Transcription
A 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.”
Ohh but when I confuse drugs for pizza get a lifetime ban from pizza Hut
the police state can be made so cute 🥺🥺🥺
This whole thing about “drug dogs” is junk science in service of security theater. Laughably phony.
The sad part is the animal abuse - both dogs and humans.
yep they’re usually going by the owner’s hints which means it’s technically 4A violation. they’re just an excuse to circumvent probable cause by creating it ad hoc.
Traffic stop K-9 units are terrible by every metric. Passive sniffers at an airport or similar aren’t the same. (Though drugs are the least useful thing they can watch for)
I’m not sure how this is 🥺🥺🥺, the trainer is literally reinforcing negative behaviour
False hits are considered positive behaviour. Drug dogs are just for show to violate citizens rights. A loophole.
Drug dogs are probably less accurate than the pseudo science “lie detector” test.
Police dogs are even worse. Their entire purpose is to find and severely injure a suspect and turn them into a felon. Here’s how it works. Cops release dog on suspect. Dog finds suspect and begins to severely attack suspect. Suspect tries to fight the dog ripping a hole in its arm or leg. Suspect is now guilty of assaulting an officer. At this point is doesn’t matter if the suspect was guilty of anything else. They are now a felon.
Well the whole thing is a charade to enable arbitrary searchers…
It’s 🥺🥺🥺 because it’s a fake story made by a child.
He is a drug AND pizza dog. His trainer probably gets an awful lot of free pizza.
Sausage is a common first step in training dogs from what ive read. Train the pup on find the chunks of sausage the handler has hidden and he gets them, then switch to treats, then swap out the sausage for drugs/ bombs.
I wonder if the dog signals whenever he smells pizza with sausage on it, remembering the first stage of the training.
“negative”
Hard disagree
Given that it’s a drug dog, getting people pulled over and potentially locked up for no reason is indeed a negative. More so if this was in the US
Well for one, I was joking… But that’s not really how drug dogs work. You wouldn’t be locked up for a false positive unless the cops literally plant something on you, and at that point I’m not sure if it even matters if a dog was involved or not.
Saying “the dog barked at him” isn’t evidence, they’d still need to produce the actual drugs.
Fair, that’s not likely to happen in most countries. Getting a deep search because a doggo took a liking to your lunch is still going to be annoying as hell though.
And then I started vomiting it was so cute. The dog collapsed from joy and also started vomiting, as did the trainer. Soon the whole terminal was vomiting and crying tears of happiness. And then we all fucked as doves flew overhead shitting out rainbows and butterflies.
And then the alien space bats arrived.
And then we all fucked
Wait… were the dogs involved? There could be legal complications.
Laughing at the idea of you walking in on a terminal-wide orgy, seeing dogs, and thinking “Hmm, not sure this is legal with them here.”
Making dogs be cops is so absolutely fucked. I get that there are working breeds but last time I checked there weren’t any breeds predisposed to fascism
Edit: other than Dobermans obviously
Let’s just not forget that those dogs are also trained to smell exposives which can be a cool thing not to have aboard an airplane.
Then those dogs, in airport and in police settings, are correctly cared for. And even if acab, these dogs aren’t tools of fascism.
I love dogs, but everything the police use to do their jobs are tools of fascism. Airport security has never actually caught a bomb or a terrorist, it’s literally just theatre.
Well, let’s back up a little.
There are very real threats to our security and safety in flying, and there is a good argument that security helps discourage all but the most dedicated attempts to enact terrorism or hijacking.
But what gets left out of this argument is why the USA is the target of terrorist attacks and requires so much more security than many other developed nations.
Airport security has never actually caught a bomb or a terrorist
Citation needed.
Alternatively I’d accept “rarely” instead of “never”.
Citation needed.
Apparently it “happened” once in 1972 with an obvious briefcase on a plane with a bomb threat.
I’ll accept any other tale. Even just one.
2006 transatlantic aircraft plot - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot
2017 Australian aeroplane bomb plot - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Australian_aeroplane_bomb_plot
Man who planned to shoot up Atlanta’s airport is arrested in a terminal following a tip, police say | abc7.com https://abc7.com/post/man-planned-shoot-atlantas-airport-is-arrested-terminal-following-tip-police-say/18046411/
The justification is that they’re supposed to smell explosives (and they fail at that with an incredible rate anyways), but they’re used to harass non-white people. Security theater doesn’t actually help with security.
Drug and bomb sniffing dogs are separate though. A dog can’t be both.
I didn’t know, thanks for the information.
Let’s just not forget that this stuff is pseudo-scientific security theater.
Probable cause generator, maybe. Pseudoscience, no — dogs can be trained to have low false positive rates. It just so happens they’re trained to generate probable cause, more than they are detecting drugs/bombs.
Cadaver dogs are pretty cool too… But those don’t need to be cops.
Well-trained dogs can provide useful services to a community in thwarting or arresting violent criminals, sniffing out dangerous substances or finding people. They can be a valuable part of both security and rescue forces.
But they’re only as good as their handlers and trainers. When the security force themselves are violent criminals, armed to the teeth with dangerous substances and making people disappear…
This is one of the big issues with ‘drug dogs’; they’re conditioned to give false positives for rewards.
Those same false positives the serve as grounds for an otherwise illegal search and regardless of findings are often later presented as evidence in any resulting charges as a statement of fact that the ‘dog alerted’ on the victim to bypass an individuals 4th amendment rights.
They should be required to keep a comprehensive database about any dog whose alert could be used as probable cause. Every time they alert, and whether it was successful or unsuccessful. Every time they are rewarded by their trainer. Every time they are tested and retrained.
Once the data is available, it will be extremely useful even if the police fake the data, because it will most likely be possible to tell that it’s fake.
There have been studies, dogs suck at actually finding things and are just useful for cops to create “probable cause” to do what they want.
Technically they do keep log books but if a dog doesn’t find something they just log it as trace evidence. “Some shake” " a mysterious powder" “hard crystalline substance” “there must have been people in there recently” things that would be hard to prove or disprove but maybe the hit average raise all the same.
I don’t disagree with everything you say but this post is totally fake. Trained dogs would definitely not alert for pizza, why the fuck would pizza be inside luggage, and they absolutely don’t reward these dogs for mistakes. Ffs, please use some critical sense?
You
they absolutely don’t reward these dogs for mistakes
The post
the handler just patted his head and goes “it’s okay buddy i know pizza always confuses you” and gave him his treat anyways.”
It’s there literally in the article that the handler rewarded the dog for a mistake. Whilst I doubt that in this case it was the handler’s intention to incentivise the dog to make that mistake more, in practice by giving the dog a treat for making that mistake they were doing positive reinforcement of that behaviour.
What article? You mean the Internet meme? Memes are passing as articles nowadays?
Does me using the wrong word (“article” instead of “tweet”) alter the point that the previous poster’s absolute statement “they absolutely don’t reward these dogs for mistakes” is just an opionated statement with no backing meant only to contradict the event related in that tweet?
In the face of two statements unsupported by evidence (the tweet and that post I replied to), what’s more believable:
- That somebody saw a working dog handler rewarding a dog for doing something funny even though that’s not really what the dog was supposed to do?
- That working dog handlers absolutely don’t (i.e. none, ever) reward dogs for mistakes?
It does, because a random person being humorous on twitter carries no presumption of truth. An “article” kinda implies that, unless it’s satire.
Naturally being an “article” carries some implied authoritativeness compared to “random social media post”.
However my point is about the believability of the content itself on two “random social media posts” (the tweet and the one I replied to), which carry the same level of authoritativeness (“random person on the internet says”)
As I wrote somewhere else, statements about things always or never happening, unless backed by evidence are generally false, if only because statistically there are very few things which are absolutelly so all the time and everywhere and this one is about a kind of human interaction, which is far from the kind of thing likely to be absolute.
So based on the content and assuming nothing about truthfulness of falsehood of the sources, I personally find a story about a working dog handler rewarding a dog for doing something silly but endearing is more likely to be true than a statement from somebody saying that they never do such a thing, if only because it’s unlikely that it never ever happens and if it does happen somebody might spot in and because it makes for a nice store, share the story.
Mind you, by the same rule I also think that the statement from the poster before the one I replied to about “them training the dogs to bark on command to get probable cause” is not believable on itself and without further evidence and does not logically follow from somebody noticing once a dog handler rewarding a working dog for doing somebody which is a work mistake but also is silly and enderaring
(Had I been in the same position as that handler, even knowing I would be reinforcing a mistake, I would be sorely tempted to reward the dog for the silly “detect pizza” behaviour if only because it’s funny and lovable).
I just think the poster I was replying to criticized the previous post in just as much an “opinion about everything everywhere unbacked by evident and stated as fact” way as the post they were criticizing.
It’s not an article it’s a random tweet that may or may not have been true.
In my experience descriptions of events (like the one in the article) are less likely to be false than absolute certainty general statements about things always/never happening (such as “they absolutely don’t reward these dogs for mistakes”).
This is mainly because the absolute certainty general statements are pure opinion worded as fact (i.e. with no actual study or similar to back that assertion that something always or never happens) hence usually bollocks, whilst somebody describing an event would have to willingly, explicitly and activelly be lying for it to be false.
So purelly from the way you worded things, that random tweet is already way more believable than your post.
Then beyond that, what’s described in that post is the handler being nice to the dog for their quirky behaviour, which doesn’t at sound far fetched - I’ve often seen people unthinkingly reinforcing a dog’s negative behaviour because “it’s cute” - people like dogs and often end up doing dumb things with them because they like them, which is how you end up with dogs which are too fat (which is bad for the dog) because that dog is smart and good at begging for food.
I’m not even saying that the poster you replied to claiming that handlers were purposefully mistraning the dogs was right (frankly I have no idea as, like you, they just voice opinion as fact), I’m saying that the way you tried to counter argument that post is even more bullshit than that post and now you just doubled down of scoring own goals by claiming the tweet itself is possibly a lie.
I am not the same person that you replied to.
Fair enough.
Is the post of that other person I commented on any more supported by evidence than the tweet?
If not, wouldn’t the analysis I wrote in response to your post (mistakenly thinking it was the original post) not work as an evaluation of which one is more likely to be true?
they absolutely don’t reward these dogs for mistakes
What makes you say that? There is pretty strong evidence that they do.
What evidence? Dogs with jobs get pretty strict training.
The conditioning doesnt work well with a delayed reward. They dont wait until after the search and the dog is proven correct to give the reward when in the field, (unlike in the training where the handlers know which items are correct ahead of time and can only reward correct responses )
Your also making a huge assumption that the officer handling the dog is actually good at his job.
Or cares about the people they are harassing
Why is it always the overconfident idiots who can’t stay civil?
Why wouldn’t pizza be in luggage? Taking a leftover slice in a plastic bag on my carry-on to wait for my flight sounds like a fantastic idea and is way cheaper than buying food there. People pack all kinds of snacks and meals for the airport.
A dog alerting for food is also not that shocking at all, especially if the officer rewards them anyway. Sure a freshly trained dog might not do it, but if their handler still rewards them for alerting on foods then they will forget their training pretty quick.
And well an officer doing the wrong thing and disregarding their training is not hard to believe at all.
Everything in this story is definently plausible
Why did you leap to the assumption that the pizza was in luggage? I dogs all the time in transit hubs out in the passenger areas, so they can pick up on people with contraband on their person. If they were searching checked in luggage, our narrator would presumably not be present and there would be no story.
The story is way more plausible that someone just walked by the dog and handler, the dog signaled, and the handler saw the slice of pizza in the guys hand and knew that his dog tended to do that.
This dog 100% has his handler trained
Even better: the pizza dude and the handler are both on the take, and its how they get the drugs through security.
get the drugs through securityconfiscate “suspicious” pizza slices for “internal examination”
My son got stopped at an immigration checkpoint. He was freaking out because he had a weed vape in his pocket. After a car search they realized that the k9 alerted on his dog who was in heat.
FYI, if you are in the US, “legal weed” is a misnomer, it’s still a controlled substance on the federal level and technically illegal to possess. If you aren’t a Citizen, please don’t let the authorities find out about any weed you use, they’ll literally try to deport you for a victimless “crime”. If you are naturalized, do not admit to have used weed before your oath ceremony. I disagree with the law as it is, but just letting y’all know.
Lucky
more like stupid. do not carry illegal weed vapes through the immigration checkpoint and you don’t want to freak out. it is what i would do if i really wanted to immigrate somewhere.
Immigration checkpoints in Southern California aren’t just for immigrants. They stop everyone to scan for immigrants, and you have to pass through them when you go to certain places. Weed vapes are legal under state law in California, but illegal under Federal law.
ok, interesting trivia i wasn’t aware of, but it really doesn’t change much, the core of the problem still is:
- if it is legal, you don’t have to freak out.
- if you are freaking out, do not carry illegal contraband through checkpoint. it is really simple.
- (if freaking out is your kink, then by all means, do continue)
Texas. Driving north from padre there’s a stop. They normally just wave you through. A friend came through it last year with 14 guns in the car. She told them and they waved her through- didn’t even open the trunk. Vapes, edibles, and weed are legally shipped to most states but that doesn’t mean police won’t fuck with you over it. They asked if he had any drugs, guns, explosives, or people in the car that they couldn’t see. He said he had a cbd vape. They didn’t care - just started searching the car where their dog alerted.
well if it is known point, that is even more reason not to tempt a fate. i am sorry you are in a situation your country is right now and i swear i am not trying to be an asshole, but it really is a no-brainer for me.
Not all of them are in fixed locations. Some of them are pop-ups, like a DUI checkpoint.
FWIW (and tangentially related), anyone traveling with weed is best served by keeping it in the trunk, rather than in the passenger compartment. Police have more freedom to go through the passenger compartment under the guise of concern over weapons that might be used against them, as opposed in the trunk, which can be viewed as a separate container and is less likely to be searched.
Ah, another ulterior motive for the rise of SUVs and crossovers.
I love how I live under such a fascist dictatorship that someone not from here can’t even begin to comprehend what life is like here…like it’s just baffling to normal people that our lived experience is even possible to exist haha.
…please send international aid.
Meh. Fuck the state.
if you’re gonna do it, at least do it semi-smart
bury it in a trash bag in your trunk or something and claim it’s from cleaning up road side debris
yeah. but we are talking about real world here, not your teenage anarchist wet dream. and in the real world, unfortunately, it is always the state which ends up fucking you, it is never the other way around. see, the person in the story, no matter whether real or imaginary, wanted to emigrate from somewhere and the reason was probably… guess what - the state.
The checkpoint is in Texas about an hour north of Padre. Just driving home from the beach.
little did the handler know, the pizza was filled with drugs
The dog just figured out how addictive pizza can be and assumes it is a drug.
But also… What if they hid drugs in the pizza crust? 🤔
I’m guessing this pupper has encountered a few shroom pizzas in its travels.
Pizza is just that good.
This feels made up but it made me smile regardless
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.
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…
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.
jesus, crawl back to your conspiracy hole.
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/
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.
Where’s your study, clown? It’s hilarious to see people demanding citations when they’ve got absolutely nothing.
- https://www.unsw.edu.au/research/ndarc/news-events/blogs/2023/11/drug-detection-dogs---an-ineffective-and-inequitable-policing-st
- https://theconversation.com/drug-detection-dogs-often-get-it-wrong-and-its-a-policing-practice-that-needs-to-stop-215436
- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/19/ineffective-drug-dogs-could-cost-hundreds-of-thousands-a-year-greens-say
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.
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? 😂
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?
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.probably
But not impossibly.
deleted by creator
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.
👍
I get it. Pizza is like crack to me, too
@ickplant ❤️
