Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Would the witness please raise its right paw and repeat. . . .

245

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,288 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Where did this happen with the two K-9 dogs giving false alerts? Name of the town, please. A small town with two K-9s is a bit unusual. And Democrats are far more hostile to LEOs.

    I could tell you the city and you STILL couldn't find out about it. Barely a blurb on page 4 of the local fish wrapper, and if you want to look up a story on that rag you have to be a digital paper subscriber. And if you can't believe that something can't be kept quiet, then you have NO IDEA of small town East TN politics and politicians, and their ability to put the hush on anything they please at any time they choose.

    The gang rape of an underage girl that got drunk at a party didn't even make the local TV news. It barely made the news in the paper, and you had to 'know some people' to find out that a rape actually occurred. Wasn't mentioned in the newspaper article, AT ALL.

    "Small town" is less than 15,000 inhabitants where this happened, and having two doper dogs was no big shakes. I suspect they got the 4F rejects from the K-9 academy! :roll2:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Then source your information, please. While I may or may not be able to find it in the MSM, I could definitely find it in Law Enforcement publications...Police Chief, Sheriff to name a few I'm familiar with. Anything to do with hundreds of cases being dismissed or fake evidence planting would be news there. These are not blue collar magazines aimed at consumption by street LEOs, but for supervisors and planners. There would be no incentive for them to cover up this vital information.

    I have a difficult time understanding your reluctance to share something on page 4 of a newspaper. And I'm fully willing to become a on-line subscriber and break this story to people who need to know it. So the name of the paper, please?

    The problem with making up facts to suit your narrative is that someone will know more about reality than you do. It's difficult to cover all bases.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,004 Senior Member
    shush wrote: »
    English?

    Yes, you are
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,004 Senior Member
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    He's abut to lie- - - - -he's got his LEFT paw on the Bible and he didn't raise his right!
    :jester:
    Jerry
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,004 Senior Member
    Gene, it does make the news sometimes:
    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/01/07/132738250/report-drug-sniffing-dogs-are-wrong-more-often-than-right
    http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/this-dog-can-send-you-to-jail/1

    I witnessed a drug dog false alert on a friend's van a little over 20 years ago. After the deputies tore his van apart for an hour, they came up with some excuse that he must have driven through some wild growing marijuana on his ranch. That never made the news because there was no arrest. But it sure was not fun for my friend who was held by the deputies for an hour in front of a large group of people who all assumed that since the cops were holding him and searching his van, he MUST have done something wrong.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Dogs don't hit on drugs, they hit on the scent of drugs, so if the scent is there, they hit. Not necessarily a False Alert.

    I only saw this once in my time as a dog handler. The dog hit on a concrete wall in a prison. Nothing there except the scent. I took him around again, he hit again.

    The prisoner whose bunk he hit next to was supposedly a model prisoner. No charges, of course.

    I didn't like being a handler mainly because it took time away from investigating larger quantities of drugs.


    I would trust my dog and training more than I would trust a Chicago newspaper. CERTAINLY more than I trust NPR, a liberal bastion. Or Reason, for that matter.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Dogs don't hit on drugs, they hit on the scent of drugs, so if the scent is there, they hit. Not necessarily a False Alert.

    I only saw this once in my time as a dog handler. The dog hit on a concrete wall in a prison. Nothing there except the scent. I took him around again, he hit again.

    The prisoner whose bunk he hit next to was supposedly a model prisoner. No charges, of course.

    I didn't like being a handler mainly because it took time away from investigating larger quantities of drugs.


    I would trust my dog and training more than I would trust a Chicago newspaper. CERTAINLY more than I trust NPR, a liberal bastion. Or Reason, for that matter.

    Gene. No one here is disputing what comes naturally to a dog, nor is anyone disputing the training involved in these animals - the issue is how law enforcement officials are using these animals as a means to bypass of our Fourth Amendment rights.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Teach wrote: »
    He's abut to lie- - - - -he's got his LEFT paw on the Bible and he didn't raise his right!
    :jester:
    Jerry

    I would also add that the "witness" is exposing his junk to the Court. Contempt of Court!
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Gene. No one here is disputing what comes naturally to a dog, nor is anyone disputing the training involved in these animals - the issue is how law enforcement officials are using these animals as a means to bypass of our Fourth Amendment rights.

    You probably know a lot about the planets, but I doubt you know much about the Fourth Amendment. You read the few words of the Amendment and make your own interpretation. I'm very familiar with the Bill of Rights and have fairly extensive training in it. So I might ask what are your credentials in this matter.

    I make no claims on astronomy as I haven't been schooled in astronomy. I have been schooled on Search and Seizure. I won't challenge your knowledge on that and I welcome your schooled opinion on the thousands of decisions of Amendment Four.

    Know that there is boilerplate for Search and Seizure and every case of S&S is subject to decisions made long ago. I can't think of a recent 4th Amendment case settled by SCOTUS, in fact, although there may be plenty. The laws are so fundamental and refined that any LEO with a basic education in LE matters will seldom violate the basic rules of S&S and create an opening for Defense to navigate.

    A dog's hitting on a car (for example) isn't evidence of drugs being there at the time, but it's Probable Cause that justifies a warrantless search. That's established law that's been on the books for a LONG time.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    Ever since the fourth amendment was written the authorities have been trying to find ways around it.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    You probably know a lot about the planets, but I doubt you know much about the Fourth Amendment. You read the few words of the Amendment and make your own interpretation. I'm very familiar with the Bill of Rights and have fairly extensive training in it. So I might ask what are your credentials in this matter.

    I make no claims on astronomy as I haven't been schooled in astronomy. I have been schooled on Search and Seizure. I won't challenge your knowledge on that and I welcome your schooled opinion on the thousands of decisions of Amendment Four.

    Know that there is boilerplate for Search and Seizure and every case of S&S is subject to decisions made long ago. I can't think of a recent 4th Amendment case settled by SCOTUS, in fact, although there may be plenty. The laws are so fundamental and refined that any LEO with a basic education in LE matters will seldom violate the basic rules of S&S and create an opening for Defense to navigate.

    A dog's hitting on a car (for example) isn't evidence of drugs being there at the time, but it's Probable Cause that justifies a warrantless search. That's established law that's been on the books for a LONG time.

    Gene, how on earth would I, or anyone else who has no formal experience in law enforcement or law training, not know anything about the Fourth Amendment? The Founders did not put in place the Constitution, nor its first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) so that only an expert or someone with extensive schooling or law enforcement training would be able understand its purpose and meaning. As a matter of fact, its intent and purpose was completely opposite that and to PREVENT that very thing from happening. Frankly, that's the kind of talk the antigun people spew about the 2nd. The Constitution and its Accessories were written in a simple, clear and precise way so that there would be absolutely no doubt that a citizen would be able to understand its intent and purpose. Our Tenets are, as the late Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia said, "legal and binding." They are a set of principles and rules for the government, whether state or federal, to follow - to the letter. Also, let me be clear. I do not hate cops. What I do despise is the blatant and growing corruption as well as their perpetual growing power over the People and State rights. First and foremost a police officer's job is to follow and enforce the law - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. How many more examples do we need to see that an alarmingly growing number of PD's and various government agencies are abusing their power in that regard? Anyway, on to astronomy. . . .

    Ha! As for my interest in astronomy and space exploration, I am far from an expert. It's just a hobby and pastime for me. Anyone who has an interest in that field can learn about it. It's relaxing and gives me an excuse to stay up late - and drink a few cold ones without the warden knowing. Ha!
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Well, you're going to believe what you're going to believe. You're looking for a reason to feel like a victim, and looking for a victimizer you can blame. Like Antifa groups; you've identified an enemy and won't be dissuaded from your path.

    In indicting all cops for the actions of a few, you're adopting the argument of the anti-gun people who want to blame all gun violence on the actions of a few. Which is a problem of viewing occupations, races, and religions that sustain bigotry.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,288 Senior Member
    Gene, between you and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, I'll take the judges words over yours on the 4th Amendment.

    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/15/justice-scalia-constitution-is-not-living-organism.html

    "The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say." Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia


    No matter how I read the 4th Amendment I cannot find where it says warrantless searches are legal. Maybe you can clear up that warrantless search being in accordance with the 4th Amendment. Either it says they are legal, or the warrantless searches are, by the plain language of the Constitution and the 4th Amendment outside the law and an illegal action outside the law. No matter what you cite as making warrantless searches legal, the 4th Amendment says otherwise.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Mike, there is plenty of case law regarding mobile searches being legal with probable cause, since the issue of mobility makes getting a warrant impractical if probable cause is present. It goes back a LONG time. Would you argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to necessity of only a "militia?"

    BTW, I'm still waiting for the link to the false alerts and the K-9 officers getting fired in the Fourth Page of a local newspaper. Can you support this at all? BTW, I support ALL the BoRs. Is it possible you misquoted your sources of an entire K-9 force getting fired when they should have been prosecuted?

    The ball is in your court.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Well, you're going to believe what you're going to believe. You're looking for a reason to feel like a victim, and looking for a victimizer you can blame. Like Antifa groups; you've identified an enemy and won't be dissuaded from your path.

    In indicting all cops for the actions of a few, you're adopting the argument of the anti-gun people who want to blame all gun violence on the actions of a few. Which is a problem of viewing occupations, races, and religions that sustain bigotry.

    picard-facepalm.jpg?1240934151
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    Gene L wrote: »

    Gene, you were born in the wrong era. 1936 Germany would have suited your issues to the letter.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    That's absurd. Support your post, please. The decision was decided nine years before 1936 in Model T days, you're up against a brick wall. Your argument is taking serious water. Are you sure you're solid in your historical reference?

    You can't argue against history, can you? It's not ME, it's a historical fact. It's not me, it's history of almost 100 years.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • shushshush Senior Member Posts: 6,259 Senior Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    Yes, you are

    Thank you.
    It is so satisfying when these things are confirmed by an erudite personage. :up:
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,288 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Mike, there is plenty of case law regarding mobile searches being legal with probable cause, since the issue of mobility makes getting a warrant impractical if probable cause is present. It goes back a LONG time. Would you argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to necessity of only a "militia?"

    Past case law DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. You should know that being as you studied the Constitution and the law. Just because some hack judge(s) give the go ahead on something DOES NOT make it constitutional. It's still illegal regarding the constitution.

    Regarding the 2nd Amendment, you've gone completely off the rails. The 2nd Amendment codifies the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. And if you were anywhere near honest you'd know that the militia when the Constitution was written was KNOWN to be the body of the people who made up the militia. Get up off the stool of do nothing and read what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said about citizen ownership of firearms. They are credible sources for such information and have more credibility than anyone attacking the 2nd Amendment as referring only to the militia.


    BTW, I'm still waiting for the link to the false alerts and the K-9 officers getting fired in the Fourth Page of a local newspaper. Can you support this at all? BTW, I support ALL the BoRs. Is it possible you misquoted your sources of an entire K-9 force getting fired when they should have been prosecuted?

    The ball is in your court.

    Reading is fundamental. I TOLD you that the two doper dog officers were fired quietly and no mention of the specific reason(s) for their firing was given in any newspaper or on air accounts. What part of "I can't provide you with information not available' do you not understand. I got the information from my county deputy buddy when I asked him why they were fired and he told me what he knew. He had a friend with the PD in the county involved that gave him the info. My deputy friend has been dead for a few years, but you can brought yourself up here and I'll let you put your investigative skills to use interrogating him on the matter.

    The K-9 officer that shot his own car and got fired worked in McMinn County, TN. The incident happened a few years ago. It was investigated by the THP, and if you are interested you can put those VAST investigative skills and contacts of yours to use and look it up yourself. My internet connection is slow as molasses in Jan. and I don't feel like spending a couple or three hours trying to dig that info up for you. As far as I'm concerned, I know what I know about both incidents, and believe my human sources of that information. They are more credible than you.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    To clarify, I don't question the cop who shot his windshield out. Which so far as I know had nothing to do with dogs.

    But you said the article on the two K-9s was on page 4 of a newspaper you refuse to name in a town you won't identify. The fallout of this would have been enormous.

    But forget it. Enough has been said here to allow people to draw their own conclusions.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Our handlers keep crazy accurate records of successes and failures. Alerts and non-alerts alike are recorded and maintained indefinitely.
    The initial handler/canine certification period is almost 800 hours before a certification can even be attempted. Narcotics certification takes an additional 200 hours.
    All certs are maintained at the state level as well and must be updated annually.
    I've been present for positive and negative indications on vehicles.
    Canine work may actually be one of the most integrity-driven units I've ever worked with.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »


    We have three "DRE" (drug recognition experts) at our department. They have to have 500 successfully prosecuted alcohol related arrests AND shadow a DRE for 10 arrests before we'll even consider starting the process for getting them a DRE cert.
    That certification requires being sponsored by three DRE certified officers with at least 3 years as a DRE. One must be from outside the agency.
    DRE school is 160 hours and requires persistent quizzing and testing throughout and has the strictest pass/fail standards.

    This incident cited is troubling if true.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Disgusting, absolutely disgusting. And people wonder why I distrust cops anymore.


    I do wonder, actually. Considering less than 1% misfit the badge.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 11,624 Senior Member
    There's no explaining, Jason. Facts and statistics mean nothing to a bigot.
    Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
  • Dr. dbDr. db Senior Member Posts: 1,541 Senior Member
    Hmmm. Maybe I couldn't impeach the testimony.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    There's no explaining, Jason. Facts and statistics mean nothing to a bigot.

    Agreed.

    I like how they bring up SCOTUS persistently, but neglect the fact the SCOTUS is responsible for all the case law that provides for warrantless searches with probable cause such as a canine alert on a vehicle.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • 6EQUJ5 - WOW!6EQUJ5 - WOW! Banned Posts: 482 Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I do wonder, actually. Considering less than 1% misfit the badge.


    Nonsense.
This discussion has been closed.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement