Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well we can thank Guiliani for another great episode of Last Week Tonight.

Jesus. I don't even like Guiliani and I thought that was maybe a little more brutal than necessary XD

To be fair, it could also have been a lot more brutal, like including his horrible speech at the convention or that time he tried to slide 9/11 attack, under a Republican President, under the radar when frothing at the mouth about Obama. Or when he said he couldn't be racist against Obama because Obama had a white mother?

I think the whole "we will have to kill all of them" because they are trained to be anti-social spiel is pretty stupid. At least I haven't heard of any cases of police dogs turning on their partners, their families, and running down their neighbors. I'm pretty certain there are retired police dogs everywhere that are either staying with their old K9 partners or else are able to be successfully adopted. I'm guessing we would be well aware of the dirty secret that retired police dogs get a nice ceremony and then are shipped to the vet to be put down because they can't interact with humans outside of police work.

Depending, of course, on the whole "you cannot retrain police dogs" being true. You can probably retrain them, other departments have managed. Or if you are worried about their drug detecting ability becoming unreliable, you can likely build on their previous training and have them become search and rescue dogs.

Working dogs are smart. They're good dogs Brent.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
So Republicans are willing to kill dogs to spite legalized weed. Somehow it's a mere blip on the radar for party scummery.

Did I miss something... the IL government is dominated by democrats...

But is the anti-pot faction dominated by Dems or by Republicans?

Not that I think that this incident comes down to Reps vs. Democrats - This is not so much a Right vs. Left as an 'OMG! They's wanna legalize drugzzzz! What can we do ta stop 'em?! Ahhhh!' bit of stupidity and fear mongering. 'Think of the kittens!'

Not particularly coherent, and... pretty far out from the main stream. (I kinda doubt all the states that have already legalized pot are euthanizing their K9 units.)

The Auld Grump

The Macon County Sheriff, Howard Buffet who has this quote in the article:

“The biggest thing for law enforcement is, you're going to have to replace all of your dogs,” said Macon County Sheriff Howard Buffett, whose private foundation paid $2.2 million in 2016 to support K-9 units in 33 counties across Illinois. “So to me, it’s a giant step forward for drug dealers, and it’s a giant step backwards for law enforcements and the residents of the community."

is billionaire Warren Buffet's son. He did not run for office but was named as the successor to the previous county sheriff, a Democrat, who retired before his term was up. Apparently Howard Buffet is not intending to run for election to the office this year, although there are two candidates who are currently officers in the department who are running as Democrats in the primary.

https://herald-review.com/news/local/howard-buffett-to-be-sworn-in-friday-as-macon-county/article_ea527afe-a1b7-5663-897d-df6242633b80.html

Yeah and city cops who actually have to deal with pot more often than a downstate central Illinois county of 100k more often than not want weed legalized and some would rather alcohol be banned. I have talked to a decent amount of them on that subject

Prestor Jon wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well we can thank Guiliani for another great episode of Last Week Tonight.

Spoiler:

Jesus. I don't even like Guiliani and I thought that was maybe a little more brutal than necessary XD

Yeah, I mean you could at least mix in a mention of his role in cleaning up Times Square. Giuliani has always been weird, creepy, reactionary and authoritative but at least NYC made some noticeable progress on his watch. Sure it probably would have turned out the same if somebody else had been mayor but at least Rudy didn't screw it up.

Perhaps, but that's kind of like polishing a turd, sure its technically possible, but its still crap underneath the shine. Guiliani destroyed his own reputation, even if Trump does one thing right forexample, its going to get buried by all the stuff done wrong. It is what it is.

How anyone at all takes Guliani seriously any more is beyond me. He said, "Before Obama there were no Islamic terror attacks on US soil'. He was freaking MAYOR of NYC during that whole 9/11 thing. Sweet baby jeebus.

 feeder wrote:
How anyone at all takes Guliani seriously any more is beyond me. He said, "Before Obama there were no Islamic terror attacks on US soil'. He was freaking MAYOR of NYC during that whole 9/11 thing. Sweet baby jeebus.

He actually did mention 9/11 in the same speech. But the rest of the speech was construed in such a manner as to obfuscate the fact that by far the worst attack happened under a Republican President, hence the 8 years comment, technically it was 8 years between 9/11 and Obama. But of course it was meant to be received in a different manner.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 feeder wrote:
How anyone at all takes Guliani seriously any more is beyond me. He said, "Before Obama there were no Islamic terror attacks on US soil'. He was freaking MAYOR of NYC during that whole 9/11 thing. Sweet baby jeebus.

He actually did mention 9/11 in the same speech. But the rest of the speech was construed in such a manner as to obfuscate the fact that by far the worst attack happened under a Republican President, hence the 8 years comment, technically it was 8 years between 9/11 and Obama. But of course it was meant to be received in a different manner.

I did not know that, thanks.

Fooled by fake news! Sad!

The Popular Vote Compact is growing:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/07/609060190/connecticut-oks-bill-pledging-electoral-votes-to-national-popular-vote-winner

 d-usa wrote:
I think the whole "we will have to kill all of them" because they are trained to be anti-social spiel is pretty stupid. At least I haven't heard of any cases of police dogs turning on their partners, their families, and running down their neighbors. I'm pretty certain there are retired police dogs everywhere that are either staying with their old K9 partners or else are able to be successfully adopted. I'm guessing we would be well aware of the dirty secret that retired police dogs get a nice ceremony and then are shipped to the vet to be put down because they can't interact with humans outside of police work.

Depending, of course, on the whole "you cannot retrain police dogs" being true. You can probably retrain them, other departments have managed. Or if you are worried about their drug detecting ability becoming unreliable, you can likely build on their previous training and have them become search and rescue dogs.

Working dogs are smart. They're good dogs Brent.

Yeah, police dogs usually are pretty social. They have to be, as K-9 units are often exposed to the general public, and are used for public events because, you know, "look at the cute widdle doggie!" is an easy crowd pleaser.

They can be territorial though. I made the mistake of getting to close to a K9 in his car once.

 Da Boss wrote:
I know that is a joke, but honestly, if we lose this referendum Irish women are going to be condemned to a completely crazy regime of legal persecution for at least another decade so I'd really appreciate it if these eejits would go home.

Evangelicals on here, your money is going to fund this sort of electoral interference in other countries FYI. Our stupid laws are even more strict than the position Trump had to back away from.

Well. . . to suggest that WE interfere in other people's elections is pure witchhuntery (just ask Trump), we'd NEVER do such a thing. . .


Fething hell, that's as far as I can go with even that line of sarcasm. All I can really offer here is the best of luck to you and your country.

I thought this would be a shallow "he said she said" story, but holy prosecutorial abuse batman! This guy need to be prosecuted!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/nyregion/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-abuse.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

O.o

 whembly wrote:
I thought this would be a shallow "he said she said" story, but holy prosecutorial abuse batman! This guy need to be prosecuted!
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/nyregion/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-abuse.html
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse

O.o

Perhaps we should start with an investigation.

I am a bit hesitant on this one, especially after republican groups started trying to plant fake sexual harassment/assault stories against democrats last year. But, we will see

Of course investigate and he'll have his day in court... but... yikes!

EDIT: He resigned...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/05/07/four-women-accuse-new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-of-physical-abuse/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1dd8f48c6df

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
He actually did mention 9/11 in the same speech. But the rest of the speech was construed in such a manner as to obfuscate the fact that by far the worst attack happened under a Republican President, hence the 8 years comment, technically it was 8 years between 9/11 and Obama. But of course it was meant to be received in a different manner.

Yeah, Giuliani phrases things in just a way to give an impression of a damning attack, while giving himself lots of wiggle room when he's called on the lie. Another example was his attack on Hillary Clinton; "But I heard her say one day she was there that day. I was there that day. I don’t remember seeing Hillary Clinton there.” The problem being...



When called on his claim and shown the images of him with Clinton, Giuliani apologised, and fell back on 'I don't remember'. Bleh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Of course investigate and he'll have his day in court... but... yikes!

EDIT: He resigned...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/05/07/four-women-accuse-new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-of-physical-abuse/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e1dd8f48c6df

This is a really hard one to know what to think of it. On the one hand, we've just learned Trump employed Black Cube, the same dirty tricks op Weinstein used, to target political enemies. And now suddenly we have he said/she said accusations against Schneiderman, who was engaged in prosecutions against both Trump associates and Weinstein? That's more than coincidence.

On the other hand, the chatter from the NY social set is saying this sounds about right, based on Schneiderman's general behaviour. And four women with similar stories... that's pretty damning. If it turns out they were telling their stories without knowledge of each other, that's as good as settled, I think.

Resigning over it is not an admission of guilt, but it's pretty stinky. I'm no longer surprised by people's crappy behaviour in these positions.

So hilariously the incredibly ironic anti-cyberbullying campaign of Melania has come under fire of plagiarism of the campaign under the Obama admin. The BBC has some comparison shots: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44038656

For all the frothing at the Obamas, they sure like to profit from their work.

Do American drug dogs not multi-task?

All of them over here in the UK are trained to sniff out all sorts of drugs, and one that could only search for weed would not pass the initial test to be 'employed'

so even if weed was legalised they should be able to work on looking for the more harmful drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, methamphetamines etc which are not easy for normal people to smell (unlike weed)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Do American drug dogs not multi-task?

All of them over here in the UK are trained to sniff out all sorts of drugs, and one that could only search for weed would not pass the initial test to be 'employed'

so even if weed was legalised they should be able to work on looking for the more harmful drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, methamphetamines etc which are not easy for normal people to smell (unlike weed)

An appeals court in Colorado threw out a conviction based on a police search of a car found meth after a K9 alerted to drugs because the police couldn’t know of the dog alerted to legal marijuana or an illegal drug. Drug sniffing dogs are usually trained to alert to a half dozen drugs so now Colorado needs to retrain or retire dogs that trained to alert to marijuana.

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/ruling-complicates-use-of-pot-sniffing-dogs/

In a Moffat County case stemming from 2015, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause to search a vehicle based only on the alert of a drug dog that was trained to alert to marijuana as well as other drugs. Since marijuana is generally legal in Colorado and the dog could not signal whether it smelled marijuana or another substance, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause for the search.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The Popular Vote Compact is growing:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/07/609060190/connecticut-oks-bill-pledging-electoral-votes-to-national-popular-vote-winner

I’d be surprised if they ever get 270EC votes worth of states to sign on to that pact. Going by popular vote requires the Electora selected by the people in that state to put more value on the votes of people from other states.

Even with all the media hype about Trump losing the popular vote but still winning in 2016 more Electora tries to defect from voting for Hillary than Trump. So in the most recent election Democrat Electora selected by Democrats in states Hillary won tried to not vote for Hillary even after Democrats complained that the popular vote should be the determining factor. Why would this state law keep faithless Electora to be faithful when previous laws did not?
https://www.npr.org/2016/12/19/506188169/donald-trump-poised-to-secure-electoral-college-win-with-few-surprises

Prestor Jon wrote:

An appeals court in Colorado threw out a conviction based on a police search of a car found meth after a K9 alerted to drugs because the police couldn’t know of the dog alerted to legal marijuana or an illegal drug. Drug sniffing dogs are usually trained to alert to a half dozen drugs so now Colorado needs to retrain or retire dogs that trained to alert to marijuana.

https://www.aspentimes.com/news/ruling-complicates-use-of-pot-sniffing-dogs/

In a Moffat County case stemming from 2015, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause to search a vehicle based only on the alert of a drug dog that was trained to alert to marijuana as well as other drugs. Since marijuana is generally legal in Colorado and the dog could not signal whether it smelled marijuana or another substance, the appeals court ruled that police did not have probable cause for the search.

That's nuts. Surely 'my dog has smelled drugs in your car' should count as probable cause. If you then search and just find legal marijuana, you just say 'sorry for bothering you sir/madam, have a nice day'...

It makes sense though. If the police officer says the dog smells drugs and you show the marijuana, there is no longer a reason to search your car. You can remove probable cause entirely by doing so. If your a smart drug dealer just always carry it, as those types of dogs can no longer provide probable cause

A drug dog allerting to legal drugs, is not probable cause to search for illegal drugs. It’s the same as an officer conducting a search of your car claiming that the closed carton of cigarettes or sealed 6-pack of beer is probable cause. If a dog alerts and you find both legal and illegal drugs, any attorney will try to get the entire search thrown out in court by arguing that you don’t know if the dog only alerted to the legal drug.

So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.

Related to the broad topic at hand:

Explosive- and drug-sniffing dogs' performance is affected by their handlers' beliefs
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html

That makes a whole lot of sense when you think about how dogs pick up on non verbal cues.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.

The big thing I see is a dramatic undermining of US credibility abroad. Our diplomatic deals will not be seen with nearly the same legitimacy. It also pretty much kills Trump's chances of reaching diplomatic solutions to major issues during his Presidency. I'd bet this will affect the Korea talks.

Korea would be nuts to make a deal if Trump trashes the Iran deal. In fact, any of us would be well served to be highly sceptical of any deal put forward by the USA.

Ah, so this is still relevant then.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.

Too true.

More to the point however, aside from pandering to a base that wont leave him anyway, Im not sure what this is intended to accomplish.

There appears to be little evidence Iran is doing what Trump claims. In fact, we're hearing a lot about how Trump is likely to withdraw but almost nothing on actually why.

Scrapping the Iran deal would certainly not help the upcoming Korean issues (in fact, after Iraq, Libya and now seemingly Iran, if I were NK I'd be redoubling my nuke efforts at this point). Other partners that had to be carefully corralled into the Iran deal will now be exasperated and annoyed and will be unlikely to reimpose sanctions, which will both undercut future US deals and remove much if not most of the bite of reimposed IS sanctions.

So US diplomacy, credibility, and standing will suffer, for no discernible advantage other than..."stignnnit".

Thats apparently how you Make America Great Again.

:/