TMF

Wow. I had a genuine question and was responding with genuine arguments, not personal attacks. You want to be a smartass and make a personal attack because you obviously have no argument. Let me fashion my reply: Go f**k yourself. If you talked to me like that in person I'd punch you in your bitch mouth.

So, you were just reference waste/abuse/fraud, right? But you support traditional marriages getting tax breaks? So if a traditional couple gets those very tax breaks, but don't have children, would that not make them guilty of defrauding the system and what it was set up for? If so, we're back to my original point: HOW WOULD THAT MAKE IT ANY DIFFERENT THAN GAY MARRIAGES???

I wonder if they believe that if Jesus was here right now he'd be like, "Yep, you guys totally get the message."

Perhaps, but I think that is a slippery slope that would render detection dogs as an aid to LE as useless. Dogs who give false positives for whatever reason can be corrected in less than a day in most cases. If there happens to be a dog that had some issues related to false sits and that issue was corrected, it would forever and always be branded as an unreliable dog, when dogs aren't unreliable at all. If they are properly trained and handled they will not give a false positive, however, no one is perfect, so any handler that says his dog has never given a false positive in training or real world is full of sh**. When you start adding up the numbers on training versus real world (at least for a reputable K9 program) the K9 team should be getting the vaaaaaaaast majority of its exposure in training. Training doesn't stop at the school house. K9 teams need to train every day they work together, several times a day. So any time someone is stopped and a dog gets a hit, there is a negligible chance that it is a false positive.,. like below fractions of a percent, unless it is a crappy K9 team. I think the only reason the officer may have mentioned it wasn't a solid hit was because they wanted entry into the vehicle, he knew nothing was there so he was covering his butt in advance. Just my opinion though, but I doubt the dog gave a final response.

Dogs are never the cause for false positives. In every case it can be traced back to the handler, either directly or indirectly. If a dog is older and can't detect as well as it used to, it will simply not respond to odor, not respond because it "thinks" it smells something. That isn't how dog psychology works.

[quote data-cid='995467' name='RichardR' timestamp='1373234412' post='995467'][quote data-cid='995452' name='TMF' timestamp='1373232990'] You do realized that you justified waste, fraud & abuse by pointing at other (worse) waste, fraud & abuse.[/quote] So, gay marriage is waste fraud and abuse but straight marriage isn't. Do you see why people like me can't figure out the logic?

Well in that case why worry about the gays? They aren't the ones looking to soak the government for "entitlements". There is a HUUUUUUGE, mostly hetero, portion of America that is sinking this ship. The option of queers filing joint tax returns isn't going to be what sinks this boat. Hell, they might even redecorate it for free so at least we can all sink in style.

If that was something relevant to court cases then we might as well not have detection dogs for our law enforcement. At some point, all dogs will false sit. They all will do it. There are a variety of reasons why, but even great and experienced k9 teams will give a false positive. A good handler generally knows when his dog has given a BS hit, just like a good distance shooter knows when he pulled a shot. Generally the two things I've seen detection dogs false sit for is being overworked without a find in a long time or the existence of unknown stimuli. An example might be a tennis ball (if that is the dogs reward) or even plastic baggies if they happen to be the same brand as the dog's training aids are stored in. Sounds crazy, but it happens. Sometimes the dog has a crappy handler, and the cues given by unintentional body language and improper detailing will lead to a systemic issue with the dog giving false positives. This is why, in training, you have someone else watching you and your dog work, and if this is a big problem it would need to be rectified.

The dog jumping up to the window was not the positive response. The handler detailed the window to bring the dog's nose to it in order to detect anything coming out. Think of windows like open doors and the vacuum effect of air going out. All that air flowing out carries scent. You want to get the dog's nose as close to source as possible, which is why the handler bright his nose to the window. You don't see the response from the dog on the video. Most dogs simply sit when they have alerted to the presence of odor. You can't see that here. On another note, a definitive response from the dog is not always what a handler needs in order to determine the presence of odor. When the dog detects odor there will be a clear change in behavior from the K9, and likely the only one to pick up on it would be the handler. However, in this case it probably is BS. They wanted to teach this guy a lesson and the kid wanted to teach them one. The cops should have known better. The youngin should get a girlfriend to keep him occupied so his weekend nights are less lonely.

So what you're saying is my faraday hat will not prevent the gov from controlling my thoughts? Damn.

Yep, getting out of the truck and chasing someone you believe to be suspicious while you're carrying is good to go. Nothing bad will ever come of that. Seriously, I've been saying from the start (guilty or innocent) there is a very good lesson HCP holders could learn from Zman's case. Instead of recognizing that we're still playing "you must think Trayvon kneels at the cross" game. Good stuff. If folks can't learn from the jackassery of others they deserve all the consequences coming their way.

I could not agree with this statement more, however, I'm not convinced that this should have any bearing on our current marriage license issuance. I get that venomous liberals will do this in order to further their agenda, but reasonably I have no argument for why I or anyone else should care if the government suddenly recognizes marriages between gays as legitimate. Every argument against it has referenced "sanctity of marriage", but how can one use that argument with our divorce rate and other societal marriage issues occurring in traditional marriage? There is the nature argument, and while I'd agree that nature does not intend for same sex individuals to procreate, who cares? How does that translate into law? And the theme I often see relates to homo activity as a sin according to God, but religion shouldn't dictate our laws, especially when there are folks from other faiths who says their God doesn't care. I am of the opinion that the gov should not be involved in marriage at all, and I also am of the opinion that will never happen. So logically we are left with two options: continue not to recognize gay marriage as legitimate in the eyes of the government based on a combination of religious beliefs and emotional pleas "for the children/sanctity of marriage", or allow gay marriage to be recognized. I'm leaning towards the latter because there are more logical reasons to allow it than to not allow it. I've asked before and I'll ask again, I would really like an argument against gay marriage that is not based on religion or emotion.

Seems like Zimmerman could have followed that advice, hmm?

Well then that post I quoted was like spotting a white rhino. Glad I witnessed such a rare event.

  You're a chick?

I was told 12 months ago I would be in a FEMA camp right now in many of the threads here.  Yet here I am, having to pay for my own home and provide my own food, when I was clearly told by the moonbats I would be taken care of in exchange for my immortal soul.  Imagine my disappointment.  I just refinanced and everything to give the gov a lower rate.  Egg all over my face, I tell ya!

Wow, 3rd amendment? Pretty neat precedent to challenge them on. This should be interesting.

No? I'm not good on my firearms history, I just remember seeing old ass blunderbusses depicted in pilgrim folklore. That was a long time ago.

MY HONEY BADGER, MY BUSINESS! This is 'Merica!

I think I'm going to open carry a honey badger then post a video about how my rights were violated when I get approached by animal control.

They've been putting trigger guards on firearms for, like, 400 years or something like that. Good to see someone challenging the establishment. But seriously, if you tried to holster that you'd shoot yourself, every time. It would still be stupid and unsafe even if it had a safety, but it doesn't so it's like a guarantee that you will shoot yourself. Where would one come up with such a stupid idea?

This seems to be happening more and more now. Probably YouTube's fault. At any rate, one would figure that PDs would get a little wise to the attention whores doing this stuff and brief their guys to break contact after initially approaching them and determining they aren't a psychotic. I keep seeing videos of Kwik's extended family and cops that are dumb enough to take the bait.

Parenting win right there. I hope you also explained to him not to show up anywhere with grass, hookers and machineguns unless he's willing to share.

  Have a nice day.

    I can, and I already have.  I'm not going to go back and cut and paste every post I made on the subject.  If you are so concerned about it use the search function and read it yourself.  I have no obligation to justify my opinions to you.   And if it looks to be as if I'm worked up, it was in response to veiled, passive-aggressive insults by another member.  It irritates me when folks do that.  If you have something to say, come out and say it, but don't take the chick's way out.  I quoted him, not you.  So that has nothing to do with our conversation.  It seems you just chose to make it a part of it to fit your narrative.  Good job, you would make a great liberal.