 Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#207941 - 08/30/2008 12:49 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-24-2003
Posts: 1555
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
 Offline |
|
We have to look at this case backwards. Everyone wants to put their faith into a man made machine and believe it is more effective than a dog's nose....it is not! The case should actually read like this "The two cadaver dogs indications to the presence of decomposing human remains confirms that the MACHINE is accurate"
No man made machine is more accurate than the dog. I've personally seen this while working a bomb dog. The dog correctly alerts to the presence of an explosive compound and the machine did not. Now...which are you going to believe?, and what manner of detection is confirming which? I take the dog every time.
But....the dog is only as good as the training. Like David says, good training records are key, as is due diligence when training the dog.
Howard
|
 Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#207971 - 08/30/2008 06:45 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-30-2007
Posts: 3283
Loc:
| Offline |
|
David,
I didn't mean in any way to suggest that probable cause was just a ho hum everyday thing, sorry if it came out that way. Probable cause is very serious, for both the officer and the civilian envolved. In fact I beleive it is a very big point of contention between various factions within the law making bodies of late.
Mostly I was just trying to keep up with the issues you guys were discussing, whether it was public preception being discussed or if it was a training protocal and procedure reminders being talked about.
Short on brains, but still trying.
Randy
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: Howard Knauf ]
#207973 - 08/30/2008 07:20 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-27-2008
Posts: 55
Loc: Texas
| Offline |
|
+++++ No man made machine is more accurate than the dog. +++++
Howard, your statement is closer to what I actually meant in all of this.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: randy allen ]
#207975 - 08/30/2008 08:02 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
| Offline |
|
Randy, I didn't take it that. I was just explaining the importance the court gives the dog response. While probable cause is certain a critical item in our line of work, probable cause does not require absolute certaintly.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#207978 - 08/30/2008 08:58 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-30-2007
Posts: 3283
Loc:
| Offline |
|
I'm glad I don't have to worry about defining those lines David. Over all, I think you and your like minded ranks do a fine service. Deserving of a bow and a handshake of thanks, at the very least.
Thank you for doing a very difficult job for the community at large. (And I bow in gratitude)
The dog should be a heavy weight in the courts decision on probable cause imho, especially concidering the lenghts gone, to insure the dog is not alerting on a post card. Or in the case of the op'ers quary, perhaps an old pizza.
I think I know what the final judgement of a legal court would be if a dog's nose came up against dna evidence. How do you in the k-9 corps feel about it?
Still racking the brain.
Randy
PS.
To be clearer I should probably just ask straight out: Do you guys think a dog is going to alert on old pizza?
Edited by randy allen (08/30/2008 09:12 PM)
Edit reason: PS
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: randy allen ]
#207984 - 08/30/2008 09:45 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-27-2008
Posts: 55
Loc: Texas
| Offline |
|
The dog should be proofed. It should have been trained in such a way that it will not alert on food, tennis balls, etc. Training records should reflect this.
Something to the effect of: trained today with meth scent article in and around vehicles with a new tennis ball, a salami sandwich, and a hamster as distractions. 
Couldn't tell you how many times I had a principal say, "Aw, he just hit on that lunch bag...." 
Yes, the dog smells it. NO, he does not alert on it.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: Genie Hilton ]
#207986 - 08/30/2008 09:54 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-30-2007
Posts: 3283
Loc:
| Offline |
|
So 'alert' is the wrong word to use when talking about detection dogs?
Just trying to get it right.
Thumbing through my glossary,
Randy
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: randy allen ]
#207992 - 08/30/2008 10:18 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-27-2008
Posts: 55
Loc: Texas
| Offline |
|
No, you're right. I'm just not being clear, I guess.
An alert is when a dog performs a trained action (often a "passive" sit or an "aggressive" scratch) in response to locating something he has been trained to find. In this case, narcotics.
My partner is passive. So, if he smells a baggie of meth in a kid's locker at a school, he will follow the scent to the exact location, then sit beside it. His "sit" is his "alert", telling me there is contraband in that locker. I can ask him to be more specific, and he'll kinda rock forward and look at the source of odor.
As you well know, a dog smells everything. A drug dog has been trained to discriminate among all the environmental odors and indicate (alert) when he smells one.
That's what I meant earlier: "Yes" the dog smells the lasagna in your lunch bag. "No" he is not alerting on your lasagna, but rather on the weed in you library book.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: Genie Hilton ]
#207994 - 08/30/2008 11:02 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-30-2007
Posts: 3283
Loc:
| Offline |
|
Aaaah, indicate.
I was using the two words synonymously: alert...indicate.
Indicate, is much clearer.
Thank you for the clarification Genie, it helps in the sorting out for this poor brain of mine.
So enre your original post: The dog has indicated on a dead body, but there is old pizza in the trunk as well. Forensics are inconclusive, ie no human remains.....what's the verdict? Good dog and bad dna lab. Or good lab and a dog on a bad day?
Trailing,
Randy
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: media belief in alert confirmation
[Re: randy allen ]
#207995 - 08/30/2008 11:14 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-30-2007
Posts: 3283
Loc:
| Offline |
|
Yeah, kind of sounds like machine vs. the dog's nose again, doesn't it?
How says everybody?
Randy
PS.
And thanks again for helping with my poor reading Genie.
|
|
Top
|
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
.jpg)
