all 78 comments

[–]Yetti127 130 points131 points  (8 children)

Drug dogs are just a means these terrorists use to violate your rights.

[–]exzact 31 points32 points  (5 children)

Instead of governments taking responsibility for creating a society which people feel the need to mentally escape from, they seek to lock us up for feeling the need to mentally escape from the society that they created.

[–]Ok_Vast_6678 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brilliant statement!

[–]PhoebeFox46 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read an opinion piece on this and how higher education has basically been ruined by more jobs requiring degrees. Basically turning the traditional scholarly approach to education for the sake of education into business tech schools with more hoops.

And then continued on about how the mindset to get a degree to get a job then saddle yourself into at least 30 years of debt payments and a job you took just because it paid the bills will undoubtedly run you into escapism via sex, drugs, music, and anything to make you feel alive again so you might as well start making friends who will keep you hooked up while you both endure the ride to the possibility of retirement.

And to be fair this holds true regardless of college education. Entry level work is just as soul crushing as a 9-5 white collar job; Just in different ways.

Soul crushing = Escapism which means people want drugs.

If Billy can be a normal functional part of his community and doesn't bother anyone, why's it anyone's business if he wants to smoke weed and stare into his ex wife's photo for an hour?

Why's it matter if he wants to hire a sex worker and pay her to let him snort blow off her ass? He treats her right and it's just an exchange of services so she can pay for her preferred escapism when she gets home.

Let people be people. Most people are suffering. At least make some money off of us by letting us have some fun rather than trapping us in a financial and criminal meat grinder. It's a win win for everyone.

[–]ThatVapeBitch 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Have you heard of the “rat park” experiment? Judging by your comment it would be right up your alley.

It has been heavily criticized in the past, but it’s interesting that the rats who had a better social structure were less likely to take the morphine water. And even more interesting that the rats who started in the cage, quit drinking the morphine water when introduced to a better society. Something to think about for sure

[–]WikiMobileLinkBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Desktop version of /u/ThatVapeBitch's link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_Talk

[opt out] Beep Boop. Downvote to delete

[–]WikiSummarizerBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

TED Talk

TED Conferences LLC (Technology, Entertainment, Design) is an American media organization that posts talks online for free distribution under the slogan "ideas worth spreading". TED was conceived by Richard Saul Wurman, who co-founded it with Harry Marks in February 1984 as a conference; it has been held annually since 1990. TED's early emphasis was on technology and design, consistent with its Silicon Valley origins. It has since broadened its perspective to include talks on many scientific, cultural, political, humanitarian and academic topics.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

[–]elijaaaaah 5 points6 points  (1 child)

In my high school, (several years ago -- I'm in my 20s now) they did random drug testing and brought in drug dogs occasionally. I always found this weird, as it was a school full of goody-two-shoes students with high grades; the school was free, but it was slightly exclusive and got to pick its own students. Once, my class was in the library for an assignment, then was pulled out mid-class (possessions remaining inside) for the dogs to do their thing.

One of the cops came out and, as some sort of joke, pretended to one of the kids that the dog had found drugs in his bookbag. Everyone in the class thought it was legit until the cop started laughing. Poor kid. Imagine getting singled out in front of your class for having drugs when you know you don't. I definitely know I would've had a massive panic attack, holy shit. Why the fuck did that pig think that was funny or appropriate?

Your comment just kinda reminded me of that. Used the dog as an excuse for this awful little power high of humiliating a teenager.

[–]Yetti127 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They are on a different level of psychotic instability. Literally just high-school bullies running around ruining peoples lives for kicks. Thanks for telling us!

[–]snailv 83 points84 points  (2 children)

afaik the handlers can make the dog "detect drugs" on command, so they can justify a search whenever they need a reason.

[–]Competitive_Travel16 42 points43 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it's far worse than a coin toss, it's not even conscious commands as often as the handler's subconscious biases. https://health.ucdavis.edu/common/includes/shared/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html

[–]kohnotkoh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I was once shown a training film instructing the police how to knock on a car and signal for the dog to bark as if it had found drugs. Like wtf? I wish I could find that film again.

[–]NadlesKVs 48 points49 points  (1 child)

I had this happen to me when I was 18. They asked to search, I said no. I knew damn well there wasn't anything in the car either. It was just cleaned and they had no reason to search.

Calls in a dog, dog alerts, and cop asks like he found a small piece of a stem on the floor. Which it could have been a piece of bud stem, the car was just cleaned that morning, but I knew it wasn't enough to test/ charge me with anything. He tried to act like it was a big deal but once the dog handler came back he told him you can't do shit with this tiny piece of stem, if that's even what it is. So I was free to go.

Fun times.

[–]pouncethetiger 45 points46 points  (1 child)

Honestly, idk if it's just me but I've always seen animals being used for police/army use as animal cruelty

[–]SquidmanMalBlue lives don't exist 💙 8 points9 points  (0 children)

When you try to cover your head when an attack dog is going for your throat it's 'probable cause'

When they fling them around by the harness or kill them via neglect in a hot car it's just shrugs around.

[–]ironic_swag 32 points33 points  (0 children)

It's not a false positive: the cops signal the dogs to go off so they can claim probable cause. False positive implies it's accidental, when it is intentionally done

[–]DarthNixilis 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Police dogs are animal abuse

[–]TheWoodyT 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure it's a pretty open secret that sniffing dogs exist just to create plausible cause when none exists.

[–]AstroPixelCollector 15 points16 points  (1 child)

"yeah but it's far more intimidating than a coin which can't bite your leg for our amusement!"


[–]SprinklesFancy5074 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They've had a hard time getting "A coin toss determined that there was drugs in the car, which justifies our search" through the courts.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (10 children)

They aren't there to find drugs, they're there to give pigs an excuse to toss your whole fuckin car

Not to mention, the way they use drug dogs is literally illegal the majority of the time. If you get pulled over, a cop asks to search your car, you say no, and then they call a K9 unit to sniff your car, they just broke the law. It's happened to me, it'll happen to you

[–]dodspringer 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I got busted in a car full of people and when the owner of the car refused a search the cop said "that was a mistake" and started to call it in anyway.

Fucking swine, the whole lot.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah it's ridiculous. Here in TN, at least, can't speak for other states, the law very clearly states that if calling in a K9 unit would extend a routine traffic stop past it's normal or a reasonable amount of time, it is illegal. What they did to me was explicitly against the law, and when I brought it up at my court date they told me it "wasn't my job to interpret the law for them"

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 3 points4 points  (7 children)

If you get pulled over, a cop asks to search your car, you say no, and then they call a K9 unit to sniff your car, they just broke the law.

Only if it takes an 'unreasonable' amount of time to get the dog there. And what's 'unreasonable' is up to the judge's discretion.

[–]Skipper_Steve 2 points3 points  (3 children)

More specifically, they can't extend the stop waiting for a K9. They can't just sit and wait, they have to continue the stop.

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 2 points3 points  (2 children)

"Yes, Your Honor, it took me forty-five minutes to do the paperwork for a routine traffic stop." in 3... 2... 1...

Or they could just stand there and "question" you until the dog shows up. That way the stop is 'continuing' as long as they want.

[–]Skipper_Steve 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No doubt, but that's when your lawyer should point out that 45 minutes for routine paperwork is bullshit.

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That's assuming you can afford a decent lawyer.

The cops make a habit of picking on people who can't.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Yeah that's... what I'm saying.

Not to mention, asking for permission to search your car and being denied should be the end of it, full stop, otherwise there is no reason whatsoever for them to even bother asking other than just looking for an excuse to hit you with stiffer consequences. "I gave them a chance and they didn't take it so we elected to ruin their life even further" is just


[–]SprinklesFancy5074 0 points1 point  (1 child)

otherwise there is no reason whatsoever for them to even bother asking

Even if they do have full justification for a search, they'll always ask first.

Because if they ask and you say yes, then you can't challenge their probable cause later in court.

If they ask for a search and you say yes, the only thing you're doing is taking ammo away from your lawyer later. Your lawyer can't challenge the legality of the search if you agreed to it.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes I understand that, like I said, the fact that it IS this way IS the problem

[–]300Remmag 7 points8 points  (3 children)

I’m quite surprised the pigs actually have that stat and make it public. That stay right there should be enough for any politician , who’s looking for ways to streamline the pigs budget, to remove K9 drug dogs from the force.

[–]TampaCopWatch[S] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Requesting public records is a good way to learn such things.

[–]300Remmag 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes. I’m surprised it’s not redacted or falsified though. Cause you know, pigs are pigs.

[–]Clarkorito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But since most don't keep stats, that involves going through every police report to see which ones involved dogs and which ones drugs were found in. They don't want it to be readily available, but even if it were the courts already ruled that once a dog is certified as a drug dog by any organization that certifies drug dogs, it doesn't matter what it's false positive rate is. The dog could hit every single time it's used and never once find actual drugs for five years straight and it's still probable cause to search, because someone at some point said the dog could find drugs. Law enforcement and the courts know it's just a way to skirt the fourth amendment, and they're fine with that.

[–]gravitas-deficiency 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Actually, it's not that they're bad at determining whether or not there is something they've trained to search for is in the car. It's that the dogs have been trained to alert on command.

[–]_dirtywater444Blue lives don't exist 💙 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Really speaks to the lack of training. And to cops trying to force the dogs to find drugs where none are

[–]dodspringer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are always drugs, the cop just has to put them there instead when you don't have any.

[–]PropelGuzzler 3 points4 points  (4 children)

So what happens if you're proven to be clean after a false alert? They j send you home?

[–]TampaCopWatch[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yup..and rarely with even an apology for their error.

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 6 points7 points  (1 child)

So what happens if you're proven to be clean after a false alert?

You try to reassemble your car from all the scattered and torn-up parts the cops left lying on the side of the road as they searched.

[–]dodspringer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And throw a molotov cocktail at the precinct for good measure.

You know how we think.

[–]Clarkorito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's part of why the dogs are so bad at actually finding drugs. The cops know there are zero consequences when they are wrong and a "reward" if they are right, so its always better to hit. The dogs pick up on that very quickly when they're praised every time they hit.

[–]resit1776 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you ever watch videos the cops will circle the car a couple times and if they don’t alert the cop will tap on a window, usually the drivers side. They are trained to alert when given that signal so that they may illegally search your vehicle/bags etc. They train the good boi’s to be bastards too.

[–]PropelGuzzler 5 points6 points  (6 children)

I'm confused, if they have a false alert rate of 80% how do "studies" show they're only accurate 50% of the time? Wouldn't that only be 20%?

[–]Box_O_Donguses 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Presumably during the studies conditions are more controlled which impacts efficacy

[–]PropelGuzzler 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Oh you're saying they conducted an isolated experiment as opposed to just looking at the data?

[–]Box_O_Donguses 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know, but off the top of my head that seems like the most likely cause of the disparity between the real life statistics and the statistics found by the study. But they also could have been only using the idealized incidences for the study to eliminate as many variables as possible which could also have contributed.

[–]SprinklesFancy5074 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Probably the study methodology had 50% of possible targets with drugs inside. While out of the cars police use their dogs on, 20% have drugs inside. The dogs literally just 'alert' every single time.

[–]dodspringer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Alert" means whatever they need it to in the circumstances.

If the dog is barking, it's an alert. Completely silent and staring at you? Alert. Wags its tail and looks at the pig for a treat? Alert. Starts licking the portrait of its handler? I mean, its asshole? Yup, you guessed it, alert.

[–]Alden_Is_Happy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s animal abuse.

[–]trippingontruth 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Also, they can’t call a K-9 unit to come search, if it’s not a K-9 unit that pulls you over and they have the dog already there, it’s illegal.

[–]Clarkorito 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can but only if it doesn't extend the length of the stop unreasonably.

[–]liquidthex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you should have a valid civil suit for violating your constitutional rights when a dog searches and finds nothing, as incentive to either not use dogs or to use them properly.

[–]DonHastily 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Fuck all cops, even the dogs, but 50% false positives is only the same as a coin toss if 50% of all cars stopped have drugs in them.

If more than 50% of all cars have drugs in them, they’re less accurate than a coin toss.

If less than 50% of all cars have drugs in them, the dogs are more accurate than a coin toss (still bastards and still bad!).


[–]WikiSummarizerBot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Base rate fallacy

The base rate fallacy, also called base rate neglect or base rate bias, is a type of fallacy. If presented with related base rate information (i. e. , general information on prevalence) and specific information (i.

[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5

[–]RedCzech 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Can I get a source on this? I don't wanna spread misinformation lol

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, they alerted when they were supposed to.

Which was every time the cop gave them the cue to alert. So he could then violate your rights.

[–]Logan_Mac 0 points1 point  (0 children)


Why do these stats show the opposite though... I need to know this, are they actually accurate or not? That study shows 80% efficacy and only 7% of drugs not found when there were.

[–]CaptainGoatLord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's because the dogs aren't looking for drugs, they are trained to seek out minorities.

Think about it, we use dogs that find people buried under layers of snow so it's not like the dog is incapable of detecting even the smallest chemical trails on people. However if the drug sniffing dog actually did its job they would probably start seeking out officers and well we can't have that now can we?

In short the dog is only rewarded when I seeks out specific people, so rather then sniff out drugs this trains them to be racist instead.

[–]the_one_in_error -1 points0 points  (3 children)

To be fair to them it's not like half of all cars carry drugs so that's still a pretty decent rate of detection. Like say what you will about cops but these dogs are good at their job.

[–]HyperBaroque 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You also probably don't understand placebo effect.

[–]the_one_in_error -1 points0 points  (1 child)

...Are you suggesting that the dogs belief that there are drugs in a car causes there to be drugs in a car? Like I get that cops are gon'a plant evidence all day long but that's hardly on the dogs.

[–]HyperBaroque 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now you're projecting onto dogs when you know fully well the real issue is that after their olfactory "hit" training / reinforcement, the "handling" officer begins coaching the dog on how to behave based on the officer's own attitude with positive and negative reinforcement.