
This is a placeholder text
Group text

by alboe2009 on 24 March 2011 - 03:03

Not being an ass but I can see why the "knowledgeable" get frustrated here! Information, the correct information is vital. And playing D.A.? What's the purpose? For a service dog depending on his job he has his certifications to meet. Not "pencil whipping" actual venues documented.
Say for explosives....... (And I would say that things are different for say state, feds, civilian contractors and so forth) not drastically but still a difference. But for explosives say you need a 95% to cert.. So the certification is ten, (10) practicals. GUESS what 95% equals out to??? 9 out of 10 practicals is only a 90% which warrants a failure. 90% is a failure-go figure. These service dogs are usually trained better than some humans. And do you really think whatever entity is using the dog for whatever purpose is going to let a FUed dog or handler jeopardize their program?
The average person has no idea the amount of paperwork, training, TIME and WORK that is required and goes into a K9 program for whatever the venue. Did I mention TIME and WORK?

by BabyEagle4U on 24 March 2011 - 03:03
According to what I heard today, the dog as proof positive evidence is not the same as proof of a death, is basically what one of the defense attorneys was saying.
This is a possible death penalty trial ya know. If everything that decomposes gives off chloroform, it is possible the dog alerted to something other than a dead human body.
But your right, I don't know how these dogs are trained and neither do 90% the people following the trial, so this will be interesting to see how forensics play a role in this trial. Usually it's forensics as the witness for the prosecution .. in this trial it will be for the defense.
Why the prosecution is useing a dog vs forensics .. is beyond me. These defense attorneys must be on to something. I dunno.
And why this trial is on my favorite radio channel all day ... well, I don't know that either.


by sueincc on 24 March 2011 - 05:03

by Mindhunt on 24 March 2011 - 05:03
by vincentpmchugh on 24 March 2011 - 06:03
by Donald Deluxe on 24 March 2011 - 16:03
"This is a possible death penalty trial ya know."
Wrong. Italy hasn't had the death penalty since 1948.

by BabyEagle4U on 24 March 2011 - 16:03
What ? Italy ?
What are you talking about Donald Deluxe ?
That Judge Perry denied the motion saying that judges are prohibited under Florida law from interfering with the state's decision to seek death.
What does Italy have to do with this case ? You lost me.
by beetree on 24 March 2011 - 16:03
Donald, the Italy case is Amanda Knox..... I think that is who you are talking about?

by Mystere on 24 March 2011 - 17:03
BE,
Quote by you: "Why the prosecution is useing a dog vs forensics .. is beyond me. These defense attorneys must be on to something. I dunno."
I have not been following the trial-frankly, I got so sick of hearing taht CNN woman yelling about it endlessly that I have tuned it out. But, having been a criminal defense attorney in a prior life, I would bet that the issue about the dog alerting has less to do with forensics, and is more about probable cause. Before the prosecution can get to the forensics of what was in the car, it must first establish probable cause to get to into the car and its contents in the first place.
The Amanda Knox matter is another one I have tuned out. It was hard to avoid hearing endlessly about it in the Seattle area--worse thanthe coverage of the Sheen shenanigans.
by kacey on 24 March 2011 - 17:03
At the end of the day, a child was murdered. I'm confident when I say this, if a child ever goes missing, I whole-heartedly endorse bringing in dog teams (properly trained & tested for live & cadaver detection) to locate missing subject....whether the mission is a rescue or a recovery. A dog's nose knows....more than what humans can see.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top