Radical Leftist Jasmine Crockett says police aren't there to prevent crime

T. A. Gardner said:
No, he demanded ByteDance divest like NOW! or face shutdown. ByteDance divested and Tik Tok continued as a separate company.

Trump gave ByteDance some extra time to divest:

TikTok received a lifeline this week from President Trump, who issued an executive order delaying enforcement of a national ban by 75 days while China-based ByteDance seeks an American buyer.
nypost.com

ByteDance director confident TikTok deal will get done, sees options to avoid an outright sale

Bill Ford, the CEO of ByteDance shareholder General Atlantic, said Wednesday he was confident that a deal will be reached to ensure TikTok stays online in the US — and suggested there may be option…
nypost.com nypost.com

President-elect Donald Trump has urged the Supreme Court to block a law that would force the popular social media app TikTok to be sold or shut down. In a legal filing Friday night, Trump told the justices that a delay would allow his administration to “negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing national security concerns.”
www.pbs.org

Why Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay TikTok ban and what’s next

President-elect Donald Trump has urged the Supreme Court to block a law that would force the popular social media app TikTok to be sold or shut down. In a legal filing Friday night, Trump told the justices that a delay would allow his administration to “negotiate a resolution to save the...
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

Trump did argue to give Tik Tok some extra time to divest and in the end, it was divested.

Click to expand...
Lies.

Byte dance DID NOT divest.

AI Overview

No, ByteDance has not divested from TikTok; instead, the company is fighting a US law that would force a sale or lead to a ban in the United States, a process that has included court injunctions, extensions of the deadline, and a Supreme Court ruling upholding the law. ByteDance has stated that a divestiture is "simply not possible" and has taken legal action to prevent it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yep, Jasmine Crockett, representative retard of the Democrat party says police aren't there to protect you or prevent crime. Their job is to investigate crimes that have occurred and bring the person that committed them to justice.

www.yahoo.com

Crockett blasted for saying the point of law enforcement 'isn't to prevent crime'

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, sparked controversy with podcast comments that law enforcement's role is solving crimes rather than preventing them.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

Crockett blasted for saying the point of law enforcement 'isn't to prevent crime' - FOX 24 WTAT

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, sparked controversy with podcast comments that law enforcement’s role is solving crimes rather than preventing them. Read More
www.foxcharleston.com

www.bing.com

Crockett blasted for saying the point of law enforcement 'isn't to prevent crime' - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.
www.bing.com www.bing.com

Nice to know she thinks your life isn't worth anything and that if you are murdered, like a certain Ukranian refugee recently was, that you--Your now deceased corpse--will find comfort in knowing the police might do something to arrest your murderer...

She's a walking poster child for why you shouldn't vote Democrat.
Click to expand...
She is not a law enforcement officer. So, who fucking cares.
 
Hume said:
She is not a law enforcement officer. So, who fucking cares.
Click to expand...
And she is largely correct in any meaningful way.

99.9999% of the time cops are responding to crimes that are complete and not preventing crime or doing Pre-crime.

if Terry thought about it he would know why.

Take one of the most common crimes. Domestic violence. How many cops would you need to try and prevent that crime before it happened? What in fact they do in the vast, vast majority of time is file a report on what happened and arrest offenders after the fact.
 
QP! said:
And she is largely correct in any meaningful way.

99.9999% of the time cops are responding to crimes that are complete and not preventing crime or doing Pre-crime.

if Terry thought about it he would know why.

Take one of the most common crimes. Domestic violence. How many cops would you need to try and prevent that crime before it happened? What in fact they do in the vast, vast majority of time is file a report on what happened and arrest offenders after the fact.
Click to expand...
I like the police motto, "Protect and Serve."
 
QP! said:
And she is largely correct in any meaningful way.

99.9999% of the time cops are responding to crimes that are complete and not preventing crime or doing Pre-crime.

if Terry thought about it he would know why.
Click to expand...

Because as it says on their cars many times To Serve and Protect (the Government). At least, that's how it is in blue states.
QP! said:
Take one of the most common crimes. Domestic violence. How many cops would you need to try and prevent that crime before it happened? What in fact they do in the vast, vast majority of time is file a report on what happened and arrest offenders after the fact.
Click to expand...
Wrong! The police show up during the fight. Somebody's going to jail. They prevent greater violence by stopping the ongoing crime or action rather than waiting until it's done and over like Crock-of-Shit suggests.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Because as it says on their cars many times To Serve and Protect (the Government). At least, that's how it is in blue states.

Wrong! The police show up during the fight. Somebody's going to jail. They prevent greater violence by stopping the ongoing crime or action rather than waiting until it's done and over like Crock-of-Shit suggests.
Click to expand...
there is nothing wrong in what i said and if you were not stupid you would know that.

As i stated, in the vast, vast majority of the time they are arriving after the incident and not during it.
 
QP! said:
there is nothing wrong in what i said and if you were not stupid you would know that.

As i stated, in the vast, vast majority of the time they are arriving after the incident and not during it.
Click to expand...
What they actually do and what they are supposed to do can be two different things. On the other hand, Crockett is insinuating that the police cannot and will not protect you (and of course, you aren't allowed to protect yourself) and by extension, that you should just shut the hell up and accept your fate, peasant.
 
Crockett is correct. The cops do not have the duty to protect you. They are hired to enforce the law.

"Protect and serve" is a feel-good phrase

When you are in deep doo-doo, cops are minutes away. They will get there in time to outline your body.
A Sig P228 is a bird in the hand.
Train like your life depends on it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What they actually do and what they are supposed to do can be two different things. On the other hand, Crockett is insinuating that the police cannot and will not protect you (and of course, you aren't allowed to protect yourself) and by extension, that you should just shut the hell up and accept your fate, peasant.
Click to expand...
As always you are lying. You lie arguably more than anyone on this website. You can hardly post without incorporating a lie.


Here is her direct quote "..."I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn't to prevent crime. Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se,"..."

No where there does she say or suggest they would not protect you if they were present when a crime was being committed.

The FACT she is speaking to is that for 99.999% of crimes (and those decimal places are not an exaggeration) the police will not be on location as the crime is being committed and thus can only investigate and make a report and enforce the law after the fact.
 
QP! said:
As always you are lying. You lie arguably more than anyone on this website. You can hardly post without incorporating a lie.


Here is her direct quote "..."I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn't to prevent crime. Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se,"..."

No where there does she say or suggest they would not protect you if they were present when a crime was being committed.

The FACT she is speaking to is that for 99.999% of crimes (and those decimal places are not an exaggeration) the police will not be on location as the crime is being committed and thus can only investigate and make a report and enforce the law after the fact.
Click to expand...
31sr0f.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
31sr0f.jpg
Click to expand...


That is not splitting hairs as you are absolutely wrong.

Here is one crime segment that is one of the biggest in most societies.


chart-guns.jpg


If you think police are doing anything but investigating after the fact in more than 99.999% and if you think the calls they get where they can intervene is anything but a fraction of percent... you think that because you are stupid.

As that is not what happens in the crime above or MOST crimes.
 
QP! said:
That is not splitting hairs as you are absolutely wrong.

Here is one crime segment that is one of the biggest in most societies.


chart-guns.jpg


If you think police are doing anything but investigating after the fact in more than 99.999% and if you think the calls they get where they can intervene is anything but a fraction of percent... you think that because you are stupid.

As that is not what happens in the crime above or MOST crimes.
Click to expand...
Was it the "intimate partner" or their tool / weapon of choice that killed their partner? It seems to me we have a problem with people committing murder, not a problem with guns committing murder.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Was it the "intimate partner" or their tool / weapon of choice that killed their partner? It seems to me we have a problem with people committing murder, not a problem with guns committing murder.
Click to expand...

Terry FOCUS and try to think.

We are not discussing the tools of the crime used. That is irrelevant. The point is a crime was committed and was the police there to intervene in ADVANCE or did they arrive AFTER to investigate, file a report and charge?

Jasmine's point was the cops rarely to never, statistics wise, are there to prevent the crimes done and instead are there to investigate, report and charge after the fact.

She was correct and you were wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top