CRJ 311 Week 3 DQ 2 Arson Dogs
This work of CRJ 311 Week 3 Discussion Question 2 Arson Dogs shows the solutions to the following points:
Arson dogs are useful tools for finding accelerants in locations where human investigators cannot. Some believe that arson dogs and their indication of possible accelerant residue should not be used as evidence in court.
Do you think arson dogs come up with better results than a chemical sniffer? Why or why not? Provide evidence to support your opinion.
If your last name begins with A-L, argue your opinion for allowing arson dog findings to be entered into court.
If your last name begins with M-Z, argue your opinion for preventing arson dog findings to be entered into court.
The body of your initial post should be at least 250 words in length. Support your claims with examples from this week
*** 311 **** * DQ 2 ***** ****Attached: CRJ 311 Week 3 DQ 2 Arson Dogs.zip