Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2014, 02:40 PM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
The drug war and war on terror are both wastes of time and money, threaten our civil liberties, and continue to spark the growing police state. I have a philosophical problem with both, but from a practical stand point, they need to be done away with as well. If the point of the "war" is to get rid of drugs, has that worked? Probably time for a new approach. If the point of the "war on terrorism" is to stop terrorist attacks, you should probably develop a new strategy for that as well, because typically drone bombing wedding parties in random countries doesn't kill that many terrorist, and actually works to create more of them (read about blow back). Both cost way too much money and put our civil liberties in jeopardy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like mrlmichael's post
08-02-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
Philosophically I think you make some good points. Practically there are differences.

The "War on Drugs" was coined in 1971 and we have had 40 years to see what a colossal fuckup it has been.

The "War on Terror" a misnomer coined by a flaming idiot is ten years old and while it has done its share of damage we do seem to have disrupted at least some of their planned attacks. The cost to our civil liberties has been extreme and I, for one, am not at all sure it is worth it.

But I am not as confident in the attitudes of far too many of my fellow citizens. They would have Ben Franklin rolling in his grave.

Quote:“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” *

*Even though the quote is taken horribly out of context in this day as opposed to Franklin's.

[Image: reality.jpg?imgmax=800]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 06:54 AM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
(08-02-2014 11:58 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  I would hope that you're right in most cases. I found this, which also explains incorrect hits. The "cues" may not be intentional.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/21/th...police-dog

That is very sad.

In proper training protocol, the handler disappears from the dog's vision and awareness, the dog works alone.

It can still go wrong in so many ways, but handler input would be totally against the rules and training, and once this happens, the training is pretty much shot.

A possible influence could be that the dog and handler stop in front of the search parameter and the handler looks at the flagged spot before the dog is sent for search. Also, in case of ethnicity, it can happen that the trainer who hides the bait is from a certain ethnic group and the dog learns to sniff out this by scent, connects the scent of ethnic food for instance with the find.

One issue is that the dog is so much better in putting together indicators than we are, trainers and handlers do not connect items that the dog will.

Obviously, once the dog has completed formal training and is in the hands of officers, it can be taught whatever. That particular dog will be useless for serious searches after that. It will be collecting too many clues and not concentrate on scent alone.

Even a dog who concentrates on scent alone will make some faulty decisions - dogs smell extremely well, and they connect scents that we are not even aware of.

Like, if we smell chicken soup, we know what it is, but we can't tell each ingredient. The dog doesn't smell chicken soup, it smells 15 ingredients. It can be trained to pick out only chicken soup that contains onion. If now all the samples that contain onion also happen to contain parsley, the dog will alert to both, not knowing which ingredient we are looking for.

This can get infinitely complicated. So, there is ample room for error even without officers distorting the dog's work. If officers add to this, things are bound to go terribly wrong.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
09-02-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
Saw this one a while back. Dom, from what can be seen in this video, is it true the dog was being used improperly?
Edit: to be clear, not asking if it was legal to use the dog, but if the handler was interfering as claimed in the video.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Smercury44's post
09-02-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
None of it matters. I could do as well as these fake "drug sniffing" dogs.

This is a system that claims to check each other, when the truth is the police dogs (how are owned by the state) work for the police (who work for the state) work for the prosecutor (who works for the state) who works with the judge who works for the state.

Judges have every incentive to support "drug sniffing" dogs because it provides financial benefit to the system.

These dogs are fakes. Each time a dog alerts, it is because either its handler or the dog are incentivized to find something.

Sniffer dogs get it wrong four out of five times
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Regular_Joe's post
09-02-2014, 12:26 PM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
(09-02-2014 11:08 AM)Smercury44 Wrote:  Saw this one a while back. Dom, from what can be seen in this video, is it true the dog was being used improperly?
Edit: to be clear, not asking if it was legal to use the dog, but if the handler was interfering as claimed in the video.




Well, of course you can't see shit in this clip, so a lot of communications between handler and dog could have gone undetected anyway, dogs read bodies and scents better than they understand words. (People keep thinking that their dogs understand words, for the most part they really don't, they go by tone of voice and body language. They have a vocabulary you can count on one hand.). The officer is allowed to point at a parameter and ask the dog to "check here".

In most searches the dog is totally left to it's own devices, but on the side of a road where the dog might run into the street following a scent a more controlled search may be necessary.

I don't know everything there is to know about canine police drug and contraband searches, I never trained these, I trained tracking, obedience and protection/apprehension. But I have been around it and watched what is done. Anyway, I am not an expert on officer behavior. I just know about the dogs and their training. So, without a visual, I am hard up to make a proper judgment here. At one point it did sound like the officer was loudly knocking on the car, but I couldn't swear to it...the sound could have been something else. I don't think that would have been proper if it occurred. More likely, if something improper occurred, it was a visual cue and we can't tell because of the dark.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
(09-02-2014 11:39 AM)Regular_Joe Wrote:  None of it matters. I could do as well as these fake "drug sniffing" dogs.

This is a system that claims to check each other, when the truth is the police dogs (how are owned by the state) work for the police (who work for the state) work for the prosecutor (who works for the state) who works with the judge who works for the state.

Judges have every incentive to support "drug sniffing" dogs because it provides financial benefit to the system.

These dogs are fakes. Each time a dog alerts, it is because either its handler or the dog are incentivized to find something.

Sniffer dogs get it wrong four out of five times

You hit the nail on the head... this is called an "adversarial legal system".

It literally is, us against them. Confused

If bullshit were music some people would be a brass band.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 04:24 PM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
Why are those police officers wearing combat fatigues?

Whatever next.... armored personnel carriers?

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
Yeah, but just for your protection, ya know?

"We're gonna police ya, whether you like it or not!"

Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Is this permissible by state and federal law under the U.S. Constitution?
Warning:

[Image: tumblr_ltqd8xPQ7Z1qj171uo1_400.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mrlmichael's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: