🔥 | Latest

Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives o...

Apparently, Brains, and Confidence: bidoof change.org Trending petition Matt-There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we think you might be interested in signing it. Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole Of Peoples' Guns So They Can't Shoot Them thetwinkerbell It's still gonna shoot... And they're gonna lose a finger ssj14goku No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this domozillla This is a gun we're talking about. The projectile is fired using an explosion, not by compressed air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling shot. People would be lucky if they only lost their finger. ssj14goku The finger blocks it dildomuncher3000 The finger won't block it the shaft is only there for keeping the bullet straight, all the propulsion happens behind the bullet. The bullet would rip through the finger, not that many would actually fit without the victim being a child, and beyond. ssj14goku The bullet would go forward a little and then hit the finger and stop it's not that hard to understand lgbltsandwitch People are going to lose their hands. Go watch Mythbusters. They did an episode on this, the hand fucking exploded. hungwy No, the bullet would start to go but stop at the finger. Thats basic physics. Also hands dont explode normally they did something wrong. blipblerp Why the dingleknockers would you even consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling the bullet at that close of range would shatter the finger at the very least; this is a petition for 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth it sure as hell will explode a finger. gorps No the finger would stop it jorycancrochet I'm loving the idiocy of this post. Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom... Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics >:V snakegay no the finger would stop it indianworiorprincess You guy who think the bullet would stop at the finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I'Il I'll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet Dumdasses egay sna the finger would stop it meatswitch raptorific Apparently for dudes who've got a compulsive need to be the smartest person in the room, "someone who's wrong in a really stupid way who has unshakable confidence that they're smarter than you" is their kryptonite. You can play dumb on almost any subject and their ego, their staunch belief that the masses are so far below them, will blind them to the fact that you're just fucking with them, and as long as you don't admit you're fucking with them or acknowledge that there's anything Off about what you're saying, they won't be able to stop themselves trying to get you to Respect Their Authority, and they won't be able to see that will literally never happen. lynati The finger is smooth in all directions. That's why it can stop the bullet.
Apparently, Brains, and Confidence: bidoof
 change.org
 Trending petition
 Matt-There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we
 think you might be interested in signing it.
 Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000
 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole
 Of Peoples' Guns So They Can't Shoot Them
 thetwinkerbell
 It's still gonna shoot... And they're gonna lose a
 finger
 ssj14goku
 No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this
 domozillla
 This is a gun we're talking about. The projectile
 is fired using an explosion, not by compressed
 air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling
 shot. People would be lucky if they only lost
 their finger.
 ssj14goku
 The finger blocks it
 dildomuncher3000
 The finger won't block it the shaft is only there
 for keeping the bullet straight, all the
 propulsion happens behind the bullet. The
 bullet would rip through the finger, not that
 many would actually fit without the victim
 being a child, and beyond.
 ssj14goku
 The bullet would go forward a little and then
 hit the finger and stop it's not that hard to
 understand
 lgbltsandwitch
 People are going to lose
 their hands. Go watch
 Mythbusters. They did
 an episode on this, the
 hand fucking exploded.
 hungwy
 No, the bullet would
 start to go but stop at
 the finger. Thats basic
 physics. Also hands dont
 explode normally they
 did something wrong.
 blipblerp
 Why the dingleknockers would you even
 consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a
 loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling
 the bullet at that close of range would shatter
 the finger at the very least; this is a petition for
 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their
 hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a
 persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth
 it sure as hell will explode a finger.
 gorps
 No the finger would stop it
 jorycancrochet
 I'm loving the idiocy of this post.
 Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom...
 Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics >:V
 snakegay
 no the finger would stop it
 indianworiorprincess
 You guy who think the bullet would stop at the
 finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer
 to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I'Il
 I'll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet
 Dumdasses
 egay
 sna
 the finger would stop it
 meatswitch
 raptorific
 Apparently for dudes who've got a compulsive need
 to be the smartest person in the room, "someone
 who's wrong in a really stupid way who has
 unshakable confidence that they're smarter than
 you" is their kryptonite. You can play dumb on
 almost any subject and their ego, their staunch
 belief that the masses are so far below them, will
 blind them to the fact that you're just fucking with
 them, and as long as you don't admit you're fucking
 with them or acknowledge that there's anything
 Off about what you're saying, they won't be able to
 stop themselves trying to get you to Respect Their
 Authority, and they won't be able to see that will
 literally never happen.
 lynati
 The finger is smooth in all directions. That's
 why it can stop the bullet.

Brains, Fucking, and Guns: change.org Trending petition Matt There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we think you might be interested in signing it. meatswitch: snakegay: indianworiorprincess: snakegay: jorycancrochet: gorps: blipblerp: hungwy: lgbltsandwitch: ssj14goku: dildomuncher3000: ssj14goku: domozillla: ssj14goku: thetwinkerbell: ssj14goku: Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole Of Peoples’ Guns So They Can’t Shoot Them It’s still gonna shoot… And they’re gonna lose a finger No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this This is a gun we’re talking about. The projectile is fired using an explosion, not by compressed air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling shot. People would be lucky if they only lost their finger. The finger blocks it The finger won’t block it - the shaft is only there for keeping the bullet straight, all the propulsion happens behind the bullet. The bullet would rip through the finger, not that many would actually fit without the victim being a child, and beyond. The bullet would go forward a little and then hit the finger and stop it’s not that hard to understand People are going to lose their hands. Go watch Mythbusters. They did an episode on this, the hand fucking exploded. No, the bullet would start to go but stop at the finger. Thats basic physics. Also hands dont explode normally they did something wrong. Why the dingleknockers would you even consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling the bullet at that close of range would shatter the finger at the very least; this is a petition for 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth it sure as hell will explode a finger. No the finger would stop it I’m loving the idiocy of this post. Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom… Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics :V no the finger would stop it You guy who think the bullet would stop at the finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I’ll I’ll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet. Dumdasses the finger would stop it
Brains, Fucking, and Guns: change.org Trending petition
 Matt There's a new petition taking off on Change.org, and we
 think you might be interested in signing it.
meatswitch:
snakegay:


indianworiorprincess:

snakegay:


jorycancrochet:

gorps:

blipblerp:


hungwy:

lgbltsandwitch:


ssj14goku:

dildomuncher3000:

ssj14goku:

domozillla:

ssj14goku:

thetwinkerbell:

ssj14goku:

Change.org - Petition To Hire 1,000,000 People To Put Their Fingers In The Shoot Hole Of Peoples’ Guns So They Can’t Shoot Them

It’s still gonna shoot… And they’re gonna lose a finger

No. The finger blocks the bullet. We can do this

This is a gun we’re talking about. The projectile is fired using an explosion, not by compressed air of a toy gun or the elastic forces of a sling shot. People would be lucky if they only lost their finger.

The finger blocks it

The finger won’t block it - the shaft is only there for keeping the bullet straight, all the propulsion happens behind the bullet. The bullet would rip through the finger, not that many would actually fit without the victim being a child, and beyond.

The bullet would go forward a little and then hit the finger and stop it’s not that hard to understand


People are going to lose their hands. Go watch Mythbusters. They did an episode on this, the hand fucking exploded.



No, the bullet would start to go but stop at the finger. Thats basic physics. Also hands dont explode normally they did something wrong.


Why the dingleknockers would you even consider sticking your finger in the barrel of a loaded gun?? the amount of force propelling the bullet at that close of range would shatter the finger at the very least; this is a petition for 1,000,000 people to loose the use of their hands. If a bullet explodes the back of a persons skull when they shoot it in their mouth it sure as hell will explode a finger.


No the finger would stop it


I’m loving the idiocy of this post.
Ppl with brains: ummm finger go boom…
Others: no bullet stop. U no kno fisics :V

no the finger would stop it


You guy who think the bullet would stop at the finger have never shot a gun and can volunteer  to it their fingers in the barrel of my 9 mil and I’ll I’ll the trigger and see if it will stop the bullet.  Dumdasses

the finger would stop it

meatswitch: snakegay: indianworiorprincess: snakegay: jorycancrochet: gorps: blipblerp: hungwy: lgbltsandwitch: ssj14goku: dild...

Facts, News, and Pregnant: Robin Marty @robinmarty Reminder - ABORTION IS STILL LEGAL IN ALABAMA. No one has signed the bill yet. It absolutely will NOT be allowed to go into effect unless #SCOTUS overturns Roe. In real world implications, this is no different than a trigger law. You can still get an abortion legally in Alabama 4:23 AM - 15 May 2019 127 Retweets 220 Likes L 127 2 220 Robin Marty @robinmarty DO tell everyone, all the time, that abortion is legal in every state. DONT allow media outlets to misconstrue what is happening even once signed into law, this simply can't go into effect until we hit the end of Roe. And we aren't quite there yet. 4:39 AM 15 May 2019 16 Retweets 28 Likes ti 16 28 1 Robin Marty @robinmarty Finally, the most important thing you can do is spread good information. Abortion is legal. One in four people who can get pregnant will have one. Everyone knows someone, even if they aren't talking about it. It's not dangerous. It's not evil. It's not the government's business 4:43 AM 15 May 2019 31 Retweets 49 Likes ti 31 49 1 mediamattersforamerica: Alabama’s new anti-abortion legislation is a real threat to Roe v. Wade, and the media has a responsibility to cover it accurately and fairly.This means reporting the facts and making clear that abortion is normal, common, and still legal in all 50 states.Media should refrain from reporting on the spectacle and sensationalizing the news. It’s irresponsible and dangerous and prevents folks from seeking the abortion care they need and deserve.
Facts, News, and Pregnant: Robin Marty
 @robinmarty
 Reminder - ABORTION IS STILL LEGAL
 IN ALABAMA. No one has signed the bill
 yet. It absolutely will NOT be allowed to
 go into effect unless #SCOTUS
 overturns Roe. In real world
 implications, this is no different than a
 trigger law. You can still get an abortion
 legally in Alabama
 4:23 AM - 15 May 2019
 127 Retweets 220 Likes
 L 127
 2
 220

 Robin Marty
 @robinmarty
 DO tell everyone, all the time, that
 abortion is legal in every state. DONT
 allow media outlets to misconstrue what
 is happening even once signed into
 law, this simply can't go into effect until
 we hit the end of Roe. And we aren't
 quite there yet.
 4:39 AM 15 May 2019
 16 Retweets 28 Likes
 ti 16
 28
 1

 Robin Marty
 @robinmarty
 Finally, the most important thing you can
 do is spread good information. Abortion
 is legal. One in four people who can get
 pregnant will have one. Everyone knows
 someone, even if they aren't talking
 about it. It's not dangerous. It's not evil.
 It's not the government's business
 4:43 AM 15 May 2019
 31 Retweets 49 Likes
 ti 31
 49
 1
mediamattersforamerica:

Alabama’s new anti-abortion legislation is a real threat to Roe v. Wade, and the media has a responsibility to cover it accurately and fairly.This means reporting the facts and making clear that abortion is normal, common, and still legal in all 50 states.Media should refrain from reporting on the spectacle and sensationalizing the news. It’s irresponsible and dangerous and prevents folks from seeking the abortion care they need and deserve.

mediamattersforamerica: Alabama’s new anti-abortion legislation is a real threat to Roe v. Wade, and the media has a responsibility to cove...