Taking DNA samples at arrest. Should they? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 10-03-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

My simple response: No.

DK, you should however realize that there does exist a rather significant difference between the law on the books, and law in practice.

of which a difference should never exist. To practice law in one way, however it strays away from law in the books, should never be tolerated. It's the same as saying 'yes, there's a law against denying black people the right to bear arms, but in practice, we'll let the states get away with it.' It's just plain wrong either way you look at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stare At The Sun

Case law might apply to an appeals judge 3 years down the road, but to a cop on a beat, you're nothing but a citizen and a suspect.

To me, a cop is nothing more than a civilian with powers to enforce just laws and protect people. The cop is no more or less special or privileged than any civilian.

Stare At The Sun · 10-03-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

of which a difference should never exist. To practice law in one way, however it strays away from law in the books, should never be tolerated. It's the same as saying 'yes, there's a law against denying black people the right to bear arms, but in practice, we'll let the states get away with it.' It's just plain wrong either way you look at it.

To me, a cop is nothing more than a civilian with powers to enforce just laws and protect people. The cop is no more or less special or privileged than any civilian.

The difference has to exist. Not all laws can be enforced with the same regularity, nor can all law be applied equally. It's called discretion, and its a critical component of the criminal justice system.

Cops have it.
Prosecutors have it.
Judges have it.

In a system built by, and ran by humans, discretion must exist.

Police officers have more power in this country than you or I. They are officers of the peace, and enforcers of law. They are "the thin blue line".

Your ideals are fine and dandy, but they are very much out of step with the real world.

dksuddeth · 10-04-2008, 05:30 AM

as the real world exists right now, having it been accepted that cops, prosecutors, and judges are your betters and know whats best for you (yes, thats heavy sarcasm), you can deal with that. But i'm of the same mindset as the framers did when they believed in equal protection under the law. the law knows no difference between citizen and police. we are equal and must be held to the same standards.

Stare At The Sun · 10-04-2008, 01:52 PM

Ah yes, because the "framers" lived in a time when everyone was equal (yes, thats heavy sarcasm).

Its a system that involves humans and discretion. Get used to it, it will never change.

Amaras · 10-04-2008, 02:55 PM

I'm with SATS, but then again, I'm Canadian. This sort of debate, will lively and civil, as usual seems to have broken down into the "Well, I don't commit crime so I guess it's okay." versus "I don't commit crime either, but over my dead body, I don't trust Them (whoever They are)."
The following stats aren't accurate, just ballparking here, I admit it.
Isn't there some sort of 80-20 rule when it comes to lawbreakers. Sort of a 80% of the crimes are committed by 20% of the people.
Actually, isn't it even less of people committing the majority?
I'd like it if, after one is convicted, then your DNA is entered on a database and run against outstanding crimes when DNA was found. Then again, your hair could have fallen out on the bus (with DNA on it's tip) and landed on a serial killer. That's why I think one shouldn't be convicted on DNA alone.
Great thing you guys have there, that Constitution. Serious, one of the best documents ever written.
The framers were brilliant. So brilliant, in fact, that I'm sure many of them (certainly Jefferson) would be dismayed at the number of guns in everyone's hands, what said guns can do, etc....
I don't think it was meant to be a dead document. It probably needs an overhaul for the 21st century.
I just don't anyone you got that I would trust with a grocery list.
All that being said, I think it's a natural progression from fingerprints to DNA. Far, far better science wise.

KirStang · 10-05-2008, 05:52 PM

Perhaps unlike fingerprints, DNA can tell alot more about a person--and thus may fall under the principle of privacy? Apparently there's some precedent, where a famous judge cobbled together some constitutional principles and came up with a constitutional right to privacy.

I think the question will more likely be, would DNA collection amount to unreasonable search and seizure? Does a person have the right to privacy against people having DNA knowledge of them?

DNA, like finger prints are probably great indicators that an individual has been at a crime scene. However, they carry the excess baggage of medical information.

Perhaps in RFLP or whatever chain reactions they use these days to index DNA signatures doesn't reveal anything about a person's health.

However, unlike finger prints too, DNA can be planted much easier....

Just some thoughts. Sorry for the rant.

Seer666 · 10-06-2008, 12:14 PM

I myself don't see the big deal. It's the same as finger printing. Is having your finger prints taken an invasion of privacy? Nope, so niether is this. Hell, they finger print babies don't they? Every person in the country has a file started as soon as they are born. It's part of being in the system.

curiousbear · 10-06-2008, 12:21 PM

I think every individual's DNA should be taken and added to a centralized database. And it would be great if it is used an the unique identity too.

Yakk · 10-07-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

John Bad Elk v. U.S. is still good case law at this point and has not been overturned by the USSC. As for resisting and potentially killing police officers for UNLAWFUL acts or arrests, maybe this is something they need to remember that they face for stepping outside the bounds of their lawful powers. The courts and government bodies seem to always defend and protect their unlawful acts so maybe 'we the people' should start holding them accountable.

In which it states resisting even unlawful arrest by a police officer with deadly force is manslaughter (analogous to being in a fist-fight, and killing someone). If the arrest is lawful, it is murder.

And if the police had reason to think you where going to attempt to manslaughter them, I believe they can shoot and kill you with no serious repercussions.

dksuddeth · 10-07-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

In which it states resisting even unlawful arrest by a police officer with deadly force is manslaughter (analogous to being in a fist-fight, and killing someone). If the arrest is lawful, it is murder.

And if the police had reason to think you where going to attempt to manslaughter them, I believe they can shoot and kill you with no serious repercussions.

if i'm subject to a lawful arrest, why would I resist? i'm talking about UNLAWFUL arrests.

As far as deadly force with no repercussions, i'm guessing that you're just mighty fine with government agents having the authority to kill people?

Yakk · 10-07-2008, 02:46 PM

No, I'm describing the situation today?

A police officer walks up to you, and says "I'm here to arrest you".

You think the arrest isn't lawful -- so you resist arrest. If you attempt to seriously resist (pull a gun -- remember, "over my dead body"), the police officer takes this as a threat, and shoots you.

Suppose the police officer has the events on camera -- we have a cop saying "you are under arrest", you pull a gun, he shoots you. Even if you where not guilty of anything before that point, do you really honestly think the police officer will be prosecuted for killing you?

Meanwhile, that cited case makes it very clear that under common law, if you do shoot a police officer who is attempting to arrest you without the law on the police officer's side, you are still guilty of manslaughter.

So, I repeat my original comment to a particular poster: if you won't give DNA 'over your dead body', the only way to do this practically is to resist arrest if any police officer attempts to arrest you for any reason whatsoever.

Is this seriously your plan, and if so, do you think it is a good idea to post that plan on the internet?

10-04-2008, 05:30 AM	#43 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	as the real world exists right now, having it been accepted that cops, prosecutors, and judges are your betters and know whats best for you (yes, thats heavy sarcasm), you can deal with that. But i'm of the same mindset as the framers did when they believed in equal protection under the law. the law knows no difference between citizen and police. we are equal and must be held to the same standards. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

10-04-2008, 02:55 PM	#45 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	I'm with SATS, but then again, I'm Canadian. This sort of debate, will lively and civil, as usual seems to have broken down into the "Well, I don't commit crime so I guess it's okay." versus "I don't commit crime either, but over my dead body, I don't trust Them (whoever They are)." The following stats aren't accurate, just ballparking here, I admit it. Isn't there some sort of 80-20 rule when it comes to lawbreakers. Sort of a 80% of the crimes are committed by 20% of the people. Actually, isn't it even less of people committing the majority? I'd like it if, after one is convicted, then your DNA is entered on a database and run against outstanding crimes when DNA was found. Then again, your hair could have fallen out on the bus (with DNA on it's tip) and landed on a serial killer. That's why I think one shouldn't be convicted on DNA alone. Great thing you guys have there, that Constitution. Serious, one of the best documents ever written. The framers were brilliant. So brilliant, in fact, that I'm sure many of them (certainly Jefferson) would be dismayed at the number of guns in everyone's hands, what said guns can do, etc.... I don't think it was meant to be a dead document. It probably needs an overhaul for the 21st century. I just don't anyone you got that I would trust with a grocery list. All that being said, I think it's a natural progression from fingerprints to DNA. Far, far better science wise. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-06-2008, 12:14 PM	#47 (permalink)
Seer666 Oh dear God he breeded Location: Arizona	I myself don't see the big deal. It's the same as finger printing. Is having your finger prints taken an invasion of privacy? Nope, so niether is this. Hell, they finger print babies don't they? Every person in the country has a file started as soon as they are born. It's part of being in the system. __________________ Bad spellers of the world untie!!! I am the one you warned me of I seem to have misplaced the bullet with your name on it, but I have a whole box addressed to occupant.

10-07-2008, 02:46 PM	#51 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	No, I'm describing the situation today? A police officer walks up to you, and says "I'm here to arrest you". You think the arrest isn't lawful -- so you resist arrest. If you attempt to seriously resist (pull a gun -- remember, "over my dead body"), the police officer takes this as a threat, and shoots you. Suppose the police officer has the events on camera -- we have a cop saying "you are under arrest", you pull a gun, he shoots you. Even if you where not guilty of anything before that point, do you really honestly think the police officer will be prosecuted for killing you? Meanwhile, that cited case makes it very clear that under common law, if you do shoot a police officer who is attempting to arrest you without the law on the police officer's side, you are still guilty of manslaughter. So, I repeat my original comment to a particular poster: if you won't give DNA 'over your dead body', the only way to do this practically is to resist arrest if any police officer attempts to arrest you for any reason whatsoever. Is this seriously your plan, and if so, do you think it is a good idea to post that plan on the internet? __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

10-04-2008, 01:52 PM	#44 (permalink)
Stare At The Sun Eh? Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	Ah yes, because the "framers" lived in a time when everyone was equal (yes, thats heavy sarcasm). Its a system that involves humans and discretion. Get used to it, it will never change.

10-05-2008, 05:52 PM	#46 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Perhaps unlike fingerprints, DNA can tell alot more about a person--and thus may fall under the principle of privacy? Apparently there's some precedent, where a famous judge cobbled together some constitutional principles and came up with a constitutional right to privacy. I think the question will more likely be, would DNA collection amount to unreasonable search and seizure? Does a person have the right to privacy against people having DNA knowledge of them? DNA, like finger prints are probably great indicators that an individual has been at a crime scene. However, they carry the excess baggage of medical information. Perhaps in RFLP or whatever chain reactions they use these days to index DNA signatures doesn't reveal anything about a person's health. However, unlike finger prints too, DNA can be planted much easier.... Just some thoughts. Sorry for the rant.

10-06-2008, 12:21 PM	#48 (permalink)
curiousbear Addict Location: WA	I think every individual's DNA should be taken and added to a centralized database. And it would be great if it is used an the unique identity too.