Do Democrats care about protecting the people who pay their salaries? Don’t look at what they say – what do their actions say? Let’s take a look at what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said about criminals in her home state of New York. Then we’ll look at how her position works out in real life for the taxpayers she is supposed to represent.
First story from the New York Post:
Three House Democrats sent a letter to the Big Apple’s five district attorneys Monday demanding answers on how they use cash bail, saying it’s contributing to the ongoing “humanitarian crisis” on Rikers Island.
The letter, sent by Manhattan Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Bronx Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, said the lawmakers have “grave concerns that excessive bail amounts” are forcing detainees to languish in unsafe city lockups simply because they cannot afford to pay.
“High bail amounts lead to a two-tiered system of justice, with those who can afford bail being able to escape the inhumane conditions at pretrial detention facilities such as Rikers Island while those who cannot afford bail are forced to remain,” the letter stated.
So, two questions about this. First, who is she concerned about? Is she concerned about the law abiding people? The people who pay her enormous salary? Or, is she concerned about the people who break the law – criminals and domestic terrorists? Second, What are the likely consequences of lowering bail requirements for crime rates? Did she even think about that?
Here is an example of what happens when bail requirements are set too low, reported by The Post Millennial:
Darrell Brooks Jr., the suspect in the tragedy in which a car plowed into an ongoing parade, killing five and injuring at least 40, has been found to have been arrested previously for running a woman over with his car.
He was released on Nov. 11 2021 after having posted what is being called an “inappropriately low” bail of $1000 in the domestic violence case against him, which is still very much ongoing, according to the Milwaukee County DA office.
According to local outlet the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, even more shockingly, Brooks had been charged three times in a period of less than two years time. All three charges stem from what is calls his “recklessly endangering the safety of others.”
The case in which he was let go on the $1000 bail had seen him arrested on Nov. 5 2021. The Journal Sentinel reports further that , in this particular case, “a woman told police Brooks purposefully ran her ‘over with his vehicle’ while she was walking through a gas station parking lot after he had followed her there after a fight, according to the criminal complaint. The woman was hospitalized for her injuries, court records show.”
Andy Ngo, a journalist, has tweeted this about the suspect:
The man in custody over the mass casualty incident at the #Waukesha, Wis. Christmas parade has posts on his social media in support of BLM causes, George Floyd & black nationalism. He also has a post about how to get away with running people over on the street.
Darrell Edward Brooks, the man who was taken into custody by police over the #Waukesha Christmas parade mass casualty incident, expressed hatred of former president Donald Trump in one of his rap tracks. He also expressed black nationalist antisemitic views. #BLM
Darrell Brooks, the man taken into custody over the #Waukesha Christmas parade mass casualty incident, is a registered sex offender in Nevada. He was convicted over having sex w/a child. In one of his now-deleted videos, he defended his actions, saying he was pimping the “hoe.”
Those are the people that the Democrats love to defend. And if a few of you taxpayer scum have to die for their virtue signaling, then too bad for you.
When I read about cases like this, I wonder what people like AOC – who was born with a silver spoon in her mouth – would do if she met the victims of her policies. What would a dunce like her say if she were confronted with the consequences of her own advocacy? She has a huge taxpayer-funded salary. She lives in a nice area in an expensive residence. She has armed security to protect her. What about the people she exposes to criminals and domestic terrorists? Does she even care? Or is she too busy trying to virtue signal?
4 thoughts on “Will Democrat legislators protect you from criminals and domestic terrorists?”
“WILL DEMOCRAT LEGISLATORS PROTECT YOU FROM CRIMINALS AND DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?”
Democrat legislators ARE criminals and domestic terrorists.
“Darrell Brooks Jr., the suspect in the tragedy”
That wasn’t a tragedy. That was mass murder. But Leftist media is already downplaying everything about it, because he was one of THEIRS. And the Dictator in Cheat and Leftist media spun him up to do this too.
And don’t forget the three thugs that Kyle shot: pedophile, woman beater, career criminal. All Dimm heroes. Just like “saint” George Floyd.
Once again, I must ask: where are all of the pastors and woke churchians who say you can be a Dimm and a Christian??? I would really love to hear from them right now, but I guess it’s not election season. Either that, or they took the jab and went to Hell for supporting the Party of Satan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you remember the lefties calling KR a mass murderer and ascribing racism to him? Talking about domestic terrorism? Look at them now, trying to justify what they accused him of when it’s right in front of their eyes. He has the social media statements that are consistent with domestic terrorism. But since he is a Democrat, they won’t say a word.
That’s why they are the Party of Satan, WK. They call good “evil” and evil “good.”
But because they can be nice people on the surface, sometimes, some churchians think that’s sufficient to be a Christian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ehh, you are comparing apples to oranges. New York Criminal procedure varies vastly from other States.
The purpose of bail is to ensure the accused attendance at future criminal proceedings. Under our system of justice, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers. Although a magistrate can take into account the criminal conduct alleged in setting bail, they are not allowed to presume such allegations are true. As for past criminal convictions, judges can take such information into account in the interest of protecting the public.