Condoleezza Rice Top Romney VP Choice For Voters; Surest Sign She Won’t Be His Pick?

A new Fox News poll shows 30% of voters preferring Condoleezza Rice to be Mitt Romney’s vice presidential pick. That number is the same whether looking at all voters or just Republicans. Behind her in the poll was Marco Rubio, the choice of 19 percent of Republicans and 12 percent of voters overall. Chris Christie rounds out the top three with 8 percent of support. A hypothetical Obama/Biden-Romney/Rice match up is tied at 46 percent. The poll has President Obama’s approval rating at 47 percent, with 50 percent of voters saying he deserves to be re-elected.

But could that level of support for Condoleezza Rice by voters sink her chances to be Romney’s pick?  As Peter Suderman noted when suggesting Mitt Romney could be his own running mate, the candidate doesn’t appear to like to share the limelight with staffers. Matthew Feeney pointed out earlier today that Condoleezza Rice doesn’t appear on the most recently reported veep list, and even the inclusion of Marco Rubio could just be a diversionary tactic, excluding the choice of almost half of Republicans in this latest Fox News poll. But when Mitt Romney was the first choice of only at most a third of Republicans in the first place, maybe he assumes Republicans will just come around to whoever he chooses as his running as well anyway?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    A quick read-through of this post reveals 0% substantive policy analysis and 100% vapid horserace speculation.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    You are correct, sir

  • Tulpa the White||

    There's a four liter word that describes that characteristic.

  • Hyperion||

    Four liters is a really big word, and heavy I suspect...

  • Hugh Akston||

    Not to mention metric. Tulpa's clearly a communist.

  • ||

    Is that another word for dipshit?

  • Hyperion||

    Probably a commie from Canuckistan. Those are the worst ones...

  • shamalam||

    +1. The strangest shit gets my funny bone... "Tulpa's clearly a communist".

  • ||

    eh..

    There are some poll numbers in it. I think all the vapid stuff is a frame to hold the news of the poll results.

    it would be cool if reason just gave numbers without any narrative...it would be cool if any news organization did it.

    "here are some numbers of some poll

    10 56 282

    eat it sheeple"

  • Jared||

  • Tulpa the White||

    The poll has President Obama’s approval rating at 47 percent, with 50 percent of voters saying he deserves to be re-elected.

    dunphy, tell me again how we're underestimating the intelligence of the average American.

  • ||

    Read that link jarad provided above.

    A majority think that Obama is trustworthy

    and

    A majority think Obama is lying about Romney's role at Bain capital.

    Makes your mind explode.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The respondents are getting a bunch of questions they haven't thought about in the terms provided by the questioner, but they feel (for some reason) obliged to answer. Is Obama honest? Sure! Is he honest about Bain? No, not about *that.*

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anyone but Rice will seem like a disappointment to a lot of people now.

  • Tulpa the White||

    Economy's in the shitter, and the guy's main case for being reelected is that the other guy is mean and his job is hard, and 50% of people say, OK!

  • Hyperion||

    His case is that he is moving us FORWARD. And it is true. He is moving us forward right into the pit of eternal despair, or the bog of eternal stench, or some such shithole as that.

  • Paul.||

    According to Paul Krugman, Spending programs Of Unusual Size don't exist.

  • ||

    SPOUSs?

  • Ted S.||

    We must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom!

  • Paul.||

    I suspect Washington DCs nameplate industry won't have much work next year. At least along Pennsylvania Ave.

  • ||

    You are wrong.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I would certainly like to see some growth in the Washington, DC license plate industry.

  • Killazontherun||

    That just sucks. You shouldn't be able to randomly dial people n Cambridge Mass and ever get fifty percent for Obama if the human race was even half as smart on average as I typically estimate.

  • Hyperion||

    I still think it will be Rubio. However, there seems to be speculation from those in the know that it will be Pawlenty. Pawlenty, FTW? Lol, vanilla extract baby.

  • Obese American||

    [i]Chris Christie rounds out the top three [i]

    I see what you did there....

  • Caleb Turberville||

    "Romney/Rice 2012" is a little too alliterative. Romney better run this by his crack-shot consultants before he chooses Condi.

  • Tejicano||

    Actually "Romney/Rice" might be just what he needs.

    In the current reality the election cycle has become such a circus they just have to come up with a recipe for some kind of yummy Thai/fusion stir fry thing, call it "Romney Rice", and once it goes viral the election will be a cinch.

  • shamalam||

    RiceARomney, a San Francisco treat!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Excellent. I think we have a winner.

  • The Hammer||

    HuffPo is speculating that Romney will actually drop out of the race rather than release his tax returns.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Then what? Ron Paul will drop out of the race rather than apologize for the newsletters? Then who does it go to?

    ...Wait, Santorum?

  • Hyperion||

    Stop that righ now. We don't have to hear about sweater vest anymore, so you just don't start down that road.

  • Hyperion||

    The Fluffington Host is an oaisis of pure geniuses. If they say that, we better be looking for the Romulan to drop out soon. And who said that it was over for Ron Paul.

  • Hyperion||

    Oasis, GD it.

  • Hyperion||

    And speaking of the ancient one, at the risk of being redundant, if Romney actually wants to win, he would choose Paul as his VP.

  • Jerry on the road||

    Watching Paul debate Joe Biden would be fun.

  • BarryD||

    Watching an orangutan debate Joe Biden would be more interesting, and the betting would be more fun, too. It'd be a close race.

  • The Derider||

    Ron or Rand?

    They've both got some serious electability problems.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Nobody likes a Cassandra, so no, I predict neither of them gets it.

  • Dan Bongard||

    She little executive or political experience and keeps saying she doesn't want the job.

    "What voters want" aside, those seem like pretty good reasons not to pick her?

  • BarryD||

    Provost of Stanford University and US Secretary of State count for something, I think. If she lacks political and executive experience, then Obama wasn't qualified to run a toll booth.

    Oh wait, he wasn't, and isn't.

    But nevertheless, her qualifications sound pretty good.

  • Dan Bongard||

    If those are "pretty good" qualifications then I shudder to think what bad qualifications would be.

  • Randian||

    Isn't Hillary Clinton considered qualified for the Presidency?

  • The Derider||

    She was elected to the Senate, like Obama.

  • Mumu Bobby||

    Though she was a Senate leader, unlike Obama.

    But back off Obama. It took him a year to re-work his jump shot technique and master dunking at the kiddie court. He was busy.

  • Randian||

    And...?

  • The Derider||

    So there's a reason why Hillary and Obama might be perceived as more qualified than Rice, because they've held a powerful elected office and she hasn't.

  • Randian||

    The Secretary of State is a major executive branch position. A senate seat is one of 100. One requires leadership of a vast federal bureaucracy, and the other is a legally-meaningful debating society.

  • The Derider||

    Senators are independent, they make their own decisions.

    Secretary of State does what the president wants or they're out. I agree it's an important position, but they're not "in charge" of decisions like a governor or congressman (or a general, come to think of it)

    This is important to some people, apparently.

  • Randian||

    You have no idea how a major bureaucracy works. The President needs that section of the bureaucracy to practically run itself and relies on the Secretary to be a mini-President. Absent something outrageous, the Secretary is practically dictator of the office.

  • The Derider||

    A secretary knows that if they do something outrageous, they will get smacked down by the president. Therefore they don't, even if they want to.

    Now, if you give them an office where they have total power over decisionmaking, they might do some crazy shit. It's a small chance, but it exists.

    Whereas you have knowledge, good or bad, about how Obama and Clinton will act when given the reigns, because they've already held an office where that's true.

    And again, I don't think it's a big deal.

  • Randian||

    And again, you have no idea how government bureaucracies work. None.

  • The Derider||

    Explain it to me, government bureaucracy expert.

    I think you've just got chafed nipples.

  • Killazontherun||

    Randian, the voters of New York elected for one half of their Senate representation someone who showed interest in living there, well, owning a house there, only after she was interested in the open Senate seat, tells you how little being qualified is a qualification in this country.

  • Randian||

    No kidding. And Hilary Clinton got that seat on nothing more than her last name.

  • The Derider||

    And Obama only got elected because he was black.

    There's a reason this is a white sausagefest, dudes.

  • Randian||

    What were Hilary's qualifications otherwise?

  • The Derider||

    She was a popular first lady.

    She had credibility in trying to pass healthcare reform, which was a huge democratic issue.

    Qualifications to be senator are a lot lower than those for president.

  • Killazontherun||

    It's only going to hurt your resume if you have actual educational and work related experience in your background as that will be used against you. Better to be either fresh faced, offering generalities, or be the mentally abused spouse of an ex-president leaning on the sympathy vote.

  • Killazontherun||

    Community organizer.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'd vote for a McDonald's fry cook if he promised to only sign a balanced budget and neuter the DEA and ATF.

    Harvard boyz with all kinds of experience and achievements have been flushing this country down the toilet for the past century. Fuck 'em.

  • JW||

    Harvard boyz with all kinds of experience and achievements have been flushing this country down the toilet for the past century. Fuck 'em.

    The Bestest and the Brightiest? Surely, you jest, sir!

  • Tejicano||

    "I'd vote for a McDonald's fry cook if he promised to only sign a balanced budget and neuter the DEA and ATF."

    Well, not if he promised but if I knew there was some way we could hold him to it.

  • The Derider||

    Experience in elected office is considered important if you want to be president. Secretary Rice lacks it.

    There are a few general exceptions.

    Har.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Har is right, yer gonna hurt yer back shoveling them steamin' piles.

  • The Derider||

    I thought Wilson might have moved straight from President of Princeton to POTUS, but I checked Wikipedia and he was Governor of New Jersey from 1910 til 1912.

    Either way, he was an asshole.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Just because there are a dearth of non-politician presidents doesn't mean that people, in general, consider previous electoral victory as a requirement for the office. Maybe you've noticed that there aren't a lot of non-politicians running for prez.

  • The Derider||

    This is a pattern that has been true throughout US history with zero exceptions that I can think of. generals (a few), but mostly governors or congressmen.

    I think that most non-politicians know they won't win, so they don't spend shitloads of money trying. The ones that really want it have a long-term plan and get elected governor first. Or rep or senator.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Bain execs are saying Romney would never have run had he known how bad the offshore and tax issues would get. He is down to 39.8$ as his enemies in the GOP urge his to release tax returns.

    Gingrich is ready for a coup.

  • BarryD||

    cite, douche?

  • Randian||

    The Intrade for Romney is at 40% but I doubt shrike would have any idea why.

  • The Derider||

    I think there's a downward pressure on Romney's numbers because he's perceived as being caught flat-footed by the Bain and tax-return attacks. I think there's an upward pressure on Romney's numbers because there were some economic numbers released recently that were worse than expectations. Thus not very much movement in the overall numbers.

  • SIV||

    Prediction markets are meaningless at this stage.

  • Randian||

    Concur.

  • The Derider||

    I don't think they are always right.

    But they're more often right than polling data at this stage.

    And prediction markets in things like silver and wheat do an effective job in predicting future events. Why is this market the only one you don't believe in?

  • Randian||

    If the markets for silver or wheat were analogous to politics, you would have a point.

  • Randian||

    Example: in December 2011, this market opened at $5.00 (50%):

    Rick Perry to win one (or more) Republican primary/caucus in 2012

    How did that work out?

  • The Derider||

    They're analogous because they're both predictive markets.

    Why do you trust markets in silver and wheat futures, but not political futures?

    Political futures affect silver futures. It's not just some game. If you want to insure against Obama raising taxes next term, you can buy a bunch of "Obama victory" shares and pay your taxes out of your winnings.

  • Randian||

    Why do you trust markets in silver and wheat futures, but not political futures?

    Because catching the CEO of Silvercorp with a dead girl has very little effect on the price of silver, whereas catching Mittens or TOTUS with the same has a serious effect on their market price.

  • The Derider||

    There are unpredictable elements in the silver market as well.

    Floods in Mexico will have no impact on the presidential election, but might have a big impact on silver prices.

    And there are countless scenarios where political actions would have a huge effect on the silver market. Silver is high right now because people are using it as a hedge against inflation and currency devaluation, for instance.

  • Randian||

    First of all, there is one source for the market price for Mitt Romney's presidency: Mitt Romney. If Mitt Romney drops dead of a heart attack tomorrow, then the market is gone. That never happens with wheat markets or silver markets. There is more than one source of information / provider for the commodity.

    Secondly, predictive markets in politics are not based on information. They're basically driven by polls.

  • The Derider||

    No, that's wrong. The market doesn't end if Mitt Romney dies-- the people who bought shares saying Mitt Romney will win the presidency lose, and the ones who bought the opposite win.

    The likelihood of Mitt Romney dying before the election is already factored into the price. If he had a heart condition, the price would be lower (and he probably wouldn't be the nominee).

  • The Derider||

    How is a poll not information?

    Slow down here buddy. I'm explaining why markets work, and you're trying to convince me why I'm wrong. Are you sure this is the argument you want to have?

  • Randian||

    I have explained the uniqueness of political predictive markets. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

  • The Derider||

    No, you've only proven your ignorance.

    Political predictive markets are not fundamentally different than any other predictive market.

    Just stop posting if you're going to admit that I'm right. This is just weak.

  • Randian||

    I have explained the uniqueness of political predictive markets. I'm not in the mood to repeat myself.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Intrade said the Supreme Court would hold Obamacare unconstitutional.

  • ||

    If Bain is so bad for Romney then why did he just take the lead in the polls?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....tial-race/

    Do I get extra stars for pointing out that Obama's Bain narrative is a dud?

  • ||

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113.....roval.aspx

    Obama's approval went down as well.

  • Mumu Bobby||

    And that's with a D+7 sample of registered voters, not likely voters.

    The media is going to have to order extra pom poms to pull Obama over the finish line this time. Do pom pom manufacturers even have the supply, on top of Chinese demand?

  • The Derider||

    Every global warming thread shits on thousands of scientific papers and a 98% expert consensus.

    But a political poll showing Romney with a 1% lead with a 3% margin of error? Obama's toast in November!

  • Randian||

    Every global warming thread shits on thousands of scientific papers and a 98% expert consensus.

    No it does not.

    Obama's toast in November!

    No one said that.

    Thanks for playing.

  • The Derider||

    1. Yes they do.

    2. I admit to hyperbole. It's still wrong to claim a 1 point difference in a poll with 3% error indicates a lead. And there's clearly an ideological basis for why research indicating man-made global warming is attacked here, and this kind of data is accepted without comment.

  • Randian||

    You will find plenty of posters who say that they accept AGW and still don't think it's worth doing anything about. The AGW-denialism has turned into a convenient anti-right hammer even though it's a tempest in a teapot: the real problem is what the statists want to do with AGW data, and that is micromanage the world and make it poorer and sicker.

  • The Derider||

    Those posters certainly don't give a shit about correcting the ignorant herds around them.

    The last thread on carbon taxes that Ron Bailey posted was a nightmare. How are carbon taxes "micromanagement"?

  • Randian||

    How are they not?

  • The Derider||

    Does the 4th amendment "micromanage" every police department in the united states?

  • cw||

    Does the 4th amendment "micromanage" every police department in the united states?

    It probably should

  • The Derider||

    I guess micromanagement isn't a bad thing if the cause is just.

  • cw||

    Sure. We just disagree on what is just.

  • ||

    I guess micromanagement isn't a bad thing if the cause is just.

    So the 1rst amendment should not be micromanaged?

  • ||

    No one said that.

    I say that...I have been saying it for over 2 years.

    It is only my prediction and I am basing it on the shity economy.

    It is not as if i care...either way my guys, Gary Johnson, is going to lose.

    Mary of course does care....that is why her bitter tears are oh so sweet.

  • ||

    Every global warming thread shits on thousands of scientific papers and a 98% expert consensus.

    You mean this:

    The Doran paper has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....tists-say/

    I am a skeptic and reading the questions asked I might be one of the 97% depending on how i felt about the word 'significant' when I answered it.

  • Stephdumas||

    Until someone talk about Gingrich's Moon colony idea or that commercial he did with Nancy Pelosi about climate change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154

  • Terr||

    Reason, your mobile site still sucks. Fix it.

  • ||

    I just use a browser on my phone for Reason.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I like the horse race stuff. It's the only thing interesting about these goddamn people.

  • Mumu Bobby||

    Yes.

    I've found that every politician has a 1970s era pro-wrestling counterpart. I'm rooting for King Kong Bundy for Romney's VP and I think Chief Jay Strongbow is going narrowly beat Gorgeous George for the Senate (the nefarious 'foreign object' providing the margin of victory).

  • ||

    The only interesting thing about these tools is how badly they're going to fuck us. And that's interesting in the way dread is "interesting".

  • General Butt Naked||

    But you know that's coming, it's inevitable and inexorable. So I'd just rather focus on the numbers and my fellow countrymen's ability to get boners over these two fucks.

    The mind, it boggles.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Not photogenic enough.

    But then again, the other guy's got Biden...

    Never mind.

    -jcr

  • The Derider||

    There's absolutely no way he's going to pick her.

    She's pro-choice. That shit don't fly in today's republican party. What if Romney dies and she appoints a pro-choice supreme court judge? The horror!

  • Randian||

    SEN. SPECTER [as read into the record by Sen. Feinstein]: “Judge Roberts, in your confirmation hearing for the circuit court you testified: ‘Roe is the settled law of the land.’ Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge, or settled beyond that?”

    ROBERTS: “Well, beyond that. It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes."
  • The Derider||

    That quote proves absolutely nothing about how Roberts will vote. You say what you have to say to get through confirmations. And what he doesn't say is "I will vote to uphold Roe".

  • Randian||

    And there go the goalposts.

    What if Romney dies and she appoints a pro-choice supreme court judge? The horror!

    Randian: But Bush appointed Roberts, who said that Roe is ultra-settled law of the land.

    Derider: He's just saying that. He's a super-secret ueber-pro-lifer.

    Whatever you say little buddy.

  • The Derider||

    Saying that something is the law of the land is not the same thing as saying that it will continue to be the law of the land once I rule on it.

  • Randian||

    So, no, you don't have any proof for your unsubstantiated assertion.

  • The Derider||

    Which assertion? I think you're confused.

  • Randian||

    Assertion: "There's absolutely no way he's going to pick her.

    She's pro-choice. That shit don't fly in today's republican party."

    Evidence for the assertion: "What if Romney dies and she appoints a pro-choice supreme court judge? The horror!"

    Randian counter-evidence: John Roberts.

    Derider: no substantive response other than "John Roberts is a secret pro-lifer" (another unsubstantiated assertion)

  • The Derider||

    Today's republican party is not the same as George W Bush's republican party by a long fucking shot.

  • cw||

    Meh. They're all still big spenders.

  • ||

    Today's republican party is not the same as George W Bush's republican party by a long fucking shot.

    *looks at Bush

    *looks at Boehner

    *looks at Romney

    *looks at McConnell

    WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?!

  • Randian||

    He's making shit up.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, that's an uber common lefty shilling technique: rehabilitating conservatives after they're dead.

    So someone like Reagan, who they utterly loathed with the fire of a thousand suns when he was actually in charge of things, becomes the "reasonable Republican of yesteryear" once he's dead and buried.

    It will happen with Bush too, sooner or later. People who literally called him Hitler will say "Mitt Romney is so extreme. Why can't he be more of a bipartisan consensus builder like George W. Bush?"

  • ||

    The amount of typing and making of retarded statements you're doing about Rice screams that you think she's a threat to your god and master.

    I find that hilarious. I will enjoy watching your ilk running around like chickens with their heads cut off during this process. I love watching partisan scum become emotionally, spastically involved in a process that gives someone else power and you nothing.

  • Killazontherun||

    I hope its Santorum so I have a reason to hate again. Rice seemed like an island of sanity in the tsunami of stupid that was the Bush Administration. No way Romney is going for the smart pick. No way. It's hard to hate something as pathetic as Obama and his minions, and it's hard to hate someone as boring as Romney.

  • cw||

    It's hard to hate something as pathetic as Obama [...].

    Smug self-importance, breaking the law and getting away with it (while avidly prosecuting those who do the same), telling me I need his help to succeed; I find it quite easy to hate Obama.

  • Killazontherun||

    I agree he is despicable and I do despise him but hate is a more lovely emotion than despise. Hate requires passion and commitment, and I have nothing but a dispassionate interest as a concerned American for the greater good of my country to see that he is no longer in public office. It would be nice to see him tried and convicted for his assassination list with a visit to ol' sparky down in Florida as a warning to future presidents, but that is not going to happen.

    Lol! When you think about it, he has an assassination list, used it against those whose only crime have been to be propagandist for the other side, and not even that for those 'collaterally damaged', and yet, we are expected to treat him as if he were a leader in the normal course of things. His followers still number large. What an absurd world!

  • cw||

    Hate requires passion and commitment, and I have nothing but a dispassionate interest [in seeing Obama removed from office].

    You know what? That's a good point.

    I would add too that, at the end of the day, one should appreciate what one has control over, and who is elected president isn't one of those things.

    His followers still number large. What an absurd world!

    Indeed it is.

  • The Derider||

    What statement, specifically, have I made about Rice that's inaccurate?

    I think you're just full of shit, and pissed off because I'm not repeating Rush's daily sermon.

  • Randian||

    ha ha ha. If you think Episiarch loves Republicans, you're more of a clueless fucker than I thought.

  • The Derider||

    You guys all look the same to me. I don't memorize which idiots you do and don't listen to.

  • Randian||

    So, no, you don't know what you're talking about.

  • The Derider||

    I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the facts I've stated about Rice. Please try to prove me wrong.

  • cw||

    Really, the Rush card?

    Tell me what he said today. I sure wasn't listening.

  • The Derider||

    Me neither!

    I also don't think that Obama is my god and master, but that's what Episiarch asserted!

  • cw||

    I actually kinda/sorta defended you downthread just now.

  • ||

    Tell me what he said today. I sure wasn't listening.

    He said they put in the villain Bane in the new Batman movie to criticize Romney and his work at Bain Capital.

    But i only read about that...what i heard over my 15 min drive to work was Rush talking to some lady who said her BF got her to listen to Rush because she had not ever listened to him but had heard he was bad...then she listened to him by her BF's urging and now she is a changed woman and now loves Rush.

  • ||

    What does the peanut gallery think; is The Derider another joe handle? It sure loves to argue in the same way about the same things as he did, the dishonest fucking twerp.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm just ignoring him. Making it clear that he is being talked around. But joe like:

    There's a reason this is a white sausagefest, dudes.

    Definitely. That's the kind of thing you say when you are an assumptive fuckhead. It's possible that its another one of his handles, but joe was not unique in the mediocrity of his intellect versus the vain regard for which he held for it.

  • Randian||

    Jesus Christ. It seemed smart enough to be a decent foil and open to discussion, but I see that once again I was fooled. My optimism and philanthropy always cost me in the end :(

  • cw||

    Let's be fair.

    From The Derider's point of view, he wanders through enemy territory on a near-daily basis. It's hard for one not to slip into silly attacks when confronting so many people who disagree with your world view.

  • db||

    Imagine John Rambo armed with a Nerf gun and hopped up on No-Doz and Smarties.

  • Killazontherun||

    I had a cousin who did something similar a few years after getting out of the army. My mum was sitting on her porch reading her Sunday paper with coffee and he comes out of the bushes in camo and paint face and shoots up the table with nerf darts.

    Pissed, she calls me, asks, 'could you come over and kick your cousin's ass.'

    I asked her, 'why didn't you call my brother? He is the martial arts tourney champ.'

    "He doesn't do anything for free.'

  • Killazontherun||

    And, no I didn't kick his ass, but I went looking for him to tell him to leave the old bird alone. He found me first, and nerf shot me with his toy, ran into the woods laughing.

    Yeah, they had to put him in rehab about a month later.

  • JW||

    It smells short. I vote yes.

  • Randian||

    Derider doesn't love Democrats as much as joe did. I mean, joe loved Obama more than Obamagirl loved Obama.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Maybe joe lost some of his enthusiasm, as Obamagirl did:

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/06.....rse-obama/

  • db||

    Don't care. What is joe worth? Like, really worth? Negative lots of money, as he is a government employee. Why care about him at all, much less this derider persona?

  • Randian||

    All I want, seriously, is an open-minded, intelligent, honest arguer. Instead we get dishonest goalpost movers and trolls.

  • db||

    Yeah. Why can't we get a challenge? The statists are bankrupt.

  • ||

    I have a few liberal friends who are not evil, stupid monsters (as some would allege all liberals to be). We've been through this stuff time and again.

    It all eventually boils down to this: do you have an obligation towards society.

    If yes, then you are obligated to do certain things, though the rest of the time you are free to do your own thing. They believe that, since ultimately, the mob rules, that one has an obligation towards society in exchange for the protection and stable framework it provides. Sure it's a protection racket, and in their more honest moments, they'll admit that. But they veer off into sounding like John of Tulpa: the strongest, best-armed mob always wins. So, facing that as a fact no matter how much one may dislike it, one is then forced to come to terms with what is the best way to organize that society.

    And assuming one comes to the conclusion that liberal democracy is the best so far, then part of a liberal democracy is having to accept that the voters get to tell you what the hell to do sometimes. It's the inevitable and unavoidable consequence of living in an imperfect world.

  • ||

    Er, that should have been, "John or Tulpa."

    John of Tulpa sounds like a guy in the Middle Ages who was born and raised someplace gay and authoritarian.

  • Killazontherun||

    one is then forced to come to terms with what is the best way to organize that society.

    You have never in your life voted how to organize society. You've voted to skew certain inputs and outputs into a preferred direction, but you have never once voted for an effective means of organizing society because that is an impossibility.

    What is the percentage of coke traffic that gets caught in mid shipment? A bare fraction. Barely causes a bump in the price structure of the enterprise. If societies were organizable through conscience decision making than the percentages would be turned on their heads, but what you have instead is a comforting and extremely expensive fantasy about how life is lead and should be lived.

    If society could be organized than government would be an effective insurance policy against risk, but it isn't effective; instead, it crowds out its more effective competitors and is able to do so because its real specialty is violence, extortion and the destruction of wealth.

  • ||

    I think they think that every day you don't openly revolt, every time you just hang your head and sigh and meekly comply with some liberty-shredding new law, you are, in effect, organizing society.

    Of course their point could still be valid if one were to say, "one is then forced to come to terms with what has proven to be the most successful way that society has organized itself" and then continued with the rest of the argument.

  • Killazontherun||

    Even the nightwatchman scenerio is problematic. Supposedly the government's specialty of dealing out violence is turned into a public good. 9-11 should have been sobering on that score for everybody.

    When minutes counted, the USAF was only hours away.

    This after spending 14+ trillion on defense between the Vietnam War and 9-11?

    Gives one pause.

  • ||

    I thought Derider was Mary.

    DAMN YOU EPI!!!!!

  • ||

    Mary is pretty easy to recognize at this point, and our idiot PWNing friend here doesn't feel like her. He does kind of feel like joe, though, doesn't he?

  • Randian||

    I think he's a regular who likes to be contrarian. Hmm. Who do we know like that?

  • ||

    Not joe.

    I don't see him arguing against a gallop poll in favor of Intrade numbers.

    In 2006 and 2008 he lived and breathed poll numbers.

  • Lyle||

    JINDAL

  • ||

    On NPR on the way home I heard Romney say he will pick a conservative.

    What ever the fuck that means.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It means it won't be Ron Paul.

  • ||

    3 terry stops today. only one involved a frisk.

    pah for da course

    and a perfect balancing of individual rights and state authoritah!

  • db||

    I did something useful today instead of hassling my fellow man.

  • ||

    i arrested a rape suspect and a felony forgery suspect.

    and you did what today?

    hth

  • db||

    I created value for shareholders by helping optimize operations at a facility. Also worked on designing a chemical plant that will create jobs. Wait, make that _three_ chemical plants that will create jobs. hth.

  • ||

    Unless they're convicted or plead guilty, you don't know for a fact that you've done jack shit.

    And I don't think "rapists" count in the "victimless crimes" section that most of us think cops/the law shouldn't be involved in. If all cops did was arrest rapists, thieves, and murderers, I'm not sure anybody around here would have nearly the problem with them that we do.

  • ||

    not only are you a bigot gojira, but you encourage biased, ignorant policing

    my goal is not a conviction. i'm not the victim in either case. heck, they both may be INNOCENT

    does that ever cross your mind?

    i had probable cause. innocent people get arrested all the time.

    the goal of an arrest is not to get a conviction, no more than the goal of a terry is to get an arrest

    again, the incredible ignorance just astounds me

    what paramount upon arrest is the defendant's rights. that's the job of his defense attorney,. the prosecutor etc. to respect and it is my job to be IMPARTIAL

    if i SOUGHT convictions, i would be partial. and not doing my job

    the first thing a good cop considers upon any complaint is the possibility that it's a false complaint

    because as soon as you buy it lock stock and barrel, you cease to be an impartial investigator

    again, cops gather evidence, whether incriminating or EXCULPATORY

    i don't WANT a conviction. i want justice. and at this point it's out of my hands

    but justice very well may be an acquittal or dropped charges

    again, you have a vindictive, bigoted, punitive view of the goal of LEOs

  • Randian||

    no more than the goal of a terry is to get an arrest

    I'll repeat myself because you refuse to respond:

    A Terry stop is a police-initiated stop based on the officer's reasonable suspicion that the detainee is or was recently involved in criminal activity.

    How is the goal not an arrest? You aren't "investigating" anything other than YOUR OWN suspicions, and if your suspicions are *wrong*, that is a BAD STOP.

  • ||

    Most of you post (minus calling me names) is spot-on.

    It also doesn't square with bragging about having accomplished something by arresting those people.

    If they're innocent, then arresting them has accomplished nothing, and therefore, I don't know why you would be bragging about it.

  • ||

    not only are you a bigot gojira, but you encourage biased, ignorant policing

    my goal is not a conviction. i'm not the victim in either case. heck, they both may be INNOCENT

    does that ever cross your mind?

    i had probable cause. innocent people get arrested all the time.

    the goal of an arrest is not to get a conviction, no more than the goal of a terry is to get an arrest

    again, the incredible ignorance just astounds me

    what paramount upon arrest is the defendant's rights. that's the job of his defense attorney,. the prosecutor etc. to respect and it is my job to be IMPARTIAL

    if i SOUGHT convictions, i would be partial. and not doing my job

    the first thing a good cop considers upon any complaint is the possibility that it's a false complaint

    because as soon as you buy it lock stock and barrel, you cease to be an impartial investigator

    again, cops gather evidence, whether incriminating or EXCULPATORY

    i don't WANT a conviction. i want justice. and at this point it's out of my hands

    but justice very well may be an acquittal or dropped charges

    again, you have a vindictive, bigoted, punitive view of the goal of LEOs

    the goal of an arrest is not a conviction

    the goal of a terry is not an arrest.

    again,. you have a very thuggish, punitive, childish view of the role of law enforcement

    your idea of what law enforcemetn SHOULD do is in fact the kind of thuggish shit you SHOULD be against.

  • db||

    BTW, congrats on actually working on real crimes with victims.

  • ||

    Tell you what: come back on here and brag the next time you bring somebody in for drug use, and then blame the legislature. Since, you know, you were taken in a youth levy like a jannisary or mameluke and forced against your will into the profession you now hold, and any disobedience to the legislature will result in that chip they implanted in you exploding. It's only because those are the circumstances you find yourself in, that I agree you can't be blamed for your actions.

  • ||

    seriously. time and time again, the illogic, the hate and the ignorance shines here. thank you for continuing to express it

  • Randian||

    What did you arrest those people for, dunphy? Just answer the question and prove us all wrong.

  • ||

    im not interested in proving anybody wrong. seriously, you have some twisted values. much like gojira, who judges the validity of an arrest and says its bullshit unless a conviction results

    the guy may be ENTIRELY innocent. if i SOUGHT conviction, i would not be acting impartially

    again, just a very twisted, vindictive, punitive, thuggish view of law enforcement you guys have

    and again, if you can't be an adult and simply say "my bad" about your bogus assumption and attack, then no... i'm not interested in "proving " people wrong

    here's a hint. i engage in discussion because i might learn something . i might be wrong. i might evolve my views. if you come into a discussion just wanting to prove people wrong, you are a close minded ideologue.

    not that i needed any more proof of that

  • Randian||

    what did you arrest those two terry detainees for, dunphy? It was drugs, wasn't it?

  • ||

    ...much like gojira, who judges the validity of an arrest and says its bullshit unless a conviction results

    Nonsense. I never once said the arrest was invalid. You're making up words and attributing them to me, which is odd considering what I actually said is within easy reach right above.

    I said unless there's a conviction (and the person was actually guilty), then nothing was accomplished for you to brag about.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with whether the arrest was valid or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're a good cop, so presumably you arrested the suspects in good faith, and the arrests are valid. That doesn't make them an accomplishment.

  • ||

    Hate, yes. Ignorance and illogic, not at all sir.

    I hold people responsible for their actions. You have repeatedly blamed the legislature for enacting bad laws, which you, due to your profession, are expected to enforce.

    I believe you made a free choice to join the police force. And you continue to make a free choice every day to remain a part of it.

    Hopefully we can agree with that statement up to this point.

    Here's where we part company. Since you 1) profess to disagree with several laws which you presumably are compelled to enforce if you want to remain a police officer, and 2) freely choose to do so rather than choosing another career, then 3) it follows that I hold you responsible for any actions you take as an officer which are against liberty.

    The only way you are not personally responsible (not for the system or the laws, but for the individuals that you take in while enforcing those laws), is if you were somehow forced into your current job against your will, and held there against your will.

    hth

  • ||

    not only are you a bigot gojira, but you encourage biased, ignorant policing

    my goal is not a conviction. i'm not the victim in either case. heck, they both may be INNOCENT

    does that ever cross your mind?

    i had probable cause. innocent people get arrested all the time.

    the goal of an arrest is not to get a conviction, no more than the goal of a terry is to get an arrest

    again, the incredible ignorance just astounds me

    what paramount upon arrest is the defendant's rights. that's the job of his defense attorney,. the prosecutor etc. to respect and it is my job to be IMPARTIAL

    if i SOUGHT convictions, i would be partial. and not doing my job

    the first thing a good cop considers upon any complaint is the possibility that it's a false complaint

    because as soon as you buy it lock stock and barrel, you cease to be an impartial investigator

    again, cops gather evidence, whether incriminating or EXCULPATORY

    i don't WANT a conviction. i want justice. and at this point it's out of my hands

    but justice very well may be an acquittal or dropped charges

    again, you have a vindictive, bigoted, punitive view of the goal of LEOs

  • ||

    If you wanted justice, then you would never arrest any suspect who had not violated the rights of others.

    If you ever have (or I suppose more precisely, if you continue to do so to retain your job), then you do not seek out or value justice.

    Of course, you and I define justice very differently, I'm sure. That doesn't make me a bigot though, no matter how much you repeat that. Though come to think of it, being bigoted against cops carries about the same weight with me as being accused of being bigoted against fascists.

  • Randian||

    He arrested those two Terry detainees for drugs. You know he did. What a shitbird.

  • ||

    lol. so we go from ignorance, refusal to admkit error on his part, to bogus accusations based on third grade reverse psychology attempts?

    seriously?

    just amazing

    seriously. i love posts like this because htey are on record and if you go back and look at them, it's clear that you are out of your fucking mind

  • Randian||

    Go on. What did you arrest the Terry detainees for?

  • ||

    I do find it strange that he won't just answer your question about the crime committed.

  • Randian||

    He knows he arrested them for drugs, and that's a trigger warning for an avalanche of shit to fall down on his head. We'd repeat for days and link to it every time he showed up on a thread, so he won't admit it.

  • ||

    Yep, still no answer.

    I wanted to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but I think you're right, Randian.

  • ||

    you arrest people for PROBABLE CAUSE that they violated the rights of others.

    you don't know it's true, and sometimes they are innocent.

    i realize it's hard for a punitive, thuggish bigot to recognize that

  • General Butt Naked||

    you arrest people for PROBABLE CAUSE that they violated the rights of others.

    Like drug dealers?

  • Randian||

    or for probable cause that they have drugs. Like you do...as an alleged "libertarian".

  • Virginian||

    A fucking cop is calling someone else thuggish?

    Irony that rich is probably fattening.

  • db||

    I did something useful today instead of hassling my fellow man.

  • db||

    Fucking squirrels didn't though.

  • Randian||

    you performed three stops that didn't result in arrest and you consider that a success?

  • ||

    again, why do people make stupid assumptions. did i say none resulted in arrest?

    no

    you make assumptions because you fill in blank spaces with what you want to believe

    typical of bigots

    two resulted in arrests. 2/3 is actually quite high for terrys

    but of course the threshold for a good terry is not whether an arrest results

    good cops don't measure results by arrests. that's a very juvenile, facile and stupid way to measure good law enforcement

    robert peel would be disgusted

    but again, why do you make assumptions with no reason whatsoever?

    why?

    why can't you simply ASK a question instead of always assuming the negative when it comes to cops?

    answer: because that's how bigots support their twisted viewpoints

  • Randian||

    You should have then said "made two arrests".

    And what did you arrest them for?

    but of course the threshold for a good terry is not whether an arrest results

    Yes it is. Or, I would like to hear an alternative measure of success. if you stop a suspect based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and there was no criminal activity, that is bad stop. It may not be a unconstitutional one or one that violates anyone's rights, but you were still wrong.

  • ||

    look, i am not going to explain peel principles , concepts of community policing and frankly basic common sense to you. it's a thuggish, simplistic, and ridiculous metric to think what you think. frankly, it's what a lot of rookies think until they gain some experience.

    reasonoids always concentrate on ARREST, whether it's "why didn't the cop get arrested " or whatever. this job is very multifaceted and my primary goals are serving my community, protecting life and property, etc. not making arrests

    you clearly know nothing about basic principles of good policing, and instead of saying "my bad. i made an assumption" just as i did a mea culpa on the other thread, you turn it around and say *i* should have said i made two arrests

    that's what i get tired of with the bigots. can NEVER admit simple error and are always in attack mode

    if you can get off your bigoted high horse and say "my bad" and act like a decent person (see my thread about treating people with respect, something cops should do and something people should do dealing with cops), i;'ll give some details

    otherwise, no. a simple "my bad" or "bad assumption" or something. but turning your mistake around into an attack on what i wrote is just the height of chutzpah

  • Randian||

    A Terry stop is a stop based on the reasonable suspicion that the suspect is engaged in criminal activity.

    In other words, you committed a bad stop. You had a suspicion that someone was up to criminal activity, and you were wrong. It's that simple. You can try to talk over my head about "robert peel's policing principles" and call me names, but in the context of Terry stops, you made a bad stop and harassed someone for no reason.

  • db||

    So, as long as the net effect, in your own eyes, is a benefit to society, anything goes.

  • Randian||

    That is pretty much what he said, isn't it.

    dunphy admitted to making a bad Terry stop but then said that it was justified because *handwave* "robert peel"

  • ||

    i never admitted to making a bad terry stop

    the validity of a terry stop is not judged by whether an arrest ensues.

    that is so astoundingly wrong, it boggles the mind.

    again, you have an incredibly thuggish, punitive view of how law enforcement should work

  • Randian||

    that is so astoundingly wrong, it boggles the mind.

    Non-responsive, so I will repeat myself once again. A Terry stop is a police-initiated stop based on the officer's reasonable suspicion that the detainee is or was recently involved in criminal activity.

    How is the goal not an arrest? You aren't "investigating" anything other than YOUR OWN suspicions, and if your suspicions are *wrong*, that is a BAD STOP.

  • ||

    the goal is not arrest. among other things, a goal of a terry stop is to investigate. reasonable suspicion does not mean a crime is occurring. it is just as important to eliminate suspicion from the innocent as it is to target it on the suspected.

    furthermore, even IF criminal activity is verified, the vast majority of the time i have PC for a crime, there is no arrest made

    you are so childish and punitive, you think we just go and arrest every time we confirm a crime

    again, you have an incredibly immature and thuggish view of what law enforcement should do

    also, as a matter of logic, if all your terry stops result in arrest, then clearly you aren't making terry stops. because , given reasonable suspicion, it is and SHOULD BE likely in a substantial # of cases that no criminal activity is afoot *or* and it's a big or, that it is but you can't develop PC *or* you do develop PC but you decide not to arrest and just issue a warning

    again, an amazingly punitive thuggish, almost fascist view you have of what police should do

  • Randian||

    You are not even speaking in English anymore. First of all, the only thing you are investigating, and I'll say it again very slowly, are YOUR OWN SUSPICIONS. In other words, you looked at someone and developed a suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and you were wrong. How you fail to see that as a bad stop is beyond me.

    even IF criminal activity is verified, the vast majority of the time i have PC for a crime, there is no arrest made

    you verify a crime happened and you have probable cause for an arrest, and you don't arrest? When does that happen?

  • ||

    most of the time. this may shock you, but in most crimes, no arrest is made. either a ticket is issued or a warning given.

    i was given a warning for crimes twice when i was in college.

    but then i wasn't a dick to the cops (except once, as noted and then i was treated poorly).

    i was caught once with an open container when i was OF age and caught once with a beer when i was underage

    in both cases, i got a warning

    cops give warnings all the time

  • Randian||

    do you regularly perform terry stops on underage drinkers?

  • db||

    The best part about you posting here, dunphy, is that we get to tell a cop what we think of him without physical consequence. In real life, our asses would be on the ground or bleeding out. How does it feel to be feared? Please keep it up because this is the only place we can express an honest opinion of your kind without being oppressed.

    hth.

  • ||

    i know that far more than i am feared , i m respected;. outside the rarefied climates of reason.com

    polling data supports that and everyday interactions support that

    i wouldn't expect, as a minority to get love from the KKK, and i don't expect to get love from bigots.

    but i can speak truth and engage in rational discussions and not devolve to your ridiculous, paranoid, bigoted level

    as one said the other day, he equates treating cops with basic respect as giving them 'rimjobs'. that's the kind of uncouth, small, fragie ego bigots i deal with here.

    im kewl with it

    but i KNOW , because it's supported by polling data as well as everyday experience that i have immense respect in my community and no bigot can take away a man's dignity

  • db||

    Jesus, stop with the minority bullshit. I can understand part of what you're saying: when I became a gun enthusiast, my eyes were opened to the plight of minorities under persecution. Not because I experienced the same degree of persecution, but because I understood there were people out there who despised my lifestyle and choices enough to want to send the power of the State after me to force me to stop. At that point I learned much about the world and how wrong I had been to be a bigot.

    Your twisting of the concept of bigotry to include fear and revulsion at the power of the state (which is exercised by true bigots to oppress their objects of hate) is the height of irony.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Fuck 'im, just another 'victim' that doesn't know the first goddamn thing about respect, dignity, or honor.

    Let him have his pity party.

  • ||

    there's no pity. i get tons of love, respect and great benefits. and i love my job

    like i said, you bigots are a tiny minority

    i'm not asking for anything, and i don't expect bigots to change their mind. it's too fundamental a part of their character. it's rare

    i don't want pity. i have a GREAT job, get great respect, and get great benefits

    what you fail to recognize is that the world is not reason.com bigotfest. step outside and you will see that normal, salt of the earth people, rank us WAY above most other professions in their respect for us

    and i LOVE pointing that out to you

  • Randian||

    Wow, dunphy, your majoritarian instincts and argumentum ad populum go together like shit and the bottom of a shoe. No wonder you wear it so well.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yeah, tell us again about all the drug dealers that love and respect you after you arrest them.

  • db||

    You live in a strange world set apart from society, when you can simultaneously claim to "get...great respect" and be a victim of "bigotry." However you define it.

    Dunphy, I'm not a reflexive cop-hater, but you really need to sit back and read your posts with an impassive, objective eye some day. Ask some non-cop friends to read them and tell you honestly what they think. They are honest with you, right?

  • ||

    And I'm supposed to care what "salt of the earth" people think about you...why, again?

    Rights aren't up to a popularity contest. I don't care if every person on earth voted you Officer of the Year - if you arrested people for drug use (who had not violated anyone else's rights in doing so), then the entire rest of the world who voted for you would be wrong.

  • ||

    I believe I responded rationally and calmly to every post up above.

    It's you coming with the spittle-flecked cries of "bigot!"

    And you constant reliance on polling data is meaningless. If a cop starts following someone, do they feel, 1) relief that someone they respect is riding behind them?, or 2) fear, because while it's easy to check on a box on a form saying sure, I respect cops, it's entirely another thing when confronted with them.

  • ||

    ah you have devolved to the ultimate example of cognitive dissonance

    yup, they are all lying on polling data

    intersting that they don't lie about politicians, for example, who have immense power to fuck with people

    journalists and lawyers constantly rank near the bottom

    cops rank near the top

    people respect us and i love pointing that out to you because it pushes your cognitive dissonance engine into overdrive

    it often also reveals the elitist nature of the bigot, when they respond that most people are just ignorant, the fabled "90% of people are morons" etc. that elitists like so many here are. and you are of course oh so much better and so much more enlightened

  • Randian||

    54% of people think you have very high/high ethics. That number has remained pretty flat for the last five years.

    Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

  • ||

    when ranked with OTHER professions, we are consistently amongst the top

    period

    i have linked to that data at least a half dozen times

    journalists and lawyers and congress almost always near the bottom

    cops, firefighters and teachers - near the top

  • ||

    Please find where I said they were all morons, and link it.

    I'll wait.

    I said up above I don't care what they think, and I believe they're wrong.

    But the more I type, the more it's distracting you from finding that link where I said everybody is stupid.

    Go ahead. Because surely a reasonable guy like you wouldn't just put words in my mouth.

  • ||

    Still waiting for that link. Shouldn't have been hard to find.

    Oh, and what, broadly speaking (i.e. DV, drugs, vandalism, etc.) did you make those two arrests for earlier again? You seem to have missed the question earlier. I know you wouldn't be dodging it, since you've repeatedly talked about how much you love your job and how respected you are.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I've never put someone in a cage for a victimless crime so I don't need polls for self-validation. That you do is kind of sad.

  • 21044||

    i know that far more than i am feared , i m respected

    No you are not. For the most part you are ignored, just like every other petty civil servant.

  • ||

    not according to irrefutable stats.

    but i'll take your unsupported assertion over my evidence based one?

    also, petty civil servants don't take life and/or save it

    there;s no pettyness in law enforcement. there are life and death decisions. that's why i insist on accountability, the absolute right to record police, the absolute right of police to record themselves and others, and due process for investigations of police

  • Killazontherun||

    OT:

    bionic eyes chips for correcting macular degeneration and getting cheaper by the release.

    http://www.extremetech.com/ext.....-the-blind

  • bopomtXQ||

    Make money using Google. Find out how to make up to $175/hr working for this billion dollar company. More info @ makecash25dotcomONLY

  • ||

    some basic points for the reasonoid bigots:

    1) the primary goal of policing is not to make arrests, even GIVEN PC often a warning will be given, and a substantial amount of stuff we deal with is more social worker'esque and mental health related than crime related

    2) no cop should ever think the goal of an arrest is a conviction. cops should be impartial gatherers of evidence. if i am doing a DUI and the guy fails the FST's (as happened last night), he gets processed (then driven home. not booked. just do the BT and drive ee home here). but if some elements of his behavior point towards suspected sobriety i note that too. because it's called honesty

    just like if a suspect can provide an alibi, and i can check it out, i do. it often exonerates them. in one of my terries, they provided me with evidence that pointed towards their innocence. good for them

    X) the goal of a terry is not an arrest. if it is your GOAL, you are going to be engaged in biased policing. the goal of a terry is to investigate fairly and impartially, to consider exculpatory as well as incriminatory evidence, and to respect the constitution when doing so. i was terried at gunpoint for armed robbery. but i was treated fairly, respectfully and they listened to me. because that's what good cops do

  • ||

    y) there is a gross overconcentration on arrest, just like UOF. we deal with civil issues, community caretaking issues (missing alzheimer's patient for example). etc. in many investigations, like natural death investigations, it is as least as important to show compassion, respect and cultural sensitivity as it is to gather evidence

    the bigots have a very skewed perception of the goals, means, and reality of policing.

    in all three terries i should note i was treated with respect, i treated the subjects of the terry with respect and things went just ok.

    i CLEARLY had RS on my non-arrest terry. but it became apparent after about 5-10 minutes that the RS had been vitiated at which point i released them. but the terry was absolutely the right thing to do

    if you think cops are only justified in stopping people if those people are GUILTY, then that's a standard that would never work, it is the standard in no nation on earth, and it would not work.

    again, as the stats prove, even given arrest, police use force in a tiny amount of cases.

  • ||

    Sorry, didn't want you to miss out on linking to me saying that 90% of people are morons, as you claim I did. Because I know you wouldn't just call me a bigot, and then make up something that I didn't say so that you could claim I'm an elitist. That would be silly and, dare I say it, bigoted.

    And what, again, in broad strokes, did you make those two arrests for earlier? I don't believe we ever got a straight answer on that (for Christs' sake, at this point just make something up, like you arrested two men just as they were about to mug somebody).

  • ||

    i didn't say YOU said that.

    just as you made an unfounded erroneous assumption that i made no arrests vis a vis the terries, you make this unfounded assertion as well.

    please cite where i said you specifically said that. as far as i know you didn't, nor did i claim such

  • Randian||

    What did you arrest those Terry detainees for?

  • ||

    iirc, it was gojira who accused me of not making arrests in any of my terries.

    and then he attacked me when i pointed out his erroneous assumption

    if and when he can give a mea culpa, i will divulge that.

    but i can't give in to bigotry to that extent. if people can't simply say "my bad" when clearly wrong, homey don't play that

    heck, i admitted blatant error to coeus in another thread. because i made a bogus assumption

    it's called being an adult

  • ||

    I didn't "accuse" you of not making arrests.

    That would be silly. Obviously I have no idea if you arrested anyone or not, so how could I accuse you of that?

    Here's my reply, which you never responded to:

    ..much like gojira, who judges the validity of an arrest and says its bullshit unless a conviction results

    Nonsense. I never once said the arrest was invalid. You're making up words and attributing them to me, which is odd considering what I actually said is within easy reach right above.

    I said unless there's a conviction (and the person was actually guilty), then nothing was accomplished for you to brag about.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with whether the arrest was valid or not. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're a good cop, so presumably you arrested the suspects in good faith, and the arrests are valid. That doesn't make them an accomplishment.

  • Randian||

    What does what you think Gojira said have to do with answering *my* question?

    What a fucking weak excuse.

  • ||

    It was in direct response to a statement from myself, and you said that it is the revealed nature of the bigot, which you have labeled me repeatedly throughout the evening. I'd say it's pretty clear, no assumption needed.

  • ||

    it's not clear at all. i lambasted two people for doing it recently, and i said it's a frequent response of bigots

    if you said "cops often do X" i would not be thinking that you are saying *i* did it

  • Randian||

    A Terry Stop is something that you, the police officer, essentially come up with because you are suspicious. It amazes me that you say "the terry was absolutely the right thing to do" when it turned out your suspicions your wrong. You do realize that makes the Terry Stop incorrect right? That you were wrong? That you should not have stopped that citizen, because your suspicions turned out to be false?

    I didn't say that we should police that way, but you made a bad stop today. Deal with it. You unnecessarily harassed a citizen baselessly. That's part of your job, but you have to deal with that as a descriptor. I am sorry you don't like your job described that way, but it's the truth, and you need to get over yourself.

  • ||

    you are absolutely 100% correct. you are using, as again, a results based analysis vs. a process analysis

    law enforcement is like poker. a game of limited information

    society, and common sense, demands that we make stops and investigate with less than ABSOLUTE certainty.

    if you honestly think a cop shouldn't be able to stop w/o absolute certainty, that is something no criminologist, or even defense attorney i'm aware of would agree with

    law enforceemnt is like poker. it's a game of limited info. and even IF you make the right decision BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES known to you at time X, it doesn't mean that's the right decision if you KNEW all the facts and circumstances

    we allow this authority SO cops CAN investigate further.

    seriously. if all my terries resulted in PC, let alone arrest, i would NOT be doing my job right

    and i wouldn't be stopping based on reasonable suspicion, the standard

    because logic dictates that given ONLY reasonable suspicion

    either

    1) the person will be the criminal, but i won't have the means to develop PC and must let him go

    OR
    2) he won't be the criminal and i let him go

    a good cop should have a substantial # of terries NOT result in PC

  • ||

    seriously, this is why so many cop bigots are just fundamentally unserious ignorant critics

    anybody who thinks a terry stop is only a good terry stop if an arrest ensues is CLEARLY ignorant of basic concepts of good policing, the expectations society places on law enforcement, etc.

    even amongst the most vociferous *(real world) critics of cops you will not read such a claim.

    the reason they set the standard at RS is with the assumption that you need to stop people with LESS than certainty and will necessarily stop plenty of pure innocents as well as some that are doers, but you can't prove it

    the cops were RIGHT to stop me at gunpoint for armed robbery

    even though i did not do the armed robbery

    period

  • Randian||

    What did you arrest those Terry detainees for, dunphy?

  • ||

    Jesus christ, if it'll get him to say something, even a lie, I'll just admit I was wrong and say mea culpa.

  • Randian||

    a good cop should have a substantial # of terries NOT result in PC

    In other words, a good cop should have reasonable suspicions that, more often than not, turn out to be not-in-reality correct suspicions?

    Did you really just say that your own suspicions should have a high failure rate, and that's indicative of success?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement