Boycott The Chicago Code

billv said:

But I rarely see non-LEO with a gun that's not a criminal.

Click to expand...

I've seen hundreds of non-LEOs with a gun. All of them were OCing, and none of them were criminals (or if they were, they weren't engaged in criminal activity at the time). Many were hunters, most of them were simply at a shooting range, and perhaps a total of 25 I've met at various OC meets.

Come to think of it, I've never seen a non-LEO with a gun who was a criminal (or engaged in criminal activity).

KBCraig said:

The problem is our confusion about when dogs are picking up a scent and when they are responding to cues from their handlers.

Click to expand...

and

The other 123 searches produced an astounding 225 alerts, every one of them false. Even more interesting, the search points designed to trick the handlers (marked by the red slips of paper) were about twice as likely to trigger false alerts as the search points designed to trick the dogs (by luring them with sausages). [/i]

Click to expand...

(bold mine)

While a handler's unconscious cues may very well be resulting in false positives during double-blind scientific studies, in the real world, false positives may not be false at all. The dog's scent is strong enough to detect the presense of drugs, even after the drugs have been removed. So, of the 56% of hits which turned out not to have contraband, how many of those were the result of handler cues, and how many were the result of the dogs detecting the odor of drugs which had previously been in the vehicle?

To date, no test has been devised to distinguish variances between handler cues and "false" positives where the dog hit on an actual scent.

since9 said:

Nope. The show is fiction. My concern is that real cops will emulate the abuses being portrayed on the screen.

Click to expand...

When you're talking about Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta and Philadelphia, that's like saying that you're afraid that great white sharks will emulate something they saw in the movie "Jaws".

When it comes to the Chicago PD, it's not "stranger than fiction", it's "more despicable than fiction".

Deanimator said:

When you're talking about Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta and Philadelphia, that's like saying that you're afraid that great white sharks will emulate something they saw in the movie "Jaws".

When it comes to the Chicago PD, it's not "stranger than fiction", it's "more despicable than fiction".

Click to expand...

Not just in those areas, Seattle, L.A. and any other large city is included. I also think small cities are included too, but being smaller they can't get away with as much.

Deanimator said:

When you're talking about Chicago, New Orleans, Atlanta and Philadelphia, that's like saying that you're afraid that great white sharks will emulate something they saw in the movie "Jaws".

Click to expand...

Great whites don't watch TV. Cops do.

Bumper sticker of the week:

since9 said:

great whites don't watch tv. Cops do.

Click to expand...

since9 said:

To date, no test has been devised to distinguish variances between handler cues and "false" positives where the dog hit on an actual scent.

Click to expand...

You just quoted me citing a test that did exactly that. It was presented in a peer-reviewed journal, Animal Cognition. Dogs had some false positives on their own, including cases where they were lured by food. But when the handler believed there were drugs to be found in places marked by red paper, false positives went up drastically, from 47% to 89%.

That's an 89% false positive rate, in cases where there was neither drugs, nor food lures, but where the handler was told there would be drugs.

Here's a different article about the study: http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/02/animal_behaviour

Your claim of false positives because "drugs had previously been there" can be used to argue for a reasonable belief based on current standards of admissibility. The point is, given what we are learning about false positives, I expect the admissibility of a dog "hit" for establishing PC to change in the near future.

KBCraig said:

You just quoted me citing a test that did exactly that.

Click to expand...

No, it didn't. You need to review both the report and my post.

That's an 89% false positive rate, in cases where there was neither drugs, nor food lures, but where the handler was told there would be drugs.

Click to expand...

That's the problem - the handlers were told there would be drugs. In the field, handlers operate under the knowledge that there might be drugs, not that there will be drugs.

Your claim of false positives because "drugs had previously been there"...

Click to expand...

It wasn't a claim. It was a possibility.

...can be used to argue for a reasonable belief based on current standards of admissibility. The point is, given what we are learning about false positives, I expect the admissibility of a dog "hit" for establishing PC to change in the near future.

Click to expand...

That may very well true. However, both statutory and case law have allowed it for decades. It would likely take a case elevated to the Supreme Court to overturn it.

In the meantime, electronic sniffers (also here) hold promise for reducing reducing the rates for false positives.

It'll never eliminate false positives, however. Let's say a druggie is smoking a joint while handling money. Later that day he walks to the convenience store, buys a six-pack with a $10 bill, which is then given as change to a customer who, on his way to the airport, buys a cup of coffee with a $20.

The customer passes through the sniffer, and alarm sounds, and the fun begins.

Is it right? I don't believe so. I believe it's a gross violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:


Let's consider an electronic airport sniffer.

Is there a warrant? What's the probable cause? Was it supported by Oath of affirmation? Did the warrant describe the TSA search station? Did the warrant describe the persons to be searched? I seriously doubt my name is on any warrant on file, yet I get searched every time I go to the airport. Did the warrant describe the things to be seized?

Oh, no warrant. Ok...

Really. I seriously doubt if I were to head to the airport tomorrow, the TSA would have a warrant on file which states "Since9 have been observed to traffic in drugs and will be searched at the Denver International Airport, main TSA security checkpoint, for marijuana and heroin, on Monday, February 28, 2011, signed by Judge Smith, and sworn by Officer Smith this day of Sunday, February 27, 2011."

I do not feel secure in my person, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches while being unreasonably, warrantlessly, oathlessly, searched by the TSA at the airport without probable cause.

On the other hand, I'd rather put up with it than risk a terrorist suicide bomber blowing up the airplane.

There were cases of LEA, taking peoples large sums of cash because of drug residue. Which almost all of our money in the U.S. has on it, many innocent people lost their cash.

Tried to do a google search on the news show I seen this on.....and stumbled across much worse.....

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp

since9 said:

On the other hand, I'd rather put up with it than risk a terrorist suicide bomber blowing up the airplane.

Click to expand...

Can you demonstrate where the former has actually prevented the latter?

The last two times I recall a suicide bomber trying to blow up an airliner, it was ONLY the incompetence of the bomb makers and the bomber carriers combined with the vigilance of the passengers which prevented loss of the aircraft. The TSA and other airport security had NOTHING to do with it.

Officer Tony Abbate can claim that his stomping that barmaid prevented somebody from bombing the Sears Tower. That doesn't make it so.