Three suspects have been arrested for their alleged role in a botched
robbery where a Monterey Park California police officer was shot and
killed, that was the result of this botched robbery.
So, 26-year-old Gardiel Solorio was the officer who was shot and killed.
He had only been on the police force for one month.
He was a rookie cop, and when he was outside of an LA Fitness
gym waiting in his vehicle, he was approached by one
of the suspects who then proceeded to attempt to rob him.
The situation fell apart and in the end, again,
this 26-year-old police officer, rookie cop was shot and killed.
Now the Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon did a press conference where
he addressed the severity of the incident, so let's take a quick look at that.
>> The defendant got out of a car nearby,
approached Officer Solorio with a gun drawn, in what appeared
to be an attempted robbery, Officer Solorio was in his vehicle.
Officer Solorio attempted to flee by backing out of
his vehicle when the suspect fired multiple times,
the defendant then returned back to the vehicle where
a juvenile was behind the wheel, and they fled the scene.
Today we'll file one count of murder with special circumstances allegations that
the murder occurred during the commission of a robbery against Carlos Del Cid.
>> Carlos Del Cid is the name of the individual who ended up shooting
the weapon or firing the weapon and shooting and killing the cop.
It's interesting that in that press conference,
Gascon mentioned the enhancements that will be added to the charges here
because he is not a fan of enhancements, including gun enhancement.
So, for instance, if someone has committed a crime and while committing that crime,
they were in possession of an illegal gun, an illegal gun,
Gascon does not like to add additional charges related to the illegal gun,
which I think is very strange in a state that purports to care so
much about gun control.
So when you have an opportunity to penalize or
prosecute someone who is in possession of an illegal gun,
you should maybe take that opportunity, just saying for a second.
Now, let's get into the details about who Carlos Del Cid is.
Carlos Del Cid is, again, just one of the suspects here.
There were two others who were arrested,
one of whom was a 17-year-old who drove the getaway vehicle since he's underage,
we don't know too many details about him, those records are sealed.
So, here's a photo of him, his mug shots, and there are many mug
shots of Carlos Del Cid because he has a lengthy criminal record and
was not supposed to be roaming the streets considering his violent criminal record.
What do I mean by that?
Let's get into the details.
Court records show Del Cid was arrested in February of this year after pleading
no contest to two felony charges, he was sentenced to 180 days in jail and
four years formal probation on March 10th.
The 20-year-old was actually released the next day for
what jail records describe as a short sentence.
All right, George Gascon was asked about this, what's up with this short sentence?
Why didn't your prosecutors ensure that this guy who committed
violent crimes didn't get released the next day after his sentencing?
And here's what he had to say.
Any questions concerning the actual length of time spent in custody should be
directed to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
All right, well, look,
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is very problematic.
There is evidence of literal gang activity within that department.
So, when Gascon says maybe you should look at the Sheriff's Department,
I'm actually sympathetic to that.
So, the Sheriff's department actually did respond to the press when they asked
questions.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney dropped three of the five felony charges.
On March 10 of 2022 suspect Del Cid was sentenced
to four years of formal probation 180 days in
county jail with a credit for 58 days served.
It was the District Attorney's decision to drop the serious violent felony charges
that would have rendered the suspect ineligible for early release, and
guess what?
I looked into that and believe it or not, the Sheriff's Department is right.
The District Attorney's office did allow for a plea deal situation in which
the most serious charges pertaining to his violent crimes were dropped.
So, let's go to the Los Angeles Times, and let me be clear,
Los Angeles Times loves to carry water for
the failed policies that we've been seeing from George Gascon in Los Angeles.
They love it, they defend him all the time.
But this is what they wrote, Del Cid had previously been arrested December 8th
by Los Angeles County deputies from the Lomita Station, booking records show.
He was cited and released the next day.
Records do not show the alleged offense,
but it appeared to be a felony level crime.
Okay, so we don't know the details of what that felony was, but
he was released the next day after committing this felony crime.
Okay, great.
The Los Angeles Police Department's Harbor Division arrested Del Cid on February
10th, and he was charged five days later with burglary, domestic violence,
assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment and intimidating a witness.
The crimes reportedly occurred on February 9th, record show.
All right, these crimes are serious,
he just didn't just get caught with a baggie of pot, okay?
He committed violent crimes, and by the way,
the 180-day sentence is super short considering there's kidnapping,
involved, domestic violence, intimidating a witness.
These are serious crimes.
Okay, so the initial sentence 180 days, I would venture to say pretty short.
I know, I know, I know there are people on the left that are like, no, not too short,
180 days too long, good that he beat up his wife.
Okay, I'm embellishing a little bit, but
that's how the left comes across when it comes to these types of stories.
180 days, he didn't even serve the 180 days.
He was released the next day.
On March 10th, he pleaded no contest to burglary and domestic violence.
While the other charges were dismissed, a judge in Long Beach sentenced him
to 180 days in jail and four years of probation, court records show.
He was released the morning after that, sentence was handed down having spent
a month behind bars according to sheriff's department booking records.
So, he actually was able to get away with the assault,
assault with a deadly weapon, that charge was dropped as part of the plea deal
that was negotiated by the District Attorney's office, by the prosecutors.
Do you understand that?
Why would you drop these most serious charges here?
No false imprisonment charges, that was dropped too.
No charges for
intimidating a witness because that was dropped as well as part of this plea deal.
I wanna be clear, when I was signing up for criminal justice reform,
I thought we were gonna do things like reform our prisons, so
they're actually rehabilitating people.
I thought we were gonna do something about policing.
I thought we were gonna end qualified immunity, so cops can't get away with
shooting down unarmed individuals as they're running away from them,
we didn't do that.
I thought that we were going to provide funding for
actual robust programs that would help nonviolent offenders
transition back into society, so they live full happy lives.
Didn't do that either.
Instead, we're playing this game where we just, by the way, I also never
thought that anyone was advocating for the early release of violent criminals,
including individuals who have literally been in prison for murdering others.
But it turns out California is all about it and I ain't,
I think it's a terrible, terrible way to go about this.
The said reform, it's all about playing patty cakes with people who are not
in any way rehabilitated, who have committed incredibly violent crimes and
in some cases robbed others of their lives And
get a load of this Los Angeles Times headline, Amid COVID-19,
California releases some inmates doing time for murder.
Advocates push to free more.
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy.
I don't believe in the death penalty, but
I would say that if you murder someone, and you have spent time in a facility,
in a prison that does not rehabilitate, because that's what our prisons are,
it's very unlikely that you're rehabilitated and
just releasing you into the world with no rehabilitation, bad idea, bad idea.
More than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for
good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one-third instead of
one-fifth that had been in place since 2017.
That includes nearly 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences with
the possibility of parole.
Keep in mind, by the way, we don't even know how these good credits
are determined, there's really no specificity there.
More than 10,000 inmates convicted of a second serious but
nonviolent offense under the state's three strikes law will be eligible for
release after serving half their sentences.
That's an increase from the current time served credit of one-third of their
sentence.
And if you think that no, come on Anna, they're not releasing violent criminals
even though the reports indicate they are, this is all about nonviolent individuals.
No, actually, a much smaller portion of the individuals who have been released
from California State prisons are nonviolent offenders.
Los Angeles Times has the numbers, the same increased release time will apply
to nearly 2900 nonviolent third strikers, the corrections department projected.
And the reason why is because the nonviolent offenders are in county jails,
the majority of them are not in state prisons.
So, this is the state releasing inmates and there was a little bit of backlash,
luckily, and the California Supreme Court weighed in,
in the summer and I think that they made the right decision here.
Because fact of the matter is California voters overwhelmingly voted
in favor of something known as Prop 57.
And so Prop 57, I voted for it, was marketed to voters in California as,
hey, our prison population is ridiculous.
We have all sorts of nonviolent people serving time when they shouldn't be.
So, I was in favor of early release because I thought,
as it was advertised to me, that it was only nonviolent individuals,
but it didn't work out that way.
And so there was a fight, there was backlash, and
finally the California Supreme Court weighed in.
The justices found that the ballot materials revealed that the voters
intended to exclude any inmate currently serving a term for
a violent felony from early parole consideration regardless of whether such
an inmate has also been convicted of a nonviolent felony.
And the High Court ruled that corrections officials acted properly in drafting
regulations that exclude from early parole consideration any prisoner who
is currently serving a term of incarceration for a violent felony.
There's a lot we can do to reform our justice system, and
I have a long history of talking about those things.
So, if anyone thinks that I'm just trying to be tough on crime, you are mistaken.
But for anyone who thinks we need to be soft on violent criminals,
including those who have committed murder, not in favor of that.
I think it's dumb policy.
I think it's dangerous policy, and for
progressives who are looking to rally support, I don't know if you're gonna win,
if you have all these people being victimized by violent criminals who
are just released from prison with no rehabilitative plan in place.
That's the reality.
I know some of you wanted some specificity when I talk about the disastrous decisions
being made in California, here's one of them.