Rep. Jasmine Crockett says a lot of stupid things. She even tried to say that "hate speech" sent through the mail was illegal, when no such thing is true.
So when she says something that's even sort of correct, it's news.
And she's been getting raked over the coals over a comment recently that, to be honest, is sort of accurate. She says the police aren't there to protect you. Well, that's part of what she said they're not there to do. It's the other part that has people riled up.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) just said the quiet part out loud, and boy, was it loud:
🚨 WTF?! Jasmine Crockett: "Law enforcement isn't to PREVENT crime! Law enforcement solves crime, okay? That is what they are supposed to do."
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) September 8, 2025
Just when I thought Democrats couldn't get any dumber, JASMINE CROCKETT opens her mouth again 🤣 pic.twitter.com/kd779PEpID“Law enforcement isn’t to PREVENT crime! Law enforcement solves crime, okay? That is what they are supposed to do.”
Let that sink in. A sitting member of Congress actually believes cops are glorified janitors, here to sweep up the bloody mess after criminals have wrecked your life, not stop the crime in the first place.
This is what happens when Democrats spend years demonizing police. They’ve so thoroughly warped their worldview that “law enforcement” no longer means “enforcing the law.” It means showing up with a clipboard after the fact, maybe filing a report, maybe solving the case, if you’re lucky. Your protection? Not their concern.
Imagine telling a firefighter, “Hey, don’t worry about preventing the blaze, just show up after the house burns down and investigate what happened.” Or a doctor: “Don’t bother with prevention, just identify the cause of death.” That’s not just idiotic, it’s dangerous.
I get why people are upset. Police are expected to prevent crime, but do they have a duty to prevent it?
Well, my focus has been on whether they've had a duty to protect people, which the courts have said time and time again they don't. The extension of that is that there isn't a specific duty to prevent crime, either. They protect society by investigating crimes and arresting criminals, which would also prevent future crimes.
But to say they have a duty to prevent a specific crime from happening isn't reasonable.
Yet that's what we expect of them, and police largely try to do just that. They increase patrols and maintain a presence to discourage criminal actions.
They just can't be everywhere all of the time. It's just not humanly possible.
I get why people are upset, but I don't think she's completely wrong on this one.
Where she's wrong, though, is her repeated opposition to the right to keep and bear arms, especially if she believes law enforcement isn't supposed to prevent crime. After all, aren't we supposed to accept gun control on the premise that if our life is in danger, we can just call the police?
How does that work if the police aren't there to prevent my murder?
Her supposed logic doesn't stand up here because the two positions run counter to one another.
If the police aren't supposed to prevent me from being killed, then why are you trying to disarm me so I can't DIY it?
Frankly, it seems to me that this is a case of Jasmine Crockett being too dumb to see the contradiction between the two positions, or just too dense to care about it.
If people have to be subject to crimes, with no ability to respond, that's not remotely a free society. We're a society that has to cower before the criminals among us, simply because there's no way to stop them until well after the fact. That's not freedom. That's oppression from someone other than the government. That's the tyranny of the thug.
Crockett is probably right that, from a legal standpoint, police don't have a duty to prevent crime.
She's just missing the true implications of that.
