The officers also tried to warn residents that a police dog named Loki was present, but their attempts to do so in Spanish were nonsensical, according to court records.

“Pedo policía pedo la madera,” officers repeatedly said, which a translator later found meant, “Fart police, fart the wood.”

Eventually, the officers entered the home and arrested the man they were looking for. After that man’s arrest, the officers entered the bedroom where Guerrero-Salmeron was and commanded the police dog to bite the man. The dog bit Guerrero-Salmeron, who was unarmed, on the arm for about 15 seconds as he held up his tourist visa and ID.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago (8 children)

No fucking way, stop making shit up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (7 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (6 children)

    "less than courts assume" is a COMPLETELY different thing. Ffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (5 children)

    Did you read the stats in the article?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 23 hours ago (4 children)

    Can you please spend a few minutes to think things through before you reply?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 19 hours ago (3 children)

    Could you scroll to paragraph 6 in the linked article before you reply?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (2 children)

    How is it comparable to a coin flip?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (1 child)

    a 2011 Chicago Tribune investigation found only 44 per cent of alerts led to the discovery of drugs or drug paraphernalia.

    44 is less than 50.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Man this has to be an absolute joke. I already said:

    Can you please spend a few minutes to think things through before you reply?

    You ignored that, obviously. This is basic statistics. Finding 5 in 1000 while also false detecting 6 others is NOT less than 50 % accurate just because 6>5. it is 99 % accurate. Not to mention that they might still indicate correctly, just that the person does not have a relevant amount on them right now e.g. already used it.

  • source
  • parent