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

Truth Detector said:
Let's take that argument a little further. If the police are not there to protect citizens, how do citizens protect themselves? That's the question leftist dumb fucks will never be able to answer without looking unhinged, stupid and uneducated.
Click to expand...
You can't in their world. Citizens are simply supposed to somehow flee the criminal to protect themselves. Self-defense in the Leftist world is just as criminal as the criminal attacking you is.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
One of the common crimes criminals are charged wtih is "Conspiracy." They can and often are charged with it before the crime the conspiracy is about is carried out. That is one of many examples of the police and law enforcement preventing a crime before it happens.
Click to expand...
Sure. True.

Does your addled brain think that is a good point? that the number of conspiracy interventions compares to the number of crimes, such as domestic violence where police almost always are reactionary, after the fact?

You do not win this discussion by pointing at exceptions. This is about the aggregate of ALL crime and how police tend to respond to it. Before or after the crime is done.

There is no question, that in aggregate, the police are reacting AFTER and not before. You being stupid will keep arguing against that but that is not because it is not accurate. IT is because you are stupid. Painfully stupid.
 
QP! said:
Sure. True.

Does your addled brain think that is a good point? that the number of conspiracy interventions compares to the number of crimes, such as domestic violence where police almost always are reactionary, after the fact?

You do not win this discussion by pointing at exceptions. This is about the aggregate of ALL crime and how police tend to respond to it. Before or after the crime is done.

There is no question, that in aggregate, the police are reacting AFTER and not before. You being stupid will keep arguing against that but that is not because it is not accurate. IT is because you are stupid. Painfully stupid.
Click to expand...
That sort of policing happens all the time with more powerful criminals like gangsters, career criminals and the like. The petty ones who are just thugs are in a different category.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That sort of policing happens all the time with more powerful criminals like gangsters, career criminals and the like. The petty ones who are just thugs are in a different category.
Click to expand...
Does not change the FACT that far more crimes are the types police respond to after the fact.

You are so stupid you do not realize you are not saying anything. You do not understand two things can be true at the same time and that is certain types of crime may be responded to in advance while far more types are responded to after.

I want to help you be smarter Terry but you really make it tough.

It simply is not disputable that policing, over all, is mostly responding to crimes that were done prior to the police arrival. There is not smart person on the planet who would dispute that.

But you do... do you know why?
 
QP! said:
Does not change the FACT that far more crimes are the types police respond to after the fact.

You are so stupid you do not realize you are not saying anything. You do not understand two things can be true at the same time and that is certain types of crime may be responded to in advance while far more types are responded to after.

I want to help you be smarter Terry but you really make it tough.

It simply is not disputable that policing, over all, is mostly responding to crimes that were done prior to the police arrival. There is not smart person on the planet who would dispute that.

But you do... do you know why?
Click to expand...
Oh, so now you want to go from the absolute you started out with to a generalization hum?

That's just moving the goal posts using a No True Scotsman.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Oh, so now you want to go from the absolute you started out with to a generalization hum?

That's just moving the goal posts using a No True Scotsman.
Click to expand...
Again this is your stupidity.

her statement and all of mine have always been about the general. About POLICING.

This is a discussion of whether or not policing, as a whole, is more reactive or preventative when a crime is committed.

You would have to be a very stupid person to here Crockett say what she did and then try and think of a single crime where police tend to act out front and think that is as gotcha to her statement.

But you are that person. You are stupid and you do not understand how to apply the no True Scotsman so you should not use it.
 
QP! said:
Again this is your stupidity.
Click to expand...
Insult fallacy.
QP! said:
her statement and all of mine have always been about the general. About POLICING.
Click to expand...
Blatant lie. I will call this argument 1.
QP! said:
This is a discussion of whether or not policing, as a whole, is more reactive or preventative when a crime is committed.
Click to expand...
I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
QP! said:
You would have to be a very stupid person to here Crockett say what she did and then try and think of a single crime where police tend to act out front and think that is as gotcha to her statement.

But you are that person. You are stupid and you do not understand how to apply the no True Scotsman so you should not use it.
Click to expand...
Insult fallacy. His call on your fallacy was accurate. You made a No True Scotsman fallacy in that post AND attempted a Goalpost fallacy doing it.
 
QP! said:
Sure. True.

Does your addled brain think that is a good point?
Click to expand...
You just agreed to it! :laugh:
QP! said:
that the number of conspiracy interventions compares to the number of crimes, such as domestic violence where police almost always are reactionary, after the fact?
Click to expand...
Try English. It works better.
QP! said:
You do not win this discussion by pointing at exceptions.
Click to expand...
Actually, you can.
QP! said:
This is about the aggregate of ALL crime and how police tend to respond to it. Before or after the crime is done.
Click to expand...
Compositional error fallacy (bigotry).
QP! said:
There is no question, that in aggregate, the police are reacting AFTER and not before.
Click to expand...
Police can act at any time to stop crime.
QP! said:
You being stupid will keep arguing against that but that is not because it is not accurate. IT is because you are stupid. Painfully stupid.
Click to expand...
Insult fallacies.

You cannot win an argument with insults, Kewpie. So far T.A. Gardner has won. You have been reduced to throwing insults and other fallacies.
 
AProudLefty said:
He was convicted by his peers.
Click to expand...
Wrong. He was convicted in a courtroom run by a clueless partisan hack and numerous reversible errors. That is why he has never been formally convicted and sentenced.

But you, being an unthinking, brainless leftist loon, you bought into the lie filled narrative willingly because you are simply that fucking stupid. ;)
 
Truth Detector said:
Wrong. He was convicted in a courtroom run by a clueless partisan hack and numerous reversible errors. That is why he has never been formally convicted and sentenced.

But you, being an unthinking, brainless leftist loon, you bought into the lie filled narrative willingly because you are simply that fucking stupid. ;)
Click to expand...
Not muh Trump!

xcxtmrM.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top