this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2026
149 points (99.3% liked)

politics

28966 readers
2349 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
149
Rep. Jasmine Crockett confirms member of her security team killed by Dallas police (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 1 day ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Police said at a news conference after the shooting of Diamon Robinson, 39, that he had “multiple felony warrants” and a parole violation warrant. The warrants were for impersonating a police officer and for stolen license plates, NBC Dallas Fort Worth reported.

..

Crockett, who has been a member of Congress since 2023, said Robinson went by the name Mike King when he worked for her. She said her team “followed all protocols outlined by the House to contract additional security,” adding that it had been approved to hire the man it knew as Mike King.

“The fact that an individual was able to somehow circumvent the vetting processes for something as sensitive as security for members of Congress highlights the loopholes and shortcomings in many of our systems,” Crockett said. “This is incredibly alarming, especially for those members who receive high volumes of credible and sophisticated death threats.”

Crockett added that Robinson’s ability to circumvent the congressional system’s security hiring loopholes was a reason for U.S. Capitol Police to provide security to Congress members.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Well that's a great non-sequitur that does nothing to help your argument.

Crockett said the description of Robinson’s past doesn't “fit with the person we came to know as Mike King.”

“The man we knew showed up with respect, care, and commitment to protecting others,” Crockett said in a post on X that included her statement.

“We are praying for the friends and family of the man that we knew as Mike King. Mike had been in and around our team for years. There was never any reason to suspect that he wasn’t who he held himself out to be,” she said in her statement.

“He never endangered our team, worked diligently, coordinated with local law enforcement, and maintained positive relationships throughout the community,” said Crockett, who recently lost the Democratic Senate nomination in Texas to state Rep. James Talarico.

She added that as a public defender, she believed in “redemption” and “second chances.”

She said an initial review of Robinson’s “limited criminal history” showed he had no violent offenses.

Her being a normal, compassionate, empathetic human being and not saying "this guy deserved to be killed by police", oh the horror!! And once again, a big ol' non-sequitur that does nothing to do with or help your argument.

Again, back to the original discussion, no getting off track. Team follow procedure, team hands off background check to the place outlined by procedure, procedure comes back and says "good". The root is a bad procedure, not her team so blame procedure, not the persons following a bad procedure. It's not a hard concept to understand here but you still seem to be on some sort of holy crusade to try and prove that she should have done more despite the safeguards that was supposed to work failing.

Not hard to understand but again sixth grade reading comprehension and war thunder apparently. But hey you do you there buddy you have a good one and bless your heart.