Yes, police do have a duty to prevent crime – effectiveness varies though as there is no one specific solution for crime prevention thus police execute this duty GENERALLY. The police, within their jurisdiction, GENERALLY have a duty to prevent crime because the law demands it by its existence. They do this by different methods, all demanded by the laws existence and their existence, and execute that GENERAL duty directly or indirectly in various forms under/within 3 broad categories:

1. Proactive policing – the goal is to prevent crime before it occurs and involves actions and and strategies intended to deter potential offenders and reduce opportunities for illegal acts, such as visible patrol presence in higher-risk areas.

2. Reactive Policing – the goal, in terms of crime prevention, is investigation and apprehension of offenders which is also intended to create a general deterrence where people are discouraged from committing similar crimes by observing the consequences faced by others.

3. Community outreach and partnerships – the goal is to develop community relationships with local groups, schools, and businesses to identify and address the root causes of crime and to reduce youth engagement in delinquent and criminal activities.

The execution of this GENERAL duty is intended to, for the public at large (general public), within the police jurisdiction, prevent crime or protect individuals from harm (that would be caused by crime). In fact, we throw billions of $$$ in tax payer funds at this, and create laws outlining this duty, for the specific purpose of ‘crime prevention’ by police.

Police are not primarily crime fighters or perform crime control in specific use cases like the police respond to stop a crime from happening. I think that is the type of thing you are considering as ‘police preventing crime’. No, police do not do that.

No one and no law can stop an in-progress crime from beginning, the fact that it is in-progress means its already started – no one and no law can stop an individual (or individuals) from exercising their free will decision to commit a crime, thought control is not a real thing. I think this is also the type of thing you are considering as ‘police preventing crime’, intervention in these things prior them happening to change an outcome. No, police do not do that.

But, The police, within their jurisdiction, GENERALLY have a duty to prevent crime because the law demands it by its existence and they execute that GENERAL duty via 1-3 above. Yes, police do have a duty to prevent crime – its just not a dynamic crime-fighting/crime-control thing.

yes, they do.

No, police do not PREVENT crime. Patrols and fear of being caught deter some crime, but so do shame and past experiences. Guards PREVENT crime. Police do not. The courts have ruled that is not their job or duty.

Laws are written assuming they provide a means intent for preventing them from being broken. How many times have you heard it said by politicians ‘we need this law to prevent …” what ever the crime is in the law. That means of prevention intended is ‘law enforcement’ in the form of police and the judicial system. That prevention takes different forms, including presence and deterrence factors such as patrols and arrest-possibility. The police, within their jurisdiction, GENERALLY have a duty to prevent crime because the law demands it by its existence.

But this is what you said and to which I was replying:

“The Supreme Court has ruled several times that police have no duty to protect individuals or prevent crime. ”

But now that you bring it up, she is not correct because: For the public at large (general public), within their jurisdiction, the police do GENERALLY have a duty to prevent crime, and that is also what they are suppose to do.

This is what she said and what I am responding to.

< “I want to be clear that, like, law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime,” Rep. Crockett told a podcast, according to The New York Post. “Law enforcement solves crime, OK? That is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to solve crimes, not necessarily prevent them from happening per se.”

She is right.

“The House of Representatives voted 233 to 185 on February 9 to approve legislation exempting a new category of less-than-lethal projectile devices from federal firearm regulations and taxes, sending the measure to the Senate for consideration.
…”

ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/02/congress-votes-to-remove-less-than-lethal-devices-from-gun-control-act-coverage/

ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/02/atfs-hidden-gun-registry-how-a-tracing-system-became-a-billion-record-database/