Back to Search
Ashford
Forensics
week 3
CRJ 311 Week 3 DQ 2 Arson Dogs

CRJ 311 Week 3 DQ 2 Arson Dogs

Short description

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’s required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.

Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7. Respond to at least one classmate who has been assigned the opposite opinion of yours. In your responses, provide evidence to support your opinion. Each response should be a minimum of 100 words and should include your thoughts associated with their posted information. Additionally, you are to contribute to the discussion by adding support or constructive alternatives to your classmates’ posts.

Document preview
Image Preview
Image Preview
Back to Search
Couldn’t find your assignment?
human

Related Homeworks

Couldn’t find your assignment?

Send your Email and our manager
will help you find the right solution
Live Chat
+18882805042 copy number
FB Messenger