41–50 of 60 posts
To a small degree I can agree to this. But I have k9 officer friends and I know their dogs. Good luck with this. It means a bad and impatient handler rather than an ineffective dog. But it's alright, police baaaaad. Evidence is evil.
Dogs are very good at reading people and if the handler wants an indication they will get it; they may not even realise that they're influencing the dogs. As others have said, this has been known for a long, long time. There was even a book written taking a wry look a scent dogs (and the plans for scent bees etc that were in vogue during the great war on terror) [1]. That said, dogs can be fantastic when used for fin…
Dogs are very good at reading people and if the handler wants an indication they will get it; they may not even realise that they're influencing the dogs. As others have said, this has been known for a long, long time. There was even a book written taking a wry look a scent dogs (and the plans for scent bees etc that were in vogue during the great war on terror) [1]. That said, dogs can be fantastic when used for fin…
...and yet dog alerts (encapsulating handler biases) alone are still used to establish probable cause in the US to strip people of their rights to privacy, and has resulted in jail for thousands of people who do not deserve it.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and yet dog alerts (encapsulating handler biases) alone are still used to establish probable cause in the US to strip people of their rights to privacy, and has resulted in jail for thousands of people who do not deserve it.
It's better than absolutely no preventative measures at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...and yet dog alerts (encapsulating handler biases) alone are still used to establish probable cause in the US to strip people of their rights to privacy, and has resulted in jail for thousands of people who do not deserve it.
It's better than absolutely no preventative measures at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's better than absolutely no preventative measures at all
That's very debatable. I, personally, would much rather that people in possession of drugs go free rather than the police using the dogs as an excuse to search people they don't like the look of.
Basically, this kind of comment usually encodes some belief on what the law should be rather than a belief about how it should be enforced. And that's just not the issue at hand here.
In this context it is ridiculous that a dog test is considered a probable cause for a police search: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10942196
In this context it is ridiculous that a dog test is considered a probable cause for a police search: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10942196
Is it really? Probable cause doesn't need to be a high bar, in my opinion. Contrary to what people here seem to think, I don't think a police search is that invasive and I'd rather we perhaps search some people on shaky grounds than we let people with drugs/bombs/whatever walk free.
In this context it is ridiculous that a dog test is considered a probable cause for a police search: news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10942196
Is it really? Probable cause doesn't need to be a high bar, in my opinion. Contrary to what people here seem to think, I don't think a police search is that invasive and I'd rather we perhaps search some people on shaky grounds than we let people with drugs/bombs/whatever walk free.