The once favored defunding the police movement almost became an idea of the past after the election had taken place. The Democrats found out that people do not want to defund the police because they know they must keep the streets and neighborhoods safe.
Many liberals just about did not return to Washington because they started down the path to destroy law and order, but quickly learned it was not where their voters wanted them to be.
Abigail Spanberger from Virginia was one of those Democrats. She blasted the crazy liberals that pushed such a notion by saying, “Defund police” almost cost me my race because of an attack ad. Don’t say socialism ever again.”
Spanberger on the Dem caucus call: We lost races we shouldn’t have lost.
Defund police almost cost me my race bc of an attack ad.
Don’t say socialism ever again.
Need to get back to basics.
— Erica Werner (@ericawerner) November 5, 2020
Her words seem right, but there is a subtle warning that they will have to call themselves something else other than socialists if they want to win votes in the future.
The mouthy Democrat went on to swear that “If we run this race again we will get f*cking torn apart again in 2022.”
She is calling on her demonic party to “get back to basics.” Not such bad advice, except no one, wants to go backward. They are content to screw the American people just as long as they get paid for doing it.
Spanberger’s comments fall on deaf ears as usual because the new members of the liberal party are showing up, and they hate law and order. They want to see an America where law and order are extinct, and no one or thing is able to tell them what to do.
The newest thug to show up is Jamaal Bowman.
This piece of work is once again acting on hatred and bad feelings as he calls for the police to lose their funding. His actions directly relate to the Department of Justice announcing that there will be no federal charges placed on officers who had to shoot a 12-year-old in 2014.
Like a typical Democrat, Bowman is playing on the public’s feelings to force his ideas into reality.
Bowman stated on Twitter that “We’re fighting “We’re fighting in your memory, Tamir. You won’t be forgotten. A system this cruel and inhumane can’t be reformed. Defund the police, and defund the system that’s terrorizing our communities.”
We're fighting in your memory, Tamir. You won't be forgotten.
A system this cruel and inhumane can't be reformed. Defund the police, and defund the system that's terrorizing our communities. https://t.co/OwFg32pbZ3
— Jamaal Bowman (@JamaalBowmanNY) December 29, 2020
Bowman obviously does not understand the fragile balance that law and order play in an organized and civil society. To remove law enforcement is to let terror reign supreme in the land.
The murderers and thieves would simply walk all over people and start to murder them. He would think twice if the violence found its way into his home and murdered his family.
The Department of Justice did their job and found that “the career prosecutors reviewing the independent federal investigation into the fatal shooting of Tamir Rice on Nov. 22, 2014, in Cleveland, Ohio, found insufficient evidence to support federal criminal charges against Cleveland Division of Police (CDP) Officers Timothy Loehmann and Frank Garmback.”
People’s ill feelings towards law-and-order stem from their feelings that not enough was done to punish people involved in what is believed to be a tragedy. Their reactions are no different than a hit squad demanding a murderer be turned over to them for hanging. It is the classic case of vigilante justice.
The officers that responded to the call that a boy was pointing a gun at people had no way of knowing if it was real or not. Their job was to stop the action just in case it was a real gun. And the world that exists today, there are 12-year-old kids killing people with guns.
Bowman believes that the police intended to murder the boy.
But as is noted by the Department of Justice, “This high legal standard – one of the highest standards of intent imposed by law – requires proof that the officer acted with the specific intent to do something the law forbids. It is not enough to show that the officer made a mistake, acted negligently, acted by accident or mistake, or even exercised bad judgment.”
It was found that no such actions were ever-present. The police did their job the best way they could given the circumstances.