Drug sniffing dogs..

Remaining regulars might remember years ago how I was considered a
"paranoid kook" for saying that drug sniffing dogs and their 'only the
handler knows' alerts were just theater for violating a driver's rights?

Well, once again, my "paranoia" is proven correct:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7119364.story

"The dogs are trained to dig or sit when they smell drugs, which
triggers automobile searches. But a Tribune analysis of three years of
data for suburban departments found that only 44 percent of those alerts
by the dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia."

but it gets better...

"For Hispanic drivers, the success rate was just 27 percent."

Now can the dogs have a wildly different and much less accuracy for
drivers of a specific ethnic background?

Yeah yeah.. the cops have their excuses. But their excuses shouldn't see
wildly different accuracies based on the driver's ethnicity.

My favorite excuse is that the handlers aren't keeping up on the dogs'
training. Isn't that the sort of sloppy work that I've been called
"paranoid" for predicting as well?

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> wrote:

>Remaining regulars might remember years ago how I was considered a
>"paranoid kook" for saying that drug sniffing dogs and their 'only the
>handler knows' alerts were just theater for violating a driver's rights?
>
>Well, once again, my "paranoia" is proven correct:
>
>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7119364.story
>
>"The dogs are trained to dig or sit when they smell drugs, which
>triggers automobile searches. But a Tribune analysis of three years of
>data for suburban departments found that only 44 percent of those alerts
>by the dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia."

But of course. Aside from traffic stops, siezures of so-called, "drug
money," is a big source of revenue for some of these jerk-water towns.
--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

On Jan 6, 11:14*am, Brent > wrote:
> Remaining regulars might remember years ago how I was considered a
> "paranoid kook" for saying that drug sniffing dogs and their 'only the
> handler knows' alerts were just theater for violating a driver's rights?

I had it tattooed on my arm the next day.

> Well, once again, my "paranoia" is proven correct:

You're called paranoid because you attach a conspiracy to nearly
everything.

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...officers-20110...
>
> "The dogs are trained to dig or sit when they smell drugs, which
> triggers automobile searches. But a Tribune analysis of three years of
> data for suburban departments found that only 44 percent of those alerts
> by the dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia."
>
> but it gets better...
>
> "For Hispanic drivers, the success rate was just 27 percent."
>
> Now can the dogs have a wildly different and much less accuracy for
> drivers of a specific ethnic background?
>
> Yeah yeah.. the cops have their excuses. But their excuses shouldn't see
> wildly different accuracies based on the driver's ethnicity.

Sounds like a conspiracy.

> My favorite excuse is that the handlers aren't keeping up on the dogs'
> training. Isn't that the sort of sloppy work that I've been called
> "paranoid" for predicting as well?

No, that's why we call you "k00k". You think predicting inevitable
examples of lack of perfection are exhibitions of ... something to be
noted, for some reason.
-----

- gpsman

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:51:34 -0500, necromancer wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 16:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Brent
> > wrote:
>
>>Remaining regulars might remember years ago how I was considered a
>>"paranoid kook" for saying that drug sniffing dogs and their 'only the
>>handler knows' alerts were just theater for violating a driver's rights?
>>
>>Well, once again, my "paranoia" is proven correct:
>>
>>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7119364.story
>>
>>"The dogs are trained to dig or sit when they smell drugs, which
>>triggers automobile searches. But a Tribune analysis of three years of
>>data for suburban departments found that only 44 percent of those alerts
>>by the dogs led to the discovery of drugs or paraphernalia."
>
> But of course. Aside from traffic stops, siezures of so-called, "drug
> money," is a big source of revenue for some of these jerk-water towns.

Yep. Like a couple of years ago a guy was hauled off to jail because a drug
sniffing dog barked at tainted money. The cops tried to argue that the
$127,000 was drug money. Like no real sane person is going to carry cash
like that just so he can purchase a huge semi right?