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.
Man, I’m really glad Republicans didn’t manage to sneak her into the general for Senate…
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.
Police followed Robinson into a hospital parking lot Wednesday, NBC Dallas Fort Worth reported. He then barricaded himself in his car until police used tear gas to make him come out and then pulled a weapon, authorities said. Officers shot and killed him.
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.
Either her team was completely incompetent (which ultimately comes back on her) or they just didn’t give a fuck their security team member gave them a fake name.
How do you not catch that shit for any position, but especially security?!
And she still can’t accept responsibility for shit…
Are you that dense that you think that she’s personally did the background check and verification/validation of this person on her security team?
That’s not how any of this works here buddy especially when you yourself quoted
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.
So her team followed what was recommended and required by Congress but somehow it’s her fault for following what was recommended and required by Congress. Sigh…I guess I really shouldn’t expect so much from American society that has a average reading comprehension level of a sixth grader.
Are you that dense that you think that she’s personally did the background check and verification/validation of this person on her security team?
Her team contracted him…
She choose her team…
I know I’m basically repeating what I just said tho:
Either her team was completely incompetent (which ultimately comes back on her) or they just didn’t give a fuck their security team member gave them a fake name.
But I don’t know how to make it any easier to explain.
So her team followed what was recommended and required by Congress
I’d be shocked if “verify this is the same person as the paperwork says” isn’t a step…
Again, her team followed the protocol outlined by Congress, that process that Congress says to follow to ensure a person is eligible and safe to hire, her team throws it to them to check and things comes back with a thumbs up for hiring.
See when you follow the rules and procedures outlined by someone else and the procedure showed deficiencies in the process, an adult would point out the deficiency in the process, fix the process, and not blame the person who followed the process. But again, sixth grade reading comprehension level.
As for
I’d be shocked if “verify this is the same person as the paperwork says” isn’t a step…
And now you’re just throwing out bullshit conjecture as fact, it’s quite a pathetic attempt to bolster your flawed argument with made up crap just because you don’t like Crockett.
Did you read the article far enough to get to where she defends him and said he should have been able to work security anyways?
Like, do you not see any responsibility on the rest of the security team to notice someone wasn’t who they said?
Who were they making paychecks out to? He was a contractor, congress wasn’t writing the checks.
And I know I’ll have to say it again “if the people she hired for vital positions were incompetent, she was incompetent”.
And now you’re just throwing out bullshit conjecture as fact
I don’t play war thunder but I assure you that’s a part of it…
I mean, just think logically, if they don’t verify the person in front of them is the person on the paperwork, what’s the point of any it?
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.
ETA: So just more non-sequiturs and then a big ol’ ad-hominem about bigotry when no one was even talking about her race. Pathetic and to the block list for being this disingenous.
a great non-sequitur that does nothing to help your argument
If you don’t understand someone’s train of logic, the best way to understand is asking them to fill in more gaps, so you can understand…
Not hard to understand
I agree, but clearly you’re still having difficulty.
I also agree that we’re not going to fix it here, some people are refusing to look at her as a leader, and want to defend her leadership based on her personal demographics.
I don’t have much patience for bigotry, even when it’s well intentioned.
I think the understanding is pretty clear, that you are blaming the victim of a badly defined process here.
Even if it was bad luck on her part and both her team, and the House procedures were as correct and well followed as they could have been, it’s a good thing she isn’t the candidate right now, because that would be that.
