right next door that the the
16:30
policies between those two
16:33
uh jurisdictions are night and day in
16:35
san mateo county if you steal things if
16:38
you break into cars you steal a car you
16:40
will be held accountable for that in san
16:43
francisco you will not
16:44
car break-ins car thefts are
16:46
dramatically higher in san francisco
16:48
than they are right next door in san
16:50
fran in san mateo county
16:52
and what we’ve seen is that the the
16:55
criminals do communicate with each other
16:57
there’s videos we have a video out of uh
16:59
folsom prison of a
17:02
a murderer from l.a county uh right
17:05
after the george gascon directives came
17:07
out in into effect and they’re they’re
17:10
toasting drinking it’s called pruno
17:13
inmate manufactured
17:16
alcohol and they’re toasting the gascone
17:18
directives and how that will change them
17:21
so we i i think we’ve seen it i’ve seen
17:24
it in my career
17:25
the criminals know
17:28
how laws have shifted when three strikes
17:30
took place going back many years
17:32
a
17:33
crime
17:35
rapidly was it was decreasing after the
17:37
passage of three strikes when inmates
17:40
would come into custody
17:41
they were all talking about whether or
17:43
not someone was a striker or not a
17:45
striker there was a real
17:47
uh communication
17:49
amongst uh
17:51
criminals
17:52
regarding what the consequences would be
17:54
and there was an awareness that they had
17:56
that they would be held accountable for
17:58
their actions it seems like some
18:01
counties are more easier for criminals
18:02
to go to to commit the crime and then
18:05
maybe people go to these counties commit
18:07
the crime and come out
18:08
is this happening
18:10
well i think it’s definitely happening
18:11
in depending on jurisdiction
18:14
jurisdictions have reputations for
18:17
whether or not people are held
18:19
in custody or not held in custody and
18:22
going back to the example i used before
18:23
with san francisco and san mateo county
18:26
right next door
18:28
in san francisco
18:30
it’s pretty well known that
18:32
most people will either not be booked in
18:35
who are arrested will either not be
18:36
booked into jail or if they’re booked
18:38
into the jail they’ll be released pretty
18:39
quickly right next door in san mateo
18:41
county that’s very different and there’s
18:43
a there’s a recent example where a
18:46
a person on bart traveling from san
18:48
francisco down to the airport was uh
18:51
assaulted and robbed on the uh uh on the
18:55
on the tram uh the bart tram and the uh
18:59
in technically in san francisco uh he
19:03
the individual was arrested taken to the
19:05
san francisco jail it was a sunday and
19:08
the jail
19:09
basically told law enforcement we’re not
19:11
going to take this individual because
19:13
it’s a sunday and we’re not doing intake
19:15
today so law enforcement drove down to
19:18
san mateo county booked the person in
19:20
san mateo county
19:22
jail
19:23
and because it’s public transit san
19:25
mateo county actually prosecuted that
19:28
individual
19:29
and
19:31
we know it people that work within the
19:32
system we know where these variances are
19:35
and
19:36
we’re silly to think that uh criminals
19:40
don’t also aren’t also aware of the same
19:42
differences
19:44
you mentioned gascon and where do you
19:46
think these uh policies come from
19:49
because they’ve been pretty
19:50
controversial a lot of people have
19:52
have said that these are not good for
19:54
the criminal justice system well i i
19:56
think in some respects it’s just a a
19:58
well-intentioned but misguided
20:01
effort
20:03
to change the system and i i my own
20:05
personal opinion is that
20:07
he although he has a lot of experience
20:10
in the criminal justice system he just
20:12
doesn’t understand it he doesn’t
20:14
understand that when you change
20:15
something on one end of it as as in you
20:18
put out a directive saying there’ll be
20:20
no firearm enhancements um he doesn’t
20:23
seems to not understand that if you say
20:25
something like that people who before
20:28
were going to do a
20:30
what’s called a strong armed robbery
20:33
they wouldn’t carry a firearm because
20:34
they knew there was a significant
20:36
consequence for that
20:37
they would feel free i guess i will
20:40
carry a firearm if nothing’s going to
20:41
happen to me if there’s no real
20:43
consequence
20:44
for being armed with a firearm then
20:46
that’s what i’ll do
20:47
and in in california we had
20:50
uh
20:51
something called 10 20 life which was
20:53
basically that you would if you carried
20:55
a firearm during the commission of a
20:57
felony if you discharged a firearm in
20:59
the commission of felony or you you
21:01
killed someone with a firearm there
21:03
would be a significant increase in
21:06
uh penalty for that the existence of
21:08
that firearm so it’s this odd thing to
21:10
where california
21:12
professes at a policy level uh to be uh
21:16
uh anti-gun
21:18
and yet
21:19
we have in a large part
21:21
yeah
21:22
yes it’s it’s it completely increases
21:24
the gun to do a robbery then it’s okay
21:26
right
21:27
right and now is this fixable based on
21:30
what you see
21:32
i hope it’s fixable i i hope uh as the
21:35
public uh uh sees what’s actually
21:38
happening for themselves
21:40
and despite some of the the
21:44
newspaper articles some of the
21:46
uh being told by politicians that
21:49
don’t believe you’re lying eyes in other
21:51
words that i think the public is waking
21:53
up to it and saying you know what this
21:55
is really a problem when when when you
21:57
cannot walk the streets of san francisco
22:00
when when people are telling
22:02
moving out of san francisco or l.a even
22:05
because they’re saying i don’t want my
22:07
kids to get off the bus and have to step
22:10
over homeless people that have a needle
22:11
stuck on their arm
22:14
i think there will be a consequence and
22:15
there will be a tipping point that
22:17
happens when the public will begin more
22:19
aggressively to push back against these
22:21
misguided policies and how should the
22:23
public get involved would they have to
22:26
talk to their district attorneys or is
22:28
it something they have to go to
22:30
how can they make this change or what do
22:32
they need to do do they need to pay more
22:34
attention to this role i think they need
22:36
to pay pay more attention to it and
22:38
really ask you know tough questions in
22:40
terms of what are their policies when
22:42
when someone is running for elected
22:44
office whatever the office may be
22:46
to ask them tough questions about what
22:48
are their plans what’s their what’s
22:50
their solution for dealing with
22:52
let’s say homelessness what’s their
22:53
solution for dealing with crime do they
22:56
believe in personal accountability and
22:57
responsibility
22:59
in the way that they manage their office
23:02
i was interviewing a district attorney
23:04
and he told me that
23:06
in his county
23:08
if you actually steal a car
23:11
and you actually get into you get
23:13
arrested you get in trouble they give
23:14
you two years and then you go to jail
23:16
and you get out in two weeks right
23:18
because they’re overcrowded can you
23:20
explain this how it works like is that
23:22
well
23:23
the california department of corrections
23:24
and rehabilitation has
23:27
as because of things like prop 57
23:30
because of prop 47 prop 57 and some
23:32
other changes in the rules
23:34
regardless of the amount of time someone
23:36
is being sentenced
23:38
they will make a determination on
23:39
whether or not that person should be
23:41
released i’ll give you a very good
23:43
recent example
23:45
in our county there was a person who was
23:47
caught
23:48
about five years ago he had
23:53
he conducted numerous residential
23:55
burglaries we broke into houses he was
23:57
convicted of of 28 residential
24:00
burglaries
24:01
breaking into
24:02
because of the magnitude of them
24:05
that many residential burglaries the
24:07
judge essentially sentenced him to 40
24:09
years in prison a very lengthy sentence
24:12
for a lot of crime and he had a prior
24:14
history of committing those types of
24:16
crimes
24:17
in a little more than four years before
24:20
after a little more than four years of a
24:22
40-year sentence the california
24:24
department of corrections and
24:25
rehabilitation released him out of
24:27
custody so that’s what’s happening so
24:31
right now in the state of california
24:33
well let me back up 10 years ago we had
24:36
165 000 inmates in in department of
24:40
corrections in prison felons who are
24:43
serving time in prison today we have a
24:46
right around 90 000 so we’ve dropped
24:49
dramatically the number of people that
24:51
are in custody and a significant
24:53
percentage of that 90 000 are people
24:56
doing
24:58
long long sentences for things like
25:00
multiple aggravated sexual assaults
25:03
murders people doing life without the
25:05
possibility of parole so the department
25:06
corrections can’t release them it’s as
25:09
though they’re falling over themselves
25:11
to release people
25:13
early
25:14
the big what was characterized initially
25:16
is a mass shooting in sacramento a few
25:19
months ago
25:20
the primary participants in that
25:22
what turned out to be a a gang gun fight
25:26
as opposed to a mass shooting
25:28
were people who had been released early
25:30
from
25:31
from their sentences
25:33
and so it’s a very big problem here in
25:35
california
25:36
why is that they’re releasing these
25:38
inmates is that
25:40
because there’s no space because there
25:42
was a court ruling back in the day that
25:44
yeah that said that
25:46
we were jamming people into this prison
25:48
right or is there other reason well we
25:50
went from as i said 165 000 the the
25:53
capacity what the prisons were
25:56
supposed to be
25:58
because of that was somewhere around 135
26:00
000 so
26:03
but we didn’t stop releasing them when
26:04
we hit 135. now we’re down to 90 000 and
26:08
we’re continuing to release people early
26:11
and it’s as though this administration
26:14
and the california legislature
26:17
they just don’t want to hold people
26:19
accountable they won’t they
26:20
it started out saving money but then now
26:23
it’s gone to a point where we’re just
26:25
releasing people
26:26
um if there’s a way to release someone
26:28
from custody they’re releasing them so
26:30
it’s more ideological
26:32
i believe so
26:33
being in your position you’re seeing all
26:35
that’s happening with the district
26:37
attorneys in san francisco l.a and crime
26:39
is going up
26:40
how do you feel about it
26:42
well i’m bothered by it i mean i i love
26:45
you know to go to san francisco or los
26:47
angeles it’s not where i live but i love
26:49
to visit them and i uh uh i grew up a
26:54
big chunk of the time in l.a county as a
26:56
child
26:58
and
26:58
[Music]
27:00
to see
27:02
the the the countless homelessness that
27:04
goes on the crime both in san francisco
27:07
and la and throughout the state of
27:08
california it’s very disturbing and and
27:12
i’d like to see some change there do you
27:14
have any other thoughts for our audience
27:17
no i greatly appreciate being here and
27:20
talking to you about this and i i
27:22
i hope that the public really does you
27:25
know
27:26
continue to increasingly wake up to
27:29
uh
27:30
the problems that are here and how
27:32
you know well-intentioned but misguided
27:34
policies have created a lot of the
27:36
problems we’re dealing with
27:38
veron pearson the district attorney of
27:40
el dorado county was great to have you
27:42
in california insider well thank you
27:44
appreciate being here
27:46
[Music]
27:49
thank you for watching please click the
27:51
icon on the left to subscribe to our
27:52
channel we bring you the most pressing
27:54
issues california is facing with
27:56
straightforward and in-depth interviews