Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 orison319
Áiac xictli in tlaltícpac
Registered: 01/19/09
Posts: 3,523
Last seen: 4 hours, 13 minutes
|
 Re: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops are wrong more often than right  [Re: guest1]
#13750160 - 01/08/11 12:30 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
They train police dogs where I work, I often joke with the police, "the dogs couldnt smell bob marley if he was standing next to them"...
|
DoDahDay
Stranger?
Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 285
Loc: Bat country
Last seen: 3 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops are wrong more often than right [Re: orison319]
#13751055 - 01/08/11 09:59 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Everytime I see a hispanic or african-american pulled over there is at least two cops and a about 50% of the time a k-9 unit. There is profiling. I had a k-9 go through my house when i got busted and it was piss poor. There was enough shit still laying around that I was able to still smoke for a week. And if you want a way to cover smell, package in milar or layer with baking soda or both. I wonder if deer urine would work. At least that is something you can buy instead of collecting, yourself or even someone elses, dog's piss.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hampster and your father smelt of elderberries!"
|
Humility
Working on it
Registered: 10/07/08
Posts: 6,696
Last seen: 25 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops are wrong more often than right [Re: guest1]
#13751292 - 01/08/11 11:24 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guest1 said:
It's the police force that is putting the dogs as risk by training them to be put in the way of danger, not the people being harassed and searched.
If you had a robot to detect land mines and someone put a land mine that couldn't be detected and the robot went over it and blew up, who's fault is that? Who put the robot out to search for land mines, was it the robots choice, no. Don't tell me robots are not living creatures, or your missing the point.
You teach your kids to drive a car and someone in another car T-bones them and your kid is killed, who's fault is it, the parent for teaching the kid how to put their self in a dangerous situation, or the kid for doing what their parent taught them or the random person who hit them? If the kid was never trained to drive and never drove, they would not have been driving a car to be hit in by that person on that day.
You train an animal to look for things to steal from people who have guns and a hatred toward being robbed, who is the real evil being, I'd say it's the cop that trained the dog. If you don't want dogs to get hurt looking for drugs, don't use dogs to look for drugs.
Train a man for infantry in the military and the man gets shot and dies by the opposing force, who's fault is that? A human can choose to join or not in the military, but if they are refused to be trained and armed and thrown into combat, that shows you that it's the trainer that creates the evil.
Maybe if enough dogs are hurt while sniffing for drugs to steal, they will stop using dogs.
You just have to make sure it looks innocent so you don't get charged. I don't think putting some drugs residue on a hidden rat trap that is "set" is a good idea to have in your car. Maybe something more like some sort of irritant that is odorless.
On mythbusters, they showed that a female k9 dog in heat is enough to distract a k9 male drug sniffing dog, but the dog would be removed and the search would continue. Maybe if you had a concentrated k9 female dog in heat smell you could spray all over your car, or some little innocent looking thing which could burst to use enough to cause problems with the dog, although that would not hurt or deter the dog, it would just attract it to a spot. IDK if there is a predator that k9's are afraid of the scent, idk.
I also heard about spraying drug residue on many things all over the place (not your car or home), so that the dogs go crazy and seem to be unreliable, but idk how long those scents last for, and carrying them to places to spray could be considered possessing drugs...
The point is not to hurt dogs, the point is to find a way to make drug sniffing dogs either a problem or ineffective and ultimately lead to them declaring it illegal to use animals to search for drugs because of being considered animal cruelty or too ineffective.
I think the idea is to put on some gloves, take a rag, bandana, piece of cloth, whatever and rub the female dog (preferably in heat)'s blood onto the rag then wipe down your car (inside and out) with the rag. Take your dog with you in the car AND keep the rags in the car (under the seats or something).
--------------------
 
|
bloodsheen
ChemChaplin
Registered: 09/24/08
Posts: 2,664
Last seen: 18 days, 18 hours
|
Re: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops are wrong more often than right [Re: guest1]
#13753946 - 01/08/11 08:04 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guest1 said:
It's the police force that is putting the dogs as risk by training them to be put in the way of danger, not the people being harassed and searched.
If you had a robot to detect land mines and someone put a land mine that couldn't be detected and the robot went over it and blew up, who's fault is that? Who put the robot out to search for land mines, was it the robots choice, no. Don't tell me robots are not living creatures, or your missing the point.
You teach your kids to drive a car and someone in another car T-bones them and your kid is killed, who's fault is it, the parent for teaching the kid how to put their self in a dangerous situation, or the kid for doing what their parent taught them or the random person who hit them? If the kid was never trained to drive and never drove, they would not have been driving a car to be hit in by that person on that day.
You train an animal to look for things to steal from people who have guns and a hatred toward being robbed, who is the real evil being, I'd say it's the cop that trained the dog. If you don't want dogs to get hurt looking for drugs, don't use dogs to look for drugs.
Train a man for infantry in the military and the man gets shot and dies by the opposing force, who's fault is that? A human can choose to join or not in the military, but if they are refused to be trained and armed and thrown into combat, that shows you that it's the trainer that creates the evil.
Maybe if enough dogs are hurt while sniffing for drugs to steal, they will stop using dogs.
You just have to make sure it looks innocent so you don't get charged. I don't think putting some drugs residue on a hidden rat trap that is "set" is a good idea to have in your car. Maybe something more like some sort of irritant that is odorless.
On mythbusters, they showed that a female k9 dog in heat is enough to distract a k9 male drug sniffing dog, but the dog would be removed and the search would continue. Maybe if you had a concentrated k9 female dog in heat smell you could spray all over your car, or some little innocent looking thing which could burst to use enough to cause problems with the dog, although that would not hurt or deter the dog, it would just attract it to a spot. IDK if there is a predator that k9's are afraid of the scent, idk.
I also heard about spraying drug residue on many things all over the place (not your car or home), so that the dogs go crazy and seem to be unreliable, but idk how long those scents last for, and carrying them to places to spray could be considered possessing drugs...
The point is not to hurt dogs, the point is to find a way to make drug sniffing dogs either a problem or ineffective and ultimately lead to them declaring it illegal to use animals to search for drugs because of being considered animal cruelty or too ineffective.
I'm not sure all your analogies are quite the same thing, but I agree with what your trying to say. The thing is, you hit the nail on the head with the animal cruelty thing right at the end. That is what we are trying to do. It will never be considered ineffective b/c it is way way way more effective than a cop just going "your a mexican, i'm gonna search your car."
I mean, there is an article in the recent news feed right now that says that some cops used the smell of skunk to have a man's home raided. Cops can use near-unconstitutional methods to get what they want, you gotta get enough people against them to make a change. And a great way to get people to distrust drug dogs is to make it commonplace for dogs to be injured during the course of duty.
But fuck, they will probably just say "Cops get killed in the line of duty all the time, its the risk everyone takes." So you gotta protect your own ass, which just could involve injuring an innocent animal. I'm willing to make that sacrifice not to go to jail
--------------------
A cautious young fellow named Lodge / Had seat belts installed in his Dodge. / When his date was strapped in / He committed a sin / Without even leaving the garage. That's clever, isn't it?-A boy and his dog
|
 badchad
Mad Scientist
Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 9,136
|
Re: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops are wrong more often than right [Re: veggie]
#13756985 - 01/09/11 12:25 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to see the training data, and how accurate they are under controlled conditions.
The other thing to consider is that most animal training takes continued training and repetition. You don't usually train an animal once, then let it go. You have to reinforce and re-train every so often.
--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.
Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.
...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.
Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Alan Rockefeller
3,101 topic views. 6 members, 26 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
