Comments by "gary K" (@garyK.45ACP) on "Hampton Law" channel.

The dog is neither an accuser nor a witness. The officer handling the dog is the witness.
5
@breadfan1071 Please explain WHY not.
3
@trendkilla254 Channel lock pliers are tools. So is a hammer. Calibrate a hammer? A pliers? A ladder? 🤣
2
@trendkilla254 Then 60% of the time you won't get arrested. Why are you arguing with me? You think if you change my mind, police will stop using dogs?🤣
2
@tritchie6272 People who want to wait until ALL handlers and trainers ALWAYS do things correctly are making excuses. They oppose the use of dogs under any circumstances, but are not honest enough to say so. So they invent standards that can never be achieved in an attempt to sound "reasonable". It sounds absurd!!!!!! The fact is these people support drug dealers poisoning our population. They just don't have the courage to say it. We have an imperfect system and ALWAYS WILL. That's why we have presumptions of innocence, high standards for conviction, juries required to be unanimous, free legal representation and other safeguards. But that isn't enough for people who want no police, no limits, no restrictions.
1
@michaelanthony1797 How do lab results and photos take oaths? How can fingerprints and ballistic tests take oaths? They don't. A person takes an oath and certifies, based on the qualifications they have, which are presented to the jury, what the dog, lab results or photos indicate. That person is then subject to cross examination and can be disputed by the defendant's expert witnesses. THEN a jury decides if the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption that only humans who take oaths in court can be evidence is ABSURD!!!!!!!! Borderline moronic. I would laugh, but I think you're serious.
1
@walkingdeadman4208 If the dogs aren't "accurate", how does that "trample your rights" if you don't have drugs?
1
@benjaminharting8622 You should be on the Supreme Court. You aren't. Dogs ARE used as witnesses, through the testimony of expert handlers. Your objections to it are irrelevant. Maybe your defense attorney at your trial for drug possession/distribution will have luck with that argument. 🤣
1
@Bladerunner007 No. If nothing is found, there won't be any "testimony". Testimony for what? Nothing found, no charges, no testimony. 🤪 Did you think through your question?
1
@lynnmac6494 Original comment I was replying to: "I think we shouldn't use dogs as police until they can testify in court. We have the right to face our accuser and all witnesses." Cite the court case that states the dogs must testify in court under the 4trh amendment. I'll wait.
1
@gaoxiaen1 They aren't. Now what?
1
@gaoxiaen1 If a person hides the drugs they are transporting so well that the police don't find them after ripping their car apart...mission accomplished, right? The person doesn't get arrested, doesn't go to prison, their drugs get delivered and they get paid. Every business has risks and costs. If a person is unable to accept the risks and costs of their business, they should get a different job. Our nation's courts have held that a trained drug sniffing dog IS probable cause for a search of a vehicle. Your argument is not with me. I am simply stating facts.
1
@gaoxiaen1 So are you saying it is NOT a fact that trained drug dogs are accepted as probable cause for a search?
1
@gaoxiaen1 After a 36 year career in law enforcement, I worked on the staff of a US Senator for 7 years as a law enforcement liaison. I worked with citizens who were interested in changing the law, on crafting new legislation. Have you considered contacting your state and federal legislators? You have no argument with me. You disagree with me. That does not make me wrong.
1
@gaoxiaen1 As I suggested. Contact your state and federal elected officials about changing the law. Debating in the comments section of YouTube does nothing. Current legal precedents, based on current laws, allow the use of trained dogs to be used as probable cause for a search. That's a fact. Not my opinion. As you may be aware, drug traffickers are very clever and resourceful when it comes to hiding drugs in a vehicle, and this requires a thorough search. You think the dogs should have to prove they don't react to a steak...or whatever other suggestions you may have. Work with your elected representatives to change the law. Have a nice day.
1
@jays106 Retired. 36 years, Chicago PD. 17 years as a patrol officer and 19 years plainclothes, investigations. So, yes, I speak from knowledge and experience. I actually know what I am talking about. I never worked in the K-9 unit, but a very good friend of mine did. And, of course, they helped with many investigations when I was in the narcotics division. I have testified in hundreds of cases where dogs were used in investigations. What is your experience and training in the subject?
1
I believe Officer Grubbs was arrested for the things he was charged with. I don't believe your story about handcuffing and searching everyone in a car just because someone has a CC license. I call BULLSH*T. You cited links to his arrest. Cite some evidence for your story of anyone experiencing what you described. I know you can't prove what he said in a class, but if officers in VA were actually doing what you describe, there will be evidence of it. No evidence...BULLSH*T
1
Here's a tip that foils the police EVERY TIME... If you drink (at all, even ONE)...DON'T DRIVE! If you drive...DON'T DRINK (at all, even ONE)! It really pisses off the cops!
1
Well, the answer as always is strict punishment of people who violate the law. Not people who don't violate the law. 1st offense of DUI/DWI: 1 year in prison, loss of license for life. 1st offense aggravated DUI/DWI (with injury): 5 years in prison, loss of license for life Death caused by accident while DWI/DUI: Life in prison. There should never be a 2nd offense of DUI/DWI because ...no driver's license for life after 1st offense. But if there is a 2nd offense, 10 years in prison.
1