D.C. Activist Criticizes Trump for Putting Blame on Individual Criminals
Even the BBC has admitted that violent crime has fallen in Washington, D.C. since Donald Trump’s declaration of an emergency in our nation’s capital, but some local activists insist that the surge in law enforcement, including federal officers and members of the National Guard, is political theater at best, and perhaps even counterproductive.
When President Donald Trump announced his federal takeover of Washington, D.C., he conjured images of a dystopia where “caravans of mass youth rampage through city streets” to justify his heavy-handed response.
But those who study and work on preventing youth crime in the district say the president is acting on a caricature of the city, and his decision to flood the streets with soldiers will do little to solve the issue.
Nick Wilson, senior director for Gun Violence Prevention at the Center for American Progress, called Trump’s crackdown “political theater that is disconnected from what we’re seeing here in D.C.”
Wilson would prefer things like a national ban on so-called assault weapons, universal background checks, and a host of other gun control laws that are already in place in Washington, D.C. In fact, as we reported yesterday, federal agents have been actively enforcing some of D.C.’s draconian laws, including multiple arrests for possessing a firearm without a license. You’d think Wilson would be thrilled to see those arrests, and maybe he is, but even the staunchest gun control activists can’t publicly praise Trump without risking condemnation from their fellow liberals.
The dumbest comment in the Time article comes from a local community activist, who is incensed that Donald Trump is trying to hold criminals responsible for their actions.
Tia Bell, who founded a gun violence prevention nonprofit aimed at young people in the city, says Trump’s villainization of D.C.’s youth misses the point.
“It’s a misalignment, because the blame is on the individual and not the systems and structural violence,” she says. “Our youth are angry—they feel like the media perpetuated a lot of narratives about them that led to this blame and criminalization.”
The media made me do it is one hell of an excuse for committing a violent crime, isn’t it?
You know a really good way to not get blamed for violent crime? Don’t commit one.
Even if you believe that there are root causes like poverty and broken families that can exacerbate crime, it’s still individuals who are committing violent carjackings, home invasions, and street robberies. These individuals may feel empowered and emboldened to commit these crimes because of D.C.’s lackadaisical approach to juvenile crime and truancy, and if Bell wants to fix those broken systems I’m with her 100%, but the fact remains that most juveniles in D.C., even those living in the most adverse environments possible, aren’t out there robbing, raping, and carjacking D.C. residents and visitors.
It’s a disservice to those kids to decide that individuals shouldn’t be held accountable for their own actions. In fact, I’d argue that, no matter how good Bell’s intentions might be, by casting crime as the product of “systems and structural violence” or media narratives, she’s essentially telling juveniles who aren’t breaking the law that there’s something wrong with them, not the juvenile offenders.
I’ve expressed my own concern about Trump’s crime crackdown leading to arrests for simply possessing a gun without a license, which contradicts his stance in support of permitless carry, but Bell’s concern is that Trump hasn’t taken a public health approach to gun violence, “addressing it like a ‘disease.’”
Bell believes the problem in D.C. cannot be solved with more guns.
“Federal violence cannot end violence in the communities—only we can,” she says.
I have no problem, at least in theory, with community violence intervention efforts that seek to reduce crime without putting more people behind bars for possessory gun offenses. The issue, though, is that while Bell might believe in a “public health approach” to “gun violence”, that approach all too often involves treating gun ownership itself as a disease that needs to be eradicated. Bell might not like the surge in law enforcement on the streets, but I doubt she’d be in favor of repealing D.C.’s draconian laws surrounding gun ownership either.
If these activists want to question Trump’s heavy-handed approach to fighting crime, they should at least be willing to do the same when Democrats turn our right to keep and bear arms into a criminal offense. Somehow, though, their “public health” approach always leaves plenty of room for putting more gun control laws on the books.
