If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Star)   K-9 doesn't find any drugs in the car during the traffic stop? No problem, allow him to roam a nearby unrelated residence until he does find some, in a shed you searched that has nothing to do with the car you pulled over   (azstarnet.com) divider line 173
    More: Stupid, drug dog, traffic stops, Pima County  
•       •       •

14216 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2012 at 3:09 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-23 07:36:31 AM  

cman: Oh HELL no

This search was way beyond unreasonable.

This is complete bullshiat.

fark, I dont know how to express myself at this disgrace


It'll stand up in court because DRUGS
 
2012-07-23 07:49:12 AM  

Happy Hours: Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?


He was just following orders, lol.
 
2012-07-23 07:51:45 AM  

Captain_Ballbeard: /waiting for drugs to fight back in the war.


Read 'The Botany of Desire.'

The drugs already WON the war.
 
2012-07-23 07:53:53 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Frederick: Fark_Guy_Rob: Regardless.....it is currently illegal. A cop caught someone doing something illegal. I don't have a problem with this.

I wonder what illegal things could be found in your home if a cop were to look?

Let's be realistic here....

There are many laws. And they are not equal. Jaywalking is illegal. Murder is illegal. To say that one is the same as the other is retarded b.s.....400 pounds of weed, meth, and an illegal alien is pretty extremely illegal.


Not to mention a great weekend in Vegas...
 
2012-07-23 07:54:40 AM  
k-9?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-23 08:06:48 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: [upload.wikimedia.org image 225x226]

Has no comment


Came for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-07-23 08:07:25 AM  
I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.
 
2012-07-23 08:08:40 AM  
Not only are dogs used to create probable cause they also react to their handlers suspicions.

They are wrong 50% of the time EXCEPT for Mexicans it jumps to over 70% wrong.
(no the dogs are not racist the handlers tend to be more suspicious of Mexicans)

There at least needs to be some sort of penalty given for searches that provide nothing - when a canine was used to create the probable cause.
1k cash on the spot to the victim of the search for a vehicle and 1k per room of a home.

It's just an excuse to search anytime a cop feels like it and to blame the dog when nothing is found.
 
2012-07-23 08:21:25 AM  

Pathman: k-9?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 225x226]


Came for this. Leaving satisfied.
 
2012-07-23 08:36:21 AM  

MDGeist: I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.


There's too many people in the world as it is. Tough DUI laws arent for saving lives, they're for saving insurance companies money

/same with seat belt laws.
 
2012-07-23 08:45:37 AM  

Madbassist1: MDGeist: I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.

There's too many people in the world as it is. Tough DUI laws arent for saving lives, they're for saving insurance companies money

/same with seat belt laws.


You might be forgetting "medical bills" somewhere in that equation. Though even with insurance, well, those making the decision to drive drunk are also driving up the insurance premiums of those who stay clean.

Addicts (of any stripe) rarely recognize the impact of their addiction outside of their own lives.
 
2012-07-23 08:46:12 AM  
We need more government so that police abuse doesn't happen.
 
2012-07-23 08:46:22 AM  

MDGeist: I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.


Uhm...wrong. Go study the effects of Prohibition. Go on, I'll wait.

There were kids selling alcohol, just like kids selling stuff today. I know this does not happen on every corner in the ghetto, but its been known to happen, yes.

There was no availability problems whatsoever, have you ever heard of anyone really complaining they never got hooch during Prohibition? Nope. Same as today.

There were enormous profits to be derived from the manufacture and sale of Illegal Liquor, which helped organized crime expand.

At least one state I know of had a '3 strikes' type law. Michigan had a 4 time felony law, known as the 'Life for a pint' law.



In the name of keeping people safe from drugs (a health issue, not a criminal one) the 4th amendment was basically gutted in 1986. Thus we began the slow slide into the modern day police state we see today.

Prohibition never works, will never work, and only serves to give more power to the state and less rights to individuals. Petty pointy head morons having power over YOU is not the way to go.

Drugs/Alcohol are medical issues, not criminal ones. When you make them criminal issues then everyone becomes a criminal, because most everyone uses some sort of drug. There is no way to know exact figures, but I'd guess (strictly my own opinion here) if you include prescription drugs its most everyone in the US.
 
2012-07-23 08:46:47 AM  

Happy Hours: IANAL


The new Apple butt-plug with touch screen controlled vibrator?
 
2012-07-23 08:50:59 AM  
I'm just gonna put this here... 2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-23 08:51:45 AM  

Happy Hours: Dinjiin: Bathia_Mapes: I don't have to see crap like that.

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

I wonder if all the people who are up in arms about voter ID laws would object to an investigation of snowbirds in Maricopa who might be registered to vote in more than one state.

Don't think it doesn't happen - a lot of those people take the attitude that laws are only supposed to be enforced against people they don't like.


But according to anti-voter ID laws, there are very, very few voting fraud cases in the US (although a lot of those same people claim Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004...).

I say just use the ink crap they do in the middle east. It seems to work and will prevent vote fraud without stopping people from voting. Although it doesn't stop poor people from voting so the Republicans won't like it.
 
2012-07-23 08:57:49 AM  
"Deputies eventually searched a shed at the home and found the marijuana, along with an illegal immigrant identified as Lopez-Zavala."

What?! I don't believe this, can't be true I am shocked I tell you!
 
2012-07-23 08:58:16 AM  

elffster: Petty pointy head morons having power over YOU is not the way to go.


Nor is letting people run amok on the assurance that "they mean well" or "they'll straighten out eventually".

If all substance abuse ever affected was the individual who chose to abuse it, this whole issue would be far less an issue than it is. Sadly, that's not the case. The effect of it isn't isolated. It's shared. And while I think any solution that results in the least amount of government/societal coercion is the best one, I don't see that "no coercion at all" is an option, given the circumstances surrounding the problem.

Addicts have a hard time seeing themselves as addicts, let alone how their addiction "ripples out" to affect the rest of society: not only the healthcare system, or insurance, but their families, their friends. None of this comes before their habit. That's a problem.

If all this was was just about "saving stupid people from themselves", I'm fairly certain you would see a lot less people concerned about the plight of the addict.

elffster: Drugs/Alcohol are medical issues, not criminal ones.


Now this? This I heartily agree with. The studies are plain here: Rehab trumps Incarceration in every instance. I don't necessarily believe this warrants the Law not being involved at all, but I think it needs to be far less involved than it is at present.

Let's use the most successful methods to tackle the problem. Not the ones that suit our wounded egos best.
 
2012-07-23 08:59:21 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: The funny part is that the cop smelled grass in the car but the dog didn't.


Humans unlike dogs have a difficult time pin pointing the direction and source of smells. 450 pounds of pot has got to leave a smell.
 
2012-07-23 09:01:33 AM  

cman: Bathia_Mapes: cman: Oh HELL no

This search was way beyond unreasonable.

This is complete bullshiat.

fark, I dont know how to express myself at this disgrace

I concur, but I doubt any of the charges will be dropped since one of those arrested was in the country illegally, not to mention this happened in Arizona.

Just imagine how worse it would have been if this happened in Maricopa County. Sheriff Joe would have a field day.

Deportation is a given, yeah. Bunch of bullshiat over weed. He didnt rape, he didnt murder, he didnt rob, yet he will be deported.


I know what a bunch of asshats those cops are why could they not just drop him off at the welfare office and give him a good luck hug.....
 
2012-07-23 09:07:15 AM  

SkunkWerks: Nor is letting people run amok on the assurance that "they mean well" or "they'll straighten out eventually".



Thats true, someone in the depth of a week long Meth binge is pretty farked in the head. But to make them a criminal vs. giving them medical help is two totally different things.

We as a nation are happy to criminalize folks at the drop of a hat, to serve the Prison Industrial Complex. In my opinion a Prison should be run as a non-profit entity, and we should be giving out for free help to anyone who wants to get off any addicted/habitual use of a substance.

Potheads are not the problem. Meth is an ugly drug and its not really the issue, either. Its the legality they are bound up in that makes for such massive social problems.

But, as long as there is money in it to harass users and persecute them, then the assholes in power will do it. We will never ever win a war on drugs.

Ive said it a few times, its not a war on drugs anyway. Its clearly a war on people.

Cops are cowards (some of them, yep) so they want to attack passive potheads instead of going after the raging methed out loony.

And dumb ass sheep keep voting for politicians that are 'strong on drugs', meanwhile everyone is kept stupid with lots of 'script drugs and another drug thats everywhere yet never addressed as one and its quite mind-numbing: Television.
 
2012-07-23 09:07:38 AM  

Choadzilla: Drug Sniffing dogs are always right, right? At least most of the time though, right?


Right?


When it's 450 pounds of pop my cat would get it right how could you miss it?
 
2012-07-23 09:08:21 AM  
This is getting ridiculous. They new the damn house sold weed. They didn't want to out their informant, so they made up this fake stop. "Oh look we just happened to get lucky with the dog" I know the cops think we're stupid but man this is a farce.
 
2012-07-23 09:12:06 AM  
I wish there was an example of a country that had decided against a Drug War...if only there was some working model
that we could study to see what would happen...

Oh, here is one....
 
2012-07-23 09:12:29 AM  

dudemanbro: Frederick: There a many people, people who vote, who consider drug dealer to be in that same category as murderers and rapists.

Those people are wrong.


Heroin and meth? yes. Weed? No.
 
2012-07-23 09:13:50 AM  

ignacio: I have a dog that smells drugs. It smells drugs in a house. That is probable cause for a warrant. I don't see why that's so hard for you people to understand.


So should cops be able to walk up and down streets in neighborhoods with drug sniffing dogs and the instant a dog makes a hit on a house a SWAT team will break down the door and search a house?
 
2012-07-23 09:15:01 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: BarkingUnicorn: The funny part is that the cop smelled grass in the car but the dog didn't.

Personally, I smell bullshiat


Read "we had no probable cause to search the house, so we pulled a car over near it, and then manufactured probable cause." How hard is it to understand that this was, indeed, an unreasonable search?
 
2012-07-23 09:16:57 AM  

Happy Hours: Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.


Why? Whose address is on your driver's license?

And what neighborhood dog whizzed on the fence, attracting the dog to the fence? K-9's are trained to pick up on their handlers' cues more so than to sniff out drugs. The "success" rate speaks for itself.

It's not a leap, it's not a hop, it's not even a lean.
 
2012-07-23 09:25:22 AM  

machoprogrammer: Happy Hours: Dinjiin: Bathia_Mapes: I don't have to see crap like that.

No AdBlock for real life, though. Dude has re-election posters all over the place. Although I am starting to see an upward trend in the number of them that have been defaced. I'm curious if the solid political bloc known as "grumpy white retirees" will still be enough to get the guy re-elected. They just love the man.

I wonder if all the people who are up in arms about voter ID laws would object to an investigation of snowbirds in Maricopa who might be registered to vote in more than one state.

Don't think it doesn't happen - a lot of those people take the attitude that laws are only supposed to be enforced against people they don't like.

But according to anti-voter ID laws, there are very, very few voting fraud cases in the US (although a lot of those same people claim Bush stole Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004...).

I say just use the ink crap they do in the middle east. It seems to work and will prevent vote fraud without stopping people from voting. Although it doesn't stop poor people from voting so the Republicans won't like it.


at the risk of going off topic here, I must clarify that issues in 2000 and 2004 had nothing to do with voter fraud, but the disenfranchisement of registered voters (which, coincidentally, id requirements were outlawed to prevent as well. We wouldn't want anyone threatening your livelihood based on your vote, now that they know who you are and where you live.) and possibly mechanical/software manipulation with diebold machines.

also

MDGeist: I wish alcohol was illegal and as venomously hunted down as pot is by police. So many people would still be alive instead of killed on the road by some drunk fark.


well played sir, that was a pretty tricky angle for a troll. I'm not gonna score it though

/wait a minute...
 
2012-07-23 09:25:38 AM  
The amount of resources the police department uses for pot is a joke. They have limited resources and don't need to prioritize marijuana as one of the highest things on their list. That is why the police are just as at fault if not more than the asshats who pass laws.
 
2012-07-23 09:31:32 AM  
Let's all hope this gets tossed upon discovery.
 
2012-07-23 09:33:39 AM  
I swear the handlers just manipulate the dogs to do as they wish.
 
2012-07-23 09:36:25 AM  
Guessing is more accurate than drug-sniffing dogs.
 
2012-07-23 09:41:12 AM  

Scorpio Rex: Happy Hours: Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

Why? Whose address is on your driver's license?

And what neighborhood dog whizzed on the fence, attracting the dog to the fence? K-9's are trained to pick up on their handlers' cues more so than to sniff out drugs. The "success" rate speaks for itself.

It's not a leap, it's not a hop, it's not even a lean.


Well, at least your tin foil hat is firmly in place.

As for the reliability of drug sniffing dogs, please cite your sources.
 
2012-07-23 09:45:33 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: But take ANY tool that requires a technician to read it or calibrate it - and there is opportunity to cheat. I can adjust a scale so that it's heavy or light. That doesn't mean scales don't work.


It's not just a matter of calibration though. In studied, drug dogs have shown anywhere from a 44% to dismal 14.6% success rate (123 failures in 144 searches) - citation.

Using drug dogs, especially as the *primary* means to determine probable cause, is inherently flawed. As a tool to search once a warrant is obtained? Sure, great, go ahead, they work great there. But walking house to house to determine where to search, like you suggested? Awful idea.

As for BAC meters, well, their accuracy isn't all that great either, but they are still better than the drug dog's

And yes, the drug dog did net some massive dealers here. I would argue, of course without knowing the full story, that it is somewhat irrelevant. The exclusionary rule is important, for a reason.
 
2012-07-23 09:49:03 AM  

Happy Hours: As for the reliability of drug sniffing dogs, please cite your sources.


In studies, drug dogs have shown anywhere from a 44% to dismal 14.6% success rate (123 failures in 144 searches) - citation
 
2012-07-23 10:04:13 AM  

mr_bunny: I wish there was an example of a country that had decided against a Drug War...if only there was some working model
that we could study to see what would happen...

Oh, here is one....


www.internaturally.com

Now that I have your attention -

i9.ebayimg.com



Check out mr bunnys link
 
2012-07-23 10:17:44 AM  

Happy Hours: Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?


Hero tag is for heroes, not for just doing your farking job.
 
2012-07-23 10:26:08 AM  
The theory for a dog sniff bring the basis for probable cause for a warrant is that a magistrate reviews the evidence, taking the decision to search or not out of the cops' hands. That's enough protection, says the SCOTUS, from the " general warrant" used in colonial days.

This is a perfect example of why high schools should teach con law. It doesn't remotely work the way people assume it does.
 
2012-07-23 10:28:38 AM  

elffster: ... we should be giving out for free help to anyone who wants to get off any addicted/habitual use of a substance.


Doesn't that absolve people from exercising any self control? Doesn't it give out a message that it's OK to take anything you want, as often as you want, because the rest of us will pay for treatment any time you want?

I'm not a great fan of drug laws as they stand, but I think any relaxation should come with an understanding that dying in a gutter is a likely outcome of unwise consumption. It's about personal responsibility.
 
2012-07-23 10:29:28 AM  

elffster: Potheads are not the problem.


I really need to say here, the "lionization" specifically of pot use- above and beyond all other drug use- really isn't really helping decriminalization efforts.

It's a substance, it has addictive properties, and I've seen all of the things inherent in it's habitual users that I've seen with other "harder" drugs. In honesty, the type of person here probably matters a great deal more here in terms of how destructive (self or outwardly) an addict they make than the drug itself. The notion that pot addiction, pot addicts, and the whole general "warm and fuzzy" way the legalization movement chooses to portray them, is a lot of fairy tales.

You don't convince the middle-of-the-road folks by feeding them fantasy. As a person who feels full-on legalization isn't the way to go, but decriminalization is, I expect habitual users to adhere to these sorts of myths.

There's an obvious conflict of interest there, and it's decidedly not in favor of being honest.

elffster: Ive said it a few times, its not a war on drugs anyway. Its clearly a war on people.


Ehhh... fomenting conspiracy theories doesn't help either. While the road to Hell might be paved with good intentions, it's helpful to remember that they're, yanno, good intentions, at least to begin with.

What I will say of the "War on Drugs" is that it suffers from the same issue as the "War on Terror". As you've pointed out, a "war" can be won. It can at least have a victory that is clear in it's indecisiveness due to the fact that it's waged against a country or faction. "Defeat" can therefore be gauged and measured concretely.

A War on Terror is a misnomer because it's war on an ideal or practice. So long as anyone still holds the ideal and acts on it, there's no victory. Similarly you can't declare war on an inanimate object and expect anything resembling clear or decisive results.

It sounds swell in the papers though. To the right sort of people, it feels like such an attractive notion that it's obvious conceit and fallacy are immediately overlooked. It feels like you can "win". This is the same sort of logic pandered to people buying lottery tickets. All that said, at the beginning was there an intent at the outset by the government to actually declare war on it's own citizens- here or in other countries? I really don't think so.

Misguided as it is, and as detrimental as its results often are, it's still just that: misguided.

elffster: But, as long as there is money in it to harass users and persecute them, then the assholes in power will do it. We will never ever win a war on drugs.


Odd you should mention this. One of my own strongest feelings against full-legalization: I really don't need my own Government suckling any more than it already does from the teat of Big Pharma, or Big Agriculture, for that matter.

Checked the taxes on Cigarettes lately? I'm fairly certain that it's several hundred percent beyond the actual value of a pack. Now ask yourself if Uncle Sam has any vested interest in stopping people from riddling themselves with Lung Cancer.

That's right: they don't.

elffster: And dumb ass sheep keep voting for politicians that are 'strong on drugs', meanwhile everyone is kept stupid with lots of 'script drugs


...don't think they wouldn't do the same with pot, or any other drug that might get legalized, had they the opportunity.
 
2012-07-23 10:33:27 AM  

SkunkWerks: I really need to say here, the "lionization" specifically of pot use- above and beyond all other drug use- really isn't really helping decriminalization efforts.

It's a substance, it has addictive properties, and I've seen all of the things inherent in it's habitual users that I've seen with other "harder" drugs.


There are a lot of pot smokers who claim that it's harmless, non-addictive and safer than many other legal drugs. In which case, I ask myself, why do they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. It seems clear to me that many of those who claim pot to be non-addictive can think about little else.
 
2012-07-23 10:34:44 AM  
Without being willfully ignorant I don't understand how anyone could possibly think that

1. that this was the first time they brought a shipment through this border town, you don't cut your teeth on 400 lbs,
2. someone moving that sorta bulk through a town of 3700 isn't known by each and every person of interest in town
3. the cops hadn't caught wind of it one way or another.
4. This bust was an operation... also, this operation was a bust



that's just about a quarter Lb per household
 
2012-07-23 10:37:10 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: [upload.wikimedia.org image 225x226]

Has no comment


He has better things to deal with than drugs. There could be Daleks in that house!
 
2012-07-23 10:52:17 AM  

orbister: SkunkWerks: I really need to say here, the "lionization" specifically of pot use- above and beyond all other drug use- really isn't really helping decriminalization efforts.

It's a substance, it has addictive properties, and I've seen all of the things inherent in it's habitual users that I've seen with other "harder" drugs.

There are a lot of pot smokers who claim that it's harmless, non-addictive and safer than many other legal drugs. In which case, I ask myself, why do they go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about it. It seems clear to me that many of those who claim pot to be non-addictive can think about little else.


I can't believe all these people talking about pot in a pot thread.
 
2012-07-23 10:53:01 AM  

Happy Hours: SchlingFocker: Murder is against federal law.

IANAL and I'm too lazy to verify this, but I heard a newscaster say that Colorado prosecutors would have to deal with James Holmes because there is no federal statute against murder.

Sounds crazy, right? Not really....every state has laws against murder. There is no movement to legalize homicide.

Maybe murder is covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause?

I don't know.


It is prosecuted on the Federal level as a violation of the victim's civil rights.
 
2012-07-23 10:57:21 AM  
 
2012-07-23 11:23:00 AM  

fnorgby: IDK, if the dog alerted on the fence on his own (like, "hey master, there's nothing in the car but this fence smells mighty interesting"), and this was used to support probable cause for a warrant, I bet nothing gets excluded and they're all boned.

Good faith doctrine, etc.

If the cop, frustrated at getting skunked on the car, took the dog to the nearby house and had him start sniffing, and they searched the shed with no warrant, then maybe exclusions (except for the woman caught with meth -- if she doesn't live there, she may have no standing to contest the legality of her arrest).


The former scenario sounds quite reasonable to me. They let the dog wander because they shouldn't point out to the dog exactly what they are interested in. If the dog alerted on something other than what they thought was the target I have no problem with that.

Happy Hours: Frederick: I imagine the cop knew the house belonged to the people in the car and led the dog that way intentionally.

That's quite a leap.

I imagine 400 pounds of pot might have a slight aroma to it and the cop smelled it and thought it was coming from the car he just pulled over. He let the dog try to sniff it out and the dog, having a much keener sense of smell, was all like "you dumb farking human - the pot's not in the car, it's over here!"

And while I think pot should be legal and no one should even be fined for possession or "manufacture" the current law says it is illegal and the cop did his job. No "hero" tag for the cop doing his job?


Good point--the cop probably didn't realize where the smell was coming from.

Frederick: bindlestiff2600: whats really neat - is you have to take the handlers word for it, that the dog alerted in the first place

just having the dog present - in effect - provides probable cause

Precisely. And it's not like the defense in a trial can cross examine the K9. It's a very self affirming procedure.


It could be subject to test--demonstrate the dog can find the drugs and not false alarm. Also, the handler should be decertified if too many alerts don't turn up drugs.
 
2012-07-23 11:34:46 AM  
As far as I'm concerned, this is just plain site, extended to a dog, who is generally considered a fully-fledged officer.

Let's say an officer pulls over a car, finds nothing, but then looks at an nearby property and sees a giant greenhouse filled with cultivated marijuana plants. I doubt anyone here would have (legal) problems with that officer making a bust on that pot, which was clearly visible to him from the road. The pot in that shed was essentially just as visible to the dog as the greenhouse would be to a human officer.
 
2012-07-23 11:40:10 AM  
Except the part where it's sight and not site.
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report