The Glade 4.0

I don't know about acting like the girl in the video but are you suggesting complete deference and submission?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yes, "parsing". How dare anyone think you actually meant what you said?!



I know that. So what? The allegations of a lawsuit are not evidence; that's what they need evidence of in order to win the lawsuit.



Again, you're taking the claims of the lawsuit at face value. I don't really have a problem believing that one particular PD, or that another department has done something to make their dogs, intentionally or otherwise, create false drug detections. Oh wait, but you found a "gem"! The NHP got in on it also! Everywhere in the state, or just around Las Vegas? Wow, weren't you just whining about parsing? Congratualtions on your technical point-scoring.

None of this alters the fact that you are citing someone's lawsuit as evidence of the same claim that lawsuit is making. We call that "begging the question." Stick toy your first article, it was much better.



We all know the police always lie, and that any alleged wrongdoing by one, or even one department can be generalized everywhere, so it's pointless to try to convince you otherwise. Sorry, but hasty generalization



Nope. You don't get to use the allegations of a lawsuit to establish anything, nor do you get to generalize from the LVPD and the NHP units near LV to law enforcement in general. I mean, you can think whatever you want, but there's pretty much no reason to take you seriously if you're going to go with something that flimsy.



Well, aren't you just so superior? Fairly typical these days, though - just **** out an argument, then claim "I'm done" to avoid dealing with the fact that you can't support it. Afte all, we all know that lawuits against the police are automatically justified! If they say something, it must be true! Funny how you're not suspicious of the fact that it's NHP officers filing it.. they must be telling the truth since it's what you already believe, eh? Tell me, what cause of action does an NHP officer have to file a lawsuit because someone else's 4th amendment rights were violated?

Yes, I think some cops might be lying here.. just not the ones you want it to be.

I specifically said that I thought predjudice of the dog's reactions could easily happen unintentionally, and I didn't criticize the first article at all - essentially conceding the "able" part, but by God we can't have that! How dare DE only partially agree with me! I feel so dirty!

You just sit there and feel good that you told of the mean ole' authoritarian, and go have lunch with your "6 cop friends" or whatever it was last time. You're not doing anything other than what I expect; I keep reminding myself I'm dealing with someone so obsessive over this issue he has an asinine quote about it for his signature, and gets butthurt any time I express partial agreement.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Something very few Europeans will admit to. This license to do things like that is part of why European cops use force much less often - they are not dealing with a population that thinks their rights are a personal veto on law enforcement.

The U.S. population has not got it yet that it cannot have everything. You cannot have low social spending and minimalist law enforcement that is hobbled by legal pedantry. European police have much less crime and violence to del with because A) they are not dealing with the aftermath of 300+ years of slavery, 100+ years of "separate but equal" and 50 years of victim politics and B) they have robust social programs that decrease the incentive for crime. They can afford this on the back of the U.S. defense budget. The U.S., however, cannot afford it even if we eliminate our entire defense budget, without ruinous tax increases.

Ending the "war on drugs" won't make this any better; it might eliminate the cost of dealing with a lot of minor drug offenders, but the dealers, now with no useful skill at anything but criminal enterprise and their income suddenly eliminated - what will they all do? We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people, possibly millions, fully or partially involved with limited other life prospects. They won't suddenly become industrious McDonads servers and jobs for them will not magically appear - nor will they magically become suited to those jobs.

If we actually applied the law and Constitution in the way libertarians want, crime and violence would be rampant in this country, with most prosecution nearly impossible and apprehension dangerous to the point of it being foolish to work in law enforcement at all.

People who actually want massive changes to the way arrests, search and seizure, dealing with riots, and warrant service are going on had better get used to the idea that there's no free lunch - you are going to see your taxes doubled at a minimum, or you can expect to start seeing the National Guard enforcing the law on a regular basis because no one in their right mind will work as a cop. Or, you can accept that you'll have to go out there with the Sheriff and do it yourself, with minimal equipment, no training, and probably for free. Magic solutions that would work fine if only the stooped gummint, the c0roporati0nzz and the sheeples would just listen!! only exist on internet message boards.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And yet this remains a valid ideology that serves as a check on the other side of the coin, which is worse (IMO). So, as much as I hate to admit it, it's a good thing to have folks like you that are in the "obey and submit" camp, so long as there are enough of us in the "protect and serve" camp pushing back.

No. Not sure what you are even getting at here. The vast superiority of a dog's sense of smell is well documented. Not just in receiving at lower concentrations, but processing the information to break down the source much better.



Or probable cause. But regardless, needing a warrant is not the issue. What constitutes a search is the issue. The GPS was considered a search because it required impacting/altering the effect. This cannot be extrapolated to a dog in public space.

Now, whether a dog sniff is effective and reliable enough to be usable as probable cause - that's another matter.

Arathain:

Actually, it can be extrapolated to a dog in public space.

1. Vindicarre provided you video evidence of how dog searches are conducted.

2. Read the Jardines decision and its facts, as well as the Jones decision and its facts -- by extending the classification of effect to a car, in two separate cases, which means the court is treating cars as constitutionally protected property areas.

3. Read the Fourth Amendment -- it's in this thread: "... and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search or the persons or things to be seized."

4. Municipality owned right of ways are considered part of a house's curtilage.

Beyond that, I know how canine olfactory performance works. Yes, they can detect things a human being cannot. Yes, they have much better olfactory performance than human beings. None of that really matters, because they any narcotic someone takes deliberate effort to conceal is not detectable by drug dogs at distances not within the property range of the vehicle. Vindicarre's first video demonstrates that.

_________________

Vindicarre provided video evidence of a dog search.



Not all constitutionally protected areas are considered equal, and never have been. Effects, when transported into a public place and exposed to public view, lose much of their protection - it is much easier for a search to become reasonable simply because they are in a place where everyone has a right to be. This is something you consistently miss - much police power results from the fact that police have the same rights, even on duty, as other citizens. Even felony arrest power, in many states, is simply citizen's arrest power - the police can make felony arrests because anyone can.



Which describes the circumstance for issuing a warrant. Warrants are not always required for searches.



No they are not. You are blatantly making **** up.



There is no "property range of a vehicle".. It is not a home and has no curtelige. If you're going to make specific claims about dog smell performance, you'd better cite something either (and that does not mean whatever experience with dogs you suddenly have), especially in view of the fact that different breeds of dogs can have senses of smell thatdiffer wildly. In addition, canine smell performance is between one hundred thousand and one million times better than humans so no, "any effort to concel" narcotics will not work. It takes specific, careful effort to hermetically contain the substance and careful cleaning afterwards. Given that narcotics smugglers typically are working with household items, handling their packages in rough circumstances, and have uncertain quality control it is not difficult for dogs to detect it, and most canine detections do result in actual narcotics being found.

This "dogs are unreliable" crap relies on anecdotal incidents to try to discredit dogs in general - incidentally, not all that different from the idiots that are still trying to claim radar is unreliable. Never mind that fire control radar allowed first-salvo hits in 1944 by the USS West Virginia, in the dark, at 28,000 yards against a moving target; never mind that radar can take photorealistic pictures and has been able to do so since the late 1980s - as soon as the police have it, it's unreliable!

It's pretty obvious that no matter what the police do you will simply invent your own legal concepts and engage in whatever non sequiter you feel you need to in order to place them in the wrong. This is particularly hilarious in light of the fact that you want to dismiss court decisions as "legal balderdash" when you don't like them, but will pound whatever interpretation of those decisions you invent as soon as you think you can get support for them.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's the thing. Ideology answers to reality, not the other way around. You can't have both - or rather you can, but not without consequences, which will be criminals exploiting a much smaller law enforcement community hobbled by ideological restrictions. There is no free lunch. I don't see how it's even possible to have a conversation about this though. You want to start off assigning yourself "protect and serve" and me "obey and submit". If you're going to start off the discussion with well-poisoning, there's simply nowhere to go.

I'll give you an example, one that doesn't pertain to you personally since you really were pretty reasonable in the Ferguson thread. All too many people wanted to ***** about the police and how they controlled the riots, but did so by starting off talking about "peaceful protestors" andthen when the rioting and burning and looting were pointed out wanted to say "well they shouldn't do that but..." as if it were a minor faux pas. People want to complain in all sorts of melodramatic language about what the police are doing, but they never seem to have any idea of what the police should do instead. In the rare instance they do, it's invariably something the police know is ineffective, or worse likely to actually embolden the rioters, but those objections are simply dismissed out of hand.

It isn't protecting and serving to simply let people burn and loot the stores of other citizens while making to effort to effectively stop them. Rights are not, and never will be absolute no matter how much people try to scream about the Constitution. An absolute right for one person strips the rights of everyone else, and it's very easy to simply dismiss anything you don't want to accept when you aren't the one that has to deal with the consequences. This is true in every area of life; people constantly find themselves hobbled by restrictions created by those that have no idea what's actually involved with it. Take the porn industry; idiot do-gooders pushed through a condom regulation that was completely unnecessary and likely to dismantle the industry testing system that had proven almost 100% effective in controlling STDs and avoiding HIV among its members. Yet out of those advocating for it, very few were actually going to take off their clothes and **** in front of a camera themselves.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

An intrusive dog search would not be consistent with what I'm discussing at all. A dog, in public space, would not constitute a search. A dog, in your car, would.



Which no one is disputing.



Are you even reading my posts? The question is not effect, or rights regarding effect, it's whether a search of those spaces/effects occurred.



Since we're not talking about houses, but cars, you'll have to demonstrate specifically where any of the judgements indicate a buffer in municipal areas around a vehicle.



Vindicarre's video does not indicate that. Vindicarre's video indicates how those guys performed a search. If I'm searching for something, I'm going to get as close as I can. It does not mean I cannot detect from farther away. If you hold a book in front of your face to read, does that mean you cannot read the words any farther away? Of course not. You're placing the book in the optimum position is all.

A lot of people don't see this as a problem. They prefer the wild-west mentality of self-sufficiency, or the era of high profile, "untouchable" crime bosses of 80 years ago. They see a scenario where due to the restrictions of the law, government does NOT automatically win every dispute as a positive thing. Sure, it means some people get away with murder (sometimes literally.) But to them, that's simply a price of freedom.

I can sympathize with that view, because I prefered the internet when it was like that...

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

There's a reason why NWA had such an enduring impact despite their short-lived career together. They had a message that touched each and every one of us.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Some people prefer it because they don't have to deal with the implications of a different cost.

There is no such thing as a system of law that prevents government from "always winning". Partly because it doesn't always win. But also partly because law is not self-enforcing. It's not magic. Someone has to enforce it. If you create some way for citizens to enforce it against the government, all you get is another government. People can and will use it to enforce what they want. No ideology will ever prevent people from taking advantage of power in practice.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, this. They usually end up combining it with their love of gun culture and tout it as the solution to every problem. According to them, the police either shouldn't exist at all or should only exist to serve warrants and do things like evictions and repossessions. There should be no patrolling police, and police shouldn't be investigating crimes, citizens should do criminal investigations themselves, or pay a private company to do them. Also, we shouldn't have any social programs or redistribution of wealth whatsoever, and your gun should be the solution to the problem of no cops + no welfare causing desperate people to steal to survive. If you're not willing to carry a gun everywhere and learn how to use it.....well then you're an un-American coward that doesn't deserve his life or property.

X,
I've NEVER personally heard ANYONE espouse those views. I'm not sure where you get those ideas, but they're a wholly inaccurate depiction of any significant segment of the population.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I've heard one person here espouse exactly these views. That said, you're right that no significant section of the population holds these views.

However, there is a small but significant section that holds less extreme versions of these views, and an even larger section that holds views that would functionally have many of the same effects. There are quite a few people that either do not think through or refuse to acknowledge the second-and-third order effects of what they want.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Huh, I've never seen a post by anyone here that stated:


Who was it?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I don't know about the un-American coward part, but the rest of it sounds like it could have come from Elmo's fingers.

**** it. That's me. Lern2gun, nubz.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

It certainly does not. I don't wish to mandate action on others.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

It's not a mandate, it's a whack-job statement of opinion that I could very easily imagine coming from you. Mostly because you're kind of prone to exaggerated statements of government officials deserving death for whatever injustice or treason you feel applies this month. Maybe that's not how you see some of your statements coming across.

Lenas, it was that particular sentence that sent my BS-o-meter into overdrive. The rest of the statement could be written off to a passive-aggressive attack on an amalgam of conservative/libertarian/states rights beliefs as interpreted by someone who doesn't wish to understand the real beliefs, but that sentence was over the top. I have a feeling DE was referencing Elmo by stating he'd "heard one person here espouse exactly these views", but there's no way Elmo would make that statement as it's inconsistent with the rest of his beliefs. Agree with his beliefs, or not, Elmo's pretty darn consistent.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

No argument here

Its been awhile, but I've posted multiple times about how I am in favor of welfare and certain social programs because I do not want to deal with these people committing crimes against me in order to obtain food/shelter once they are cut off. This is quickly followed by the hive mind telling me that I am a coward for "not wanting to defend myself," "giving in to threats/criminal behavior" and "wanting other people to pay for my peace of mind." It then does not take long for someone to suggest that we should be shooting these criminals rather than catering to them.

Rynar has absolutely espoused the views of "no welfare, shoot them if they steal, you're a coward if you don't want to do this." I've never heard him say that we should have no police, to be honest, but he has been very hostile to police in general and once said he'd rather deal with criminals than deal with cops.

I guess that a better post would have involved "Rynar once said..." or "I bet Rynar would like it if...", instead of, "They usually end up combining it with their love of gun culture and tout it as the solution to every problem. According to them...".
It might have been believable, and relatively truthful. It may not have added much to the conversation, but it wouldn't have been a bunch of un-attributable hyperbole that actually detracts from whatever point you're trying to make. Yes?

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Shoot them if they steal - yes.

You may or may not be a coward if you do this.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville