5 ms·

This is patently false, you get your information from movies and not real life. Sniff dogs sit when they detect what they're looking for, they do not bark.

deepsun 5y ago
Sure, they sit at the command of their officer. That's not my point. My point is that it's easy to make a case for a search with a dog.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  And my point is, if you don't even know the first thing about their training you're just making shit up because you want to believe it. Read a little about sniffing dogs.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    Except the point that dogs respond to their owners wishes, even subtlety or unintentionally displayed, was valid. You don't need to know about special sniffing dogs to know dogs want to please their owners. The burden is on those interpreting the behavior of specific sniffing dogs in a way that demonstrates their is actual reliability in general, and in the specifics. No the other way around.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      That wasn't the point being made. The person I was responding to explicitly said that sniffing dogs are secretly trained to respond to handler gestures. They're claiming that drug sniffing dogs are a charade, basically, and I used a shining example of their lack of knowledge on this topic to demonstrate a valid dismissal of their point. Are dogs used to get warrants fraudulently? The answer is absolutely. It happens all the time. But the idea that sniffing dogs are fake is ridiculous, they are carefully trained so as to not respond to handler wishes (dog trainers are aware of this trait also BTW), deliberately signalled or otherwise, even though sometimes they might do so. And making the simple claim that they bark is enough for me to know that someone making authoritative statements on the topic hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
      - deepsun 5y ago
        Something is broken in logic conclusions. Let me resolve: > The person I was responding to explicitly said that sniffing dogs are secretly trained to respond to handler gestures. Yes, I did say that. > They're claiming that drug sniffing dogs are a charade No, I did not say that. > Are dogs used to get warrants fraudulently? The answer is absolutely. It happens all the time. Yep, my point. > But the idea that sniffing dogs are fake is ridiculous. Nowhere I claimed that sniffing dogs are fake. So we seem to agree on everything. Thank you, resolved the confusion.

deepsun 5y ago

Sure, they sit at the command of their officer. That's not my point. My point is that it's easy to make a case for a search with a dog.

betwixthewires 5y ago
And my point is, if you don't even know the first thing about their training you're just making shit up because you want to believe it. Read a little about sniffing dogs.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Except the point that dogs respond to their owners wishes, even subtlety or unintentionally displayed, was valid. You don't need to know about special sniffing dogs to know dogs want to please their owners. The burden is on those interpreting the behavior of specific sniffing dogs in a way that demonstrates their is actual reliability in general, and in the specifics. No the other way around.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    That wasn't the point being made. The person I was responding to explicitly said that sniffing dogs are secretly trained to respond to handler gestures. They're claiming that drug sniffing dogs are a charade, basically, and I used a shining example of their lack of knowledge on this topic to demonstrate a valid dismissal of their point. Are dogs used to get warrants fraudulently? The answer is absolutely. It happens all the time. But the idea that sniffing dogs are fake is ridiculous, they are carefully trained so as to not respond to handler wishes (dog trainers are aware of this trait also BTW), deliberately signalled or otherwise, even though sometimes they might do so. And making the simple claim that they bark is enough for me to know that someone making authoritative statements on the topic hasn't a clue what they're talking about.
    - deepsun 5y ago
      Something is broken in logic conclusions. Let me resolve: > The person I was responding to explicitly said that sniffing dogs are secretly trained to respond to handler gestures. Yes, I did say that. > They're claiming that drug sniffing dogs are a charade No, I did not say that. > Are dogs used to get warrants fraudulently? The answer is absolutely. It happens all the time. Yep, my point. > But the idea that sniffing dogs are fake is ridiculous. Nowhere I claimed that sniffing dogs are fake. So we seem to agree on everything. Thank you, resolved the confusion.