“Prosecution, however, by definition, takes place after a crime has occurred, and to truly make the District safer, we need to focus on stopping crime before it happens in the first place,” he added. “Prevention efforts cannot replace effective policing and prosecution, but are equally necessary in order to make D.C. safer now and in the long run.”
Typical conservative spin. Take a sentence out of context. And then get enraged.
He literally said “We cannot prosecute and arrest our way out of it.” and judging from the Dems stance on crime, thats what they think. It wasnt mispoken
And it’s being portrayed as we should stop arresting and prosecuting criminals, instead of what was meant. Which I quoted, and was on the posted article.
To which the meaning of that, given the context, is “being a police state, arresting every one at the drop of a hat will not solve things, preventative measures will always be more effective at reducing crime.”
But that’s evidently too much context to understand, and strawmen args are more to speed for republicans.
But if we’re talking about conservatives pulling a single data point out of context and running it up a “non-con bad” flag pole, then this example has accidental value.
Sounds like they gave her probation because she was making an insanity plea, because she had psychosis. That, and she was seemingly remorseful. Therefore they gave her probation.
Are you saying insanity pleas are invalid?
Either way, this has nothing to do with the DC AG or what he said. You clearly have no argument for that conversation so you just moved to the next.
“Prosecution, however, by definition, takes place after a crime has occurred, and to truly make the District safer, we need to focus on stopping crime before it happens in the first place,” he added. “Prevention efforts cannot replace effective policing and prosecution, but are equally necessary in order to make D.C. safer now and in the long run.”
Typical conservative spin. Take a sentence out of context. And then get enraged.
He literally said “We cannot prosecute and arrest our way out of it.” and judging from the Dems stance on crime, thats what they think. It wasnt mispoken
And it’s being portrayed as we should stop arresting and prosecuting criminals, instead of what was meant. Which I quoted, and was on the posted article.
To which the meaning of that, given the context, is “being a police state, arresting every one at the drop of a hat will not solve things, preventative measures will always be more effective at reducing crime.”
But that’s evidently too much context to understand, and strawmen args are more to speed for republicans.
There’s a level between police state and giving probation to murderers. Surely you can see the issue here.
What are you even talking about?
https://people.com/woman-stabbed-boyfriend-death-byn-spejcher-probation-8549303
What does that have to do with this?
It’s a statistically irrelevant example.
But if we’re talking about conservatives pulling a single data point out of context and running it up a “non-con bad” flag pole, then this example has accidental value.
Agreed
It’s what I was referencing. They literally gave probation to a murderer.
Right, I got that part. But what does it have to do with the DC AG, who wasn’t on that case?
I was talking about the Democrats stance on crime
Sounds like they gave her probation because she was making an insanity plea, because she had psychosis. That, and she was seemingly remorseful. Therefore they gave her probation.
Are you saying insanity pleas are invalid?
Either way, this has nothing to do with the DC AG or what he said. You clearly have no argument for that conversation so you just moved to the next.
Which is funny because you can. You out offenders in jail and they can’t offend for a period of time. It’s how we did it in the 90’s to great success