|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#191
February 14th 05, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:14:41 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: > >>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. >>> >>> Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler >>> signals them to do so. >> >>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. > > These are the kinds of obtuse answers that make me think jaybird is > really just a very good troll. Jaybird is certainly a troll. He spells too well for a cop. You are a troll too. At first I thought you were a dumb hick, but after you quoted that "premature optimization" (paraphrased) wisdom, I see that you are not, which leaves only one possibility, i.e. that you were trolling pretending to be a dumb hick, just for kicks. 
|
| Ads |
|
#193
February 15th 05, 02:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message ... > jaybird wrote: > >> "Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>In article >, says... >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message . .. >>>> >>>>>In article >, >>>>>says... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. >>>>> >>>>>Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler >>>>>signals them to do so. >>>> >>>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. There are three >>>>criteria: training, certification, and reliability. A dog who alerts >>>>on >>>>command is not reliable, and not certifiable. >>> >>>Agreed. How does the court know what tricks the dog knows, or does not, >>>know how to perform? >> >> >> Again, that would be based on those three criteria. If it makes it to >> court where it's obviously apparent that the dog has found the narcotics, >> then there aren't any tricks that can just make that up out of nowhere. >> > > What if the dog alerts and there are no narcotics to be found? Might > never make it to court if the suspect goes to jail for something else and > he doesn't have a good lawyer. Then that's different. Residual odor is a hard thing to put on paper. The dog may very well be smelling something illegal, or he may not. The best way to proof a dog on that is through training, certification, and the track record of reliability. If you have a dog who is false alerting all the time, that dog doesn't meet that criteria. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
|
|
#194
February 15th 05, 02:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Usual Suspect" > wrote in message ... > Scott en Aztlán wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 06:14:41 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: >> >>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. >>>> >>>> Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler >>>> signals them to do so. >>> >>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. >> >> These are the kinds of obtuse answers that make me think jaybird is >> really just a very good troll. > > Jaybird is certainly a troll. He spells too well for a cop. You are a > troll > too. At first I thought you were a dumb hick, but after you quoted that > "premature optimization" (paraphrased) wisdom, I see that you are not, > which leaves only one possibility, i.e. that you were trolling pretending > to be a dumb hick, just for kicks. Hehehe... I guess you'll never know. I'm sure you lie awake at night wondering. Believe me if you want, or don't. It doesn't make much of a difference to me. I'll keep posting either way. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
|
|
#195
February 15th 05, 08:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
jaybird wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message > ... > >>jaybird wrote: >> >> >>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message .. . >>> >>> >>>>In article >, says... >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article >, >>>>>>says... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. >>>>>> >>>>>>Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler >>>>>>signals them to do so. >>>>> >>>>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. There are three >>>>>criteria: training, certification, and reliability. A dog who alerts >>>>>on >>>>>command is not reliable, and not certifiable. >>>> >>>>Agreed. How does the court know what tricks the dog knows, or does not, >>>>know how to perform? >>> >>> >>>Again, that would be based on those three criteria. If it makes it to >>>court where it's obviously apparent that the dog has found the narcotics, >>>then there aren't any tricks that can just make that up out of nowhere. >>> >> >>What if the dog alerts and there are no narcotics to be found? Might >>never make it to court if the suspect goes to jail for something else and >>he doesn't have a good lawyer. > > > Then that's different. Residual odor is a hard thing to put on paper. The > dog may very well be smelling something illegal, or he may not. The best > way to proof a dog on that is through training, certification, and the track > record of reliability. If you have a dog who is false alerting all the > time, that dog doesn't meet that criteria. > You're being deliberately obtuse, I think. It's entirely possible to have a dog alert when he's supposed to but also on a hidden command from the handler. It's entirely possible to get such a dog to pass whatever certification tests simply by not giving the hidden command. I'm not saying this is common practice but why you repeatedly state that it is not possible when it clearly is doesn't make sense. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
|
|
#196
February 15th 05, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message ... > jaybird wrote: > >> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >> ... >> >>>jaybird wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message . .. >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article >, >>>>>says... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message u... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article >, >>>>>>>says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler >>>>>>>signals them to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. There are three >>>>>>criteria: training, certification, and reliability. A dog who alerts >>>>>>on >>>>>>command is not reliable, and not certifiable. >>>>> >>>>>Agreed. How does the court know what tricks the dog knows, or does >>>>>not, >>>>>know how to perform? >>>> >>>> >>>>Again, that would be based on those three criteria. If it makes it to >>>>court where it's obviously apparent that the dog has found the >>>>narcotics, then there aren't any tricks that can just make that up out >>>>of nowhere. >>>> >>> >>>What if the dog alerts and there are no narcotics to be found? Might >>>never make it to court if the suspect goes to jail for something else and >>>he doesn't have a good lawyer. >> >> >> Then that's different. Residual odor is a hard thing to put on paper. >> The dog may very well be smelling something illegal, or he may not. The >> best way to proof a dog on that is through training, certification, and >> the track record of reliability. If you have a dog who is false alerting >> all the time, that dog doesn't meet that criteria. >> > > You're being deliberately obtuse, I think. > > It's entirely possible to have a dog alert when he's supposed to but also > on a hidden command from the handler. It's entirely possible to get such > a dog to pass whatever certification tests simply by not giving the hidden > command. I'm not saying this is common practice but why you repeatedly > state that it is not possible when it clearly is doesn't make sense. It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the assumption a cop would not be trustworthy. I, on the other hand, am viewing it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to keep their dogs as reliable as possible. Yes, what you're claiming can happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it does not lend anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute for a cop when he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good guys. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
|
|
#197
February 15th 05, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
jaybird wrote: > "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message > ... > > jaybird wrote: > > > >> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > >>>jaybird wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message > . .. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>In article >, > >>>>>says... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message > u... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>In article >, > >>>>>>>says... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler > >>>>>>>signals them to do so. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. There are three > >>>>>>criteria: training, certification, and reliability. A dog who alerts > >>>>>>on > >>>>>>command is not reliable, and not certifiable. > >>>>> > >>>>>Agreed. How does the court know what tricks the dog knows, or does > >>>>>not, > >>>>>know how to perform? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Again, that would be based on those three criteria. If it makes it to > >>>>court where it's obviously apparent that the dog has found the > >>>>narcotics, then there aren't any tricks that can just make that up out > >>>>of nowhere. > >>>> > >>> > >>>What if the dog alerts and there are no narcotics to be found? Might > >>>never make it to court if the suspect goes to jail for something else and > >>>he doesn't have a good lawyer. > >> > >> > >> Then that's different. Residual odor is a hard thing to put on paper. > >> The dog may very well be smelling something illegal, or he may not. The > >> best way to proof a dog on that is through training, certification, and > >> the track record of reliability. If you have a dog who is false alerting > >> all the time, that dog doesn't meet that criteria. > >> > > > > You're being deliberately obtuse, I think. > > > > It's entirely possible to have a dog alert when he's supposed to but also > > on a hidden command from the handler. It's entirely possible to get such > > a dog to pass whatever certification tests simply by not giving the hidden > > command. I'm not saying this is common practice but why you repeatedly > > state that it is not possible when it clearly is doesn't make sense. > > It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of the > assumption a cop would not be trustworthy. With good reason! > I, on the other hand, am viewing > it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want to > keep their dogs as reliable as possible. Yes, what you're claiming can > happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it does not lend > anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute for a cop when > he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good guys. The good guys don't need defending. The bad guys do need to be found however. nate
|
|
#198
February 15th 05, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 23:26:32 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote: > >> >>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message . .. >>> In article >, >>> says... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message . .. >>>>> In article >, >>>>> says... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. >>>>> >>>>> Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the handler >>>>> signals them to do so. >>>> >>>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. There are three >>>>criteria: training, certification, and reliability. A dog who alerts >>>>on >>>>command is not reliable, and not certifiable. >>> >>> Agreed. How does the court know what tricks the dog knows, or does not, >>> know how to perform? >> >>Again, that would be based on those three criteria. If it makes it to >>court >>where it's obviously apparent that the dog has found the narcotics, then >>there aren't any tricks that can just make that up out of nowhere. > > Let me help you out, Jaybird. > > The non-troll way to answer the question is to say something like > this: > > "The dogs are tested by placing ten identical suitcases, one of which > contains drugs, on a standard airport conveyor belt. The dog's handler > does not know which suitcase contains the drugs, so there is no > possibility that the handler can reliably signal the dog to alert; at > best, the halder has a one in ten chance of correctly guessing the > correct suitcase. The test is repeated 5 times, making the chances > that the handler can successfully fake it vanishingly small." > > Now, compare this solid, informative answer to the vague, > mealy-mouthed, nonsensical garbage you have been giving us, and > reflect. Reflect on the fact that I've already explained that several times before and people fail to pick up on that. Reflect on the fact that I'm usually the only person in this ng with anything to say refuting the mostly anti-cop sentiment usually present in here. Reflect on the idea that most cops are good guys and have to be honest these days or risk losing their jobs. Reflect on the fact that no matter how many different ways or times I explain the reason why cops do what they do and why the law tells them to do it, most people in this ng are still not going to understand or agree. Reflect. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
|
|
#199
February 15th 05, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N8N" > wrote in message oups.com... > > jaybird wrote: >> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >> ... >> > jaybird wrote: >> > >> >> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> >>>jaybird wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message >> . .. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>>In article >, > >> >>>>>says... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>"Alex Rodriguez" > wrote in message >> u... >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>>In article >, > >> >>>>>>>says... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>But the dog _is_ supposed to alert only on the real drugs. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>Dogs can also be taught to do the same trick(alert) when the > handler >> >>>>>>>signals them to do so. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>Sure, but then they aren't recognized by the courts. There are > three >> >>>>>>criteria: training, certification, and reliability. A dog who > alerts >> >>>>>>on >> >>>>>>command is not reliable, and not certifiable. >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Agreed. How does the court know what tricks the dog knows, or > does >> >>>>>not, >> >>>>>know how to perform? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>Again, that would be based on those three criteria. If it makes > it to >> >>>>court where it's obviously apparent that the dog has found the >> >>>>narcotics, then there aren't any tricks that can just make that > up out >> >>>>of nowhere. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>>What if the dog alerts and there are no narcotics to be found? > Might >> >>>never make it to court if the suspect goes to jail for something > else and >> >>>he doesn't have a good lawyer. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then that's different. Residual odor is a hard thing to put on > paper. >> >> The dog may very well be smelling something illegal, or he may > not. The >> >> best way to proof a dog on that is through training, > certification, and >> >> the track record of reliability. If you have a dog who is false > alerting >> >> all the time, that dog doesn't meet that criteria. >> >> >> > >> > You're being deliberately obtuse, I think. >> > >> > It's entirely possible to have a dog alert when he's supposed to > but also >> > on a hidden command from the handler. It's entirely possible to > get such >> > a dog to pass whatever certification tests simply by not giving the > hidden >> > command. I'm not saying this is common practice but why you > repeatedly >> > state that it is not possible when it clearly is doesn't make > sense. >> >> It's because of the two different viewpoints. You're working off of > the >> assumption a cop would not be trustworthy. > > With good reason! Not really, but that does show why it is so difficult for me to explain this stuff. You already have a bias. > >> I, on the other hand, am viewing >> it from the angle that the majority of cops are honest and would want > to >> keep their dogs as reliable as possible. Yes, what you're claiming > can >> happen to an extent but it is not the common practice and it does not > lend >> anything to credibility, perhaps the most important attribute for a > cop when >> he goes to court. As usual, I'm merely defending the good guys. > > The good guys don't need defending. The bad guys do need to be found > however. Yeah, the good guys do need defending because everyone in this ng groups them all together. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
|
|
#200
February 15th 05, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
jaybird wrote: > > Yeah, the good guys do need defending because everyone in this ng groups > them all together. It's called "profiling." HAND, E.P.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Where to get Official Speed Limit Info | [email protected] | Driving | 40 | January 3rd 05 07:10 AM |
| Traffic ticket for rushing pregnant mom to hospital | [email protected] | Driving | 1 | December 6th 04 12:17 PM |
| Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response | [email protected] | Corvette | 0 | October 9th 04 05:56 PM |
Linear Mode
