TranscriptionA Twitter post by Kylie Cunningham @kyyylieeeee that reads “today at the airport one of the drug dogs set off a false alarm and officers rushed over to find out the dog had alerted them for a piece of pizza. the handler just patted his head and goes "it's okay buddy i know pizza always confuses you" and gave him his treat anyways.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 1 year ago (20 children)

This feels made up but it made me smile regardless

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    100%. no professional trainer rewards unwanted behaviour, that's why they are professional trainers.

    dumb people on twitter, who think unwanted behaviour is cute, on the other hand...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    no professional trainer

    We’re talking about cops, not professionals. The dog’s job is to watch the cop handler and bark when they indicate, but not be too obvious about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    jesus, crawl back to your conspiracy hole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

    It’s established scientific fact at this point. Police dogs have a 5-10% false positive rate in laboratory conditions which means it’s surely even higher in the field. Thats a completely unacceptable failure rate for justifying the theft “civil asset forfeiture” of brown people’s possessions. Please educate yourself on the matter instead of being a mindless bootlicker.

    Edit: here is just the first link (probably not the best) for the search “drug dog efficacy study” to prove my point. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24631776/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Please educate yourself on the matter instead of being a mindless bootlicker.

    this is also established scientific fact? can i get some peer reviewed study, you clown?

    We’re talking about cops, not professionals. The dog’s job is to watch the cop handler and bark when they indicate, but not be too obvious about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I…gave you a peer reviewed study? So have a few others. You’ve got some reading to do today, but I doubt you will.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I…gave you a peer reviewed study?

    you... you did not. i am talking about the statement i replied to.

    HERE IT IS:

    We’re talking about cops, not professionals. The dog’s job is to watch the cop handler and bark when they indicate, but not be too obvious about it.

    why are you trying to steer the discussion away from it? and - bonus question - do you think it will work? 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Did you read everything humanspiral sent you? They’re nice easily digestible articles since you seem to be intimidated by whitepapers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    so you have no answer to this:

    We’re talking about cops, not professionals. The dog’s job is to watch the cop handler and bark when they indicate, but not be too obvious about it.

    well, maybe don't say stupid shit next time. for now you can fly away and tell the other pigeons you won.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Did you read any of the linked studies?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Did you read any of the linked studies?

    did you answer this?

    We’re talking about cops, not professionals. The dog’s job is to watch the cop handler and bark when they indicate, but not be too obvious about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I guess I reeeeeeally have to hold your hand since you’re too busy master debating to scroll a few inches up and down on this same page. Why should I send you even more studies that you won’t read? You haven’t even read the ones you’ve already been spoon-fed. Yes, these links address my exact statement. You would know that if you read any of them.

    https://lemmy.world/comment/20293009

    https://lemmy.world/comment/20293055

    https://lemmy.world/comment/20293204

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Yes, these links address my exact statement. You would know that if you read any of them.

    no these links to news articles, which i have not seen because their poster is on my ignore list, do not address your exact statement. also, news article is not a scientific study.

    the only actual study you sent does not, again, address your claim at all.

    have YOU bothered to read it? they all deal with the accuracy of the dogs, none of them suggests stupid take like "the dog is just waiting for its handler to tell him to bark".

    we are talking about dogs working at the airport, i am pretty sure that law enforcement at the airport can check basically anyone when they decide to, and they don't need some elaborate fraud to do that, so your whole conspiracy does not make sense at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's a big world out there, mate, with a loooooot of people in it. Do you never, ever, ever do a thing that you're not supposed to do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Do you never, ever, ever do a thing that you’re not supposed to do?

    people do stuff they are not supposed to do when they think there are not really consequences (say using recreational drugs), and people make mistakes. this is neither of these cases, this is intentionally doing something you know will have negative consequences and no positive one. and that is not what a professional does.

    i am not a professional trainer, and i still do not intentionally reward dog for bad behaviour. that is fucked up thing to do, it is not cute, and you are shooting both yourself and your dog into your own leg.

    same as professional drivers do not intentionally run red light and professional pilots do not continue landing when tower shouts at them "RUNWAY INCURSION, LANDING CLEARANCE CANCELED, GO AROUND!"


    ok, this belonged to completely different discussion

    i sometimes do things i am not supposed to do. but there are better and worse times for that. and the moment when doing bad thing may have disastrous consequences on your life (life fucking up your immigration process, which probably took some time and money to set up) is probably not the one to chose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    while my answer above was for the wrong discussion, this is still objectively stupid answer. the fact you were unbothered by me suddenly talking about immigration process and you still picked up random word to negate it pretending that is discussion is like the most hilarious discussion fail i have ever seen on the internet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    As far as I know, they don't even bring drug dogs into US airports. They are almost exclusively explosive-sniffing dogs. The TSA doesn't look for drugs in the first place.

    Perhaps it's possible US customs could be using drug dogs, but I have never heard of that regarding airports. I could be wrong though.

  • source
  • parent