My brother in law enforcement trained his canine to do all sorts of things. One was to sniff out robbers, attack if the person had a weapon, stop a person on command.
So odd this dog was not let loose when he saw the man running with a gun.
What’s to discuss? Either it did or it didn’t. The best way to answer your question would be to search open source. Watch the video to determine which department was in charge of the K-9 unit and search for information from that department that would answer your question.
The question wasn't in ignorance and looking for solution. The question was to get people to realize a point. Lack of its presence on the public site does not prove it is lacking. Lacking a bodycam would make it's own point of slack security.
K, but if you did the research and found out the k9 group for that department uses body cams on their k9s, why not include that information within the “discussion” part of your original remark?
Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect.
One doesn't HAVE to have devil's details to get to the endpoint, it just confirms.
Either way presents an issue. Are we disagreeing on something? Am I obliged to find the details that don't exist yet? My 'asking' instead of 'telling' creates interest and motivation rather than opposition. Still happens tho, even with good questions.
You made an assumption- you haven’t bothered to check- that’s my endpoint. If the department doesn’t use body cams on k9s then your assumption has made an ass out of you. The department might have made the ruling that body cams on k9s are 1) unnecessary because they are with their handler at all times or 2) unreliable because of impediments caused by dog’s body or 3) causes an unnecessary risk to k9, ie may be makes it easier for the dog to be grabbed onto.
Do your research first then post your “discussion”.
No. A QUESTION does NOT make an ASSumption. You ASSume I didn't know what I was doing. Now go prove me 'wrong'.....no wait, I didn't make a statement to prove or disprove, I caused discussion and show the glow of master baiters.
What about the QUESTION do you disagree with again?
Good question isn't it?
It would be a smart move maybe to choose a canine cop as insider? Most wouldn't suspect.. Most every attempt seems to include an insider in security, huh.
Just a thought. A bodycam video from the canine cop would reveal some things.
My brother in law enforcement trained his canine to do all sorts of things. One was to sniff out robbers, attack if the person had a weapon, stop a person on command.
So odd this dog was not let loose when he saw the man running with a gun.
I made the same observation, good catch and thank you.
What’s to discuss? Either it did or it didn’t. The best way to answer your question would be to search open source. Watch the video to determine which department was in charge of the K-9 unit and search for information from that department that would answer your question.
Exactly. Thanks for discussing.
....and my guess is you won't be viewing that video, at least anytime soon.
It wasn’t a discussion. I told you how to get an answer to your question.
The question wasn't in ignorance and looking for solution. The question was to get people to realize a point. Lack of its presence on the public site does not prove it is lacking. Lacking a bodycam would make it's own point of slack security.
K, but if you did the research and found out the k9 group for that department uses body cams on their k9s, why not include that information within the “discussion” part of your original remark?
Because I didn't do that. I assumed that he would have a bodycam and extrapolated with the caveat that if he wasn't wearing one, that too, would be suspect. One doesn't HAVE to have devil's details to get to the endpoint, it just confirms. Either way presents an issue. Are we disagreeing on something? Am I obliged to find the details that don't exist yet? My 'asking' instead of 'telling' creates interest and motivation rather than opposition. Still happens tho, even with good questions.
You made an assumption- you haven’t bothered to check- that’s my endpoint. If the department doesn’t use body cams on k9s then your assumption has made an ass out of you. The department might have made the ruling that body cams on k9s are 1) unnecessary because they are with their handler at all times or 2) unreliable because of impediments caused by dog’s body or 3) causes an unnecessary risk to k9, ie may be makes it easier for the dog to be grabbed onto.
Do your research first then post your “discussion”.
No. A QUESTION does NOT make an ASSumption. You ASSume I didn't know what I was doing. Now go prove me 'wrong'.....no wait, I didn't make a statement to prove or disprove, I caused discussion and show the glow of master baiters.
What about the QUESTION do you disagree with again?
And what was the canine trained to sniff out? firearms? ammo?
What was the canine team there FOR?
Good question isn't it? It would be a smart move maybe to choose a canine cop as insider? Most wouldn't suspect.. Most every attempt seems to include an insider in security, huh. Just a thought. A bodycam video from the canine cop would reveal some things.