21–30 of 60 posts
how is this nonsense even getting published? tiny sample size, n=18 dogs 5 different breeds of dogs large variance of dog age
does this imply that the dogs perform a similar role to dowsing rods in this situation?
Is this not fairly well understood? e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans > Clever Hans (in German: der Kluge Hans) was an Orlov Trotter horse that was claimed to have performed arithmetic and other intellectual tasks. > After a formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reactions of his trainer. He…
I think it's a worthwhile study, especially considering such dogs are currently still used in law enforcement. It's important to be aware of the shortcomings and biases of this methodology, and to do so in a sound, scientific manner.
That said, dogs can be fantastic when used for finding threats rather than 'proving' what the handler already believes. They have a combination of nose and brain that we can't replicate any other way and are great for search and rescue, finding explosives and some law enforcement searching.
[1] https://headspace-the-book.blogspot.com/2008/07/acpo-police-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like. Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone. Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". It…
For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? And courts usually give the benefit of the doubt to police, even if they technically shouldn't. Because police don't need probable cause to use a dog to search your car means it is the de facto way to escalate to a probable cause search, and even if a dog isn't present, bringing one there usually makes…
Exactly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like. Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone. Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". It…
> Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". Google for "civil forfeiture dog car stop". They don't need to find drugs to take the car or any cash in it, as the dog signalling is deemed enough of a cause for forfeiting, though not for prosecuting criminally.
But the base issue is still about reliability of the dog, the integrity of the trainer handler and how it is considered "acceptable" see:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/08/04/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? And courts usually give the benefit of the doubt to police, even if they technically shouldn't. Because police don't need probable cause to use a dog to search your car means it is the de facto way to escalate to a probable cause search, and even if a dog isn't present, bringing one there usually makes…
>For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? Exactly.
The likelihood that drugs get planted in your car during a search (whether legitimate search or not) screws up all of these collected stats and just like most things in this country, there is a racist component to this that helps more easily target the poorer and browner.
Terrorizing black people is a national pastime and somewhat tradition... some cops seem to want to continue that tradition and many white legislators are glad to give them the opportunity. For them, ignoring this research is a no-brainer.
The observation seems logical, but I wonder what is actually the relevance of the study in practice. I mean, there are three common situations where these dogs are used: 1) airports, stations, traffic stops etc. where the influence of the trainer might be relevant (i.e. the trainer, even if involuntarily, may influence the dog if the person that is sniffed - or their belongings/looks/behaviours/etc. - look suspicuous…
That "time wasted" feels more like a psychological torture or at least a day ruined, and you ignore that cops stop mostly the same people every time, so sometimes it's a day ruined every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? And courts usually give the benefit of the doubt to police, even if they technically shouldn't. Because police don't need probable cause to use a dog to search your car means it is the de facto way to escalate to a probable cause search, and even if a dog isn't present, bringing one there usually makes…
>For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? Exactly.