Rep. Crockett says: 'Law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime' By Eric Utter

[mystery-ak]

December 9, 2025
Rep. Crockett says: 'Law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime'
By Eric Utter

The ever-ditzy Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) was a guest on the "Grounded" podcast, when she was asked by host Jon Tester about the presence of military personnel in cities like Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Illinois.

Though the podcast aired this past September, a couple of her comments have recently re-surfaced and gone viral.

When Tester asked the congresswoman her thoughts on the military presence in those cities, Crockett replied, “I think it’s terrible.”

That opinion can legitimately be debated by people of good faith.

However, she went on to say: "I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn't to prevent crime.”

Huh?!

She added, “Law enforcement solves crime. O.K.? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily, um, prevent them from happening per se."

O.K., Jazzy, now take your meds. Again, we can debate the merits of military personnel in American cities, but not that statement.

Those in “law enforcement” are explicitly tasked with enforcing the law. A significant part of that mandate is to try to prevent people from, like, breaking the law, brainiac. They are not supposed to be indifferent to, say, murders, rapes, and terrorist attacks causing mass casualties. The goal is to prevent these crimes, not just investigate or solve them after they have occurred.

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/12/rep_crockett_says_law_enforcement_isn_t_to_prevent_crime.html

[The_Reader_David]

Unfortunately, thanks to court decisions holding that police are not peace officers, and that their only function is to arrest criminals after the fact, as it stands now, in the first instance, Rep. Crockett is correct.  The only way in which law enforcement as presently constituted in these United States prevents crime is by preventing repeat crimes (other than those committed in prisons) by criminals during the term of their incarceration (assuming conviction and a prison sentence).

This is not how it should be, and each of the several states should pass legislation restoring the peace officer function of police and giving them a duty to protect innocent citizens.

[Kamaji]

Unfortunately, thanks to court decisions holding that police are not peace officers, and that their only function is to arrest criminals after the fact, as it stands now, in the first instance, Rep. Crockett is correct.  The only way in which law enforcement as presently constituted in these United States prevents crime is by preventing repeat crimes (other than those committed in prisons) by criminals during the term of their incarceration (assuming conviction and a prison sentence).

This is not how it should be, and each of the several states should pass legislation restoring the peace officer function of police and giving them a duty to protect innocent citizens.

Since when?  Citations are required.

[GtHawk]

Since when?  Citations are required.

I was pretty sure that was the result of courts ruling that it’s not the polices job to protect us, I recall many many police departments removing the words “To Serve And Protect” from all police vehicles.

Barnes Law
https://www.barneslawllp.com › blog › police-not-required-protect
The Police are Not Required to Protect You - Barnes Law
To Protect and to Serve" - the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us.

legalclarity.org
https://legalclarity.org › why-the-supreme-court-ruled-police-have-no-duty-to-protect
Why the Supreme Court Ruled Police Have No Duty to Protect
Jul 21, 2025A common perception in the United States is that police have a legal obligation to protect individuals from harm, but this is not the case under federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that law enforcement agencies do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from the

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

[jafo2010]

Crockett had to have someone sit and take her BAR exam, for she is utterly too stupid to pass one on her own.  She is right up there with Rep Johnson GA who was concerned Guam would capsize if we put 8,000 more troops on the island. 

For someone with a law degree, she is dumb as a box of rocks.

[Smokin Joe]

The only way that police can prevent crime is by maintaining a presence which deters criminals.

That only works if the courts will detain, and upon conviction, punish criminals.

If the courts don't do their part, nothing the police do will be a deterrent, and the whole system breaks down.

Otherwise, the police have to wait for the crime to either be being committed, or to have been committed before they can actually act against the perpetrators.

Keep in mind the idea of 'red flag' laws is predicated on crimes the target person might commit, a sort of Minority Report scenario where people's property and their rights are violated because of something they might do (and not the same as conspiracy to commit a crime, which involves plans being made). We adamantly object to those.

So while the police can lurk in sight of would-be burglars all night and deter them from committing a burglary, they can't prevent it otherwise, and they can't arrest anyone until a crime has been committed.

Technically, she is correct.

It's why we carry, train, and are ready to respond in the seconds we have if attacked with lethal force. Because the police are just minutes away.

[Wingnut]

Crockett For Senate.  Make Texas the Ghetto.