Re:Should a dog's sniff be enough to convict a person for mu...
by h2odragon on Saturday October 30, 2021 @09:26AM
(#29048578)
IMO, this discussion goes wrong when we involve the dog in the first place. The testimony is that of the handler; they are the party saying that they have reason to believe X, based on their interpretation of their dog's behavior... which might as well be a dowsing rod or any other scrying method for the repeatability it has.
If a dog/handler leads them to evidence, then the evidence can stand (or not) on its own just as if they were led to it by a psychic or a "hunch".
Re:Should a dog's sniff be enough to convict a person for mu...
by annoyingnoob on Saturday October 30, 2021 @09:57AM
(#29048785)
I had a security dog in an airport come and sit next to me while I was standing in line. Thought for sure my day was over, really freaked me out because of stories like this. Nothing happened, I think the dog just figured me for the dog person that I am. You are not supposed to pet working dogs while they are working but that didn't stop me.
insert "this is worthless" spongebob meme template here. Convicting someone of murder because a dog sat in their house is worse then fake science, it is worse than superstition, that dog handler is blatantly creating fake evidence. Has that dog ever cleared someone of an accusation their handler believes in by refusing to sit near their stuff?
Edit: to clarify, a cadaver dog is useful, if one searches for a cadaver: when the dog indicates a specific place one should dig there. But that is not how the dog is used here.