|
Doctor Butts posted:In those terms, Chris Kyle is responsible for his own death for bringing a guy with PTSD to a gun range. Its even more depressing. Tamir Rice deserved to die, because he didn't run from the cops: quote:
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its even more depressing. Tamir Rice deserved to die, because he didn't run from the cops: "We expected him to justify our totally not racist killing, that's on him"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:If you've been arrested I don't think you can lawfully refuse to give a DNA sample so this ruling just seems to suggest they can get the same through an available means without having to swab you. I flubbed some details - the person eventually arrested was not under arrest at the time. He met with police for questioning, but refused to submit to sampling, as the previous 20+ people interviewed about the crime had. So the police swabbed the seat he had been in. It was a match and this was used to arrest and convict. He challenged this. Maryland's top court ruled 4-3 that leaving DNA behind was akin to a fingerprint, so no invasion of privacy occurred. The dissenters pointed out to how often the body sheds cells and said a probable cause warrant should be needed. EfF agreed and filed an amicus brief, that given how often you leave traces that an unlimited ability to collect and search genetic material could lead to a scenario where DNA could be collected from any person through any number of means at any time, entered into and checked against DNA databases and used for pervasive surveillance Case is Raynor v Maryland
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I flubbed some details - the person eventually arrested was not under arrest at the time. He met with police for questioning, but refused to submit to sampling, as the previous 20+ people interviewed about the crime had. So the police swabbed the seat he had been in. It was a match and this was used to arrest and convict. He challenged this. Maryland's top court ruled 4-3 that leaving DNA behind was akin to a fingerprint, so no invasion of privacy occurred. The dissenters pointed out to how often the body sheds cells and said a probable cause warrant should be needed. EfF agreed and filed an amicus brief, that given how often you leave traces that an unlimited ability to collect and search genetic material could lead to a scenario where DNA could be collected from any person through any number of means at any time, entered into and checked against DNA databases and used for pervasive surveillance Did they run a sample specifically from him afterwards to make sure the chair sample wasn't someone else's DNA? I assume they would, but......
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
I really have no problem with it. I don't know why anyone should be contented about police being able to take DNA samples that are left behind, the same way anything you say can and will be used against you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I flubbed some details - the person eventually arrested was not under arrest at the time. He met with police for questioning, but refused to submit to sampling, as the previous 20+ people interviewed about the crime had. So the police swabbed the seat he had been in. It was a match and this was used to arrest and convict. He challenged this. Maryland's top court ruled 4-3 that leaving DNA behind was akin to a fingerprint, so no invasion of privacy occurred. The dissenters pointed out to how often the body sheds cells and said a probable cause warrant should be needed. EfF agreed and filed an amicus brief, that given how often you leave traces that an unlimited ability to collect and search genetic material could lead to a scenario where DNA could be collected from any person through any number of means at any time, entered into and checked against DNA databases and used for pervasive surveillance Seems like it's self limiting, since if police don't initially have your DNA on file they still have to prove that the DNA collected is yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
greatn posted:I really have no problem with it. I don't know why anyone should be contented about police being able to take DNA samples that are left behind, the same way anything you say can and will be used against you. Because you can remain silent and short of being decked out in a Hazmat suit you can't stop leaving DNA traces? Because he refused to comment on my with a DNA test and they did one anyways?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
greatn posted:I really have no problem with it. I don't know why anyone should be contented about police being able to take DNA samples that are left behind, the same way anything you say can and will be used against you. Wait, what? You may have the right to remain silent, but it's pretty hard to exercise a "right to prevent my DNA from being left on my seat." e:b
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Seems like it's self limiting, since if police don't initially have your DNA on file they still have to prove that the DNA collected is yours. Except it now allows them to collect it and have it on file to check any crimes that show up in the future against? You don't see how this leaves a massive loophole to exploitation and abuse?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
No. I don't. If they have a database to check against for future crimes, good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
baw posted:Yeah it's a soft science but it can still be used to make predictions, just like meteorology. Economics is not meteorology.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
greatn posted:No. I don't. If they have a database to check against for future crimes, good. If it just happens that mostly black and brown men make it into that database, well that's not your problem!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
So whats the over and under on what will be the "Unskewed polls" of the 2016 election?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I asked this in an earlier thread and never got an answer: what was the 2012 equivalent of https://www.thisfuckingelection.com? Was there one? Did I dream it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If it just happens that mostly black and brown men make it into that database, well that's not your problem! Well hopefully their DNA doesn't match and it will all work out! I'm not seeing why DNA is sacred compared to any other evidence collection, and how it is an unreasonable search or seizure if they don't even take it from your person or property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
greatn posted:Well hopefully their DNA doesn't match and it will all work out! Because forensics is highly questionable and the SCOTUS because all they do all day is watch popular television it seems, are pretending it's infallible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
How they going to prove it's your butt DNA? Dick Cheney could have sat in the chair before you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Senator Barbra Mikulski (D-MD) will not seek re-election. She is the longest serving woman in congress in american history, and her hardball style has earned her the title "the meanest senator" by congressional staffers. She is credited with reshaping the role of women in government. Current horse race speculation (with all of 4 hours to go on) is Martin O'Malley will run for her seat *insert Scott brown joke here*
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
He is Risen
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Because forensics is highly questionable and the SCOTUS because all they do all day is watch popular television it seems, are pretending it's infallible. Take for example the Gary Leiterman case where prosecutors won with DNA evidence and a theory of a crime that included: a four year old leaving his house forty miles away, witnessing the murder, leaving his blood on the victim and then traveling back home without anyone noticing. Wikipedia posted:In 2005, 62-year-old Gary Leiterman, a former nurse, was tried and convicted of the killing of Jane Mixer.[1][2] Leiterman came to the attention of authorities 35 years later because a lab report showed his DNA was found on the pantyhose of the deceased. Leiterman worked as a pharmaceutical salesman at the time and lived about 20 miles from the University of Michigan at the time of the murder. According to the Michigan state police lab, Leiterman's DNA hadn't come from blood or semen but might have been from sweat, saliva or skin cells. Some observers feel this DNA evidence is compromised because the report also says the DNA from the spot of blood scraped from Jane Mixer's hand in 1969 matches that of convicted killer John Ruelas who was only four years old at that time. The prosecution offered no explanation as to how Ruelas could have been at this murder scene when he was that age and living 40 miles away. The Mixer and Ruelas cases had been in the lab at about the same time and many wondered if there had been transference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:In those terms, Chris Kyle is responsible for his own death for bringing a guy with PTSD to a gun range. Admittedly, most people would argue that handing a man with severe PTSD and paranoia a loaded gun, taking him to a shooting range, and standing in front of him with your back turned is effectively suicidal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Current horse race speculation (with all of 4 hours to go on) is Martin O'Malley will run for her seat He'd have a better shot at that than he would the White House, but still -- he was so disliked in Maryland at the end that even Anthony Brown backed away from him during the gubernatorial campaign last year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
greatn posted:Well hopefully their DNA doesn't match and it will all work out! Because it's being taken without consent. You are brought in for questioning. You are not arrested, but you don't really have a choice in the matter. As soon as you're placed in the squad car, they're now capable of swabbing the car to obtain hair or skin cells. If you come in of your own volition, and are taken to an interview room, you aren't really given the choice to not shed DNA. They don't HAVE to take it from your person or property; they can collect it just from having you comply with the required compliance with police procedure. From simply interacting with the police, you are giving up this evidence. You have no recourse to prevent the collection or cataloging of this information. Is this getting through, yet? The very reason it is chilling and unreasonable is exactly because under this interpretation they don't have to take it from your person or property. You don't have the opportunity to not touch the glass of water, or not take a drink, or not say anything that may be self-incriminatory. The data is just taken, and gently caress you for expecting an assumption of innocence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Except it now allows them to collect it and have it on file to check any crimes that show up in the future against? You don't see how this leaves a massive loophole to exploitation and abuse? Only if they can prove that it's your DNA. I am generally against mass collection of DNA, and would support legislation to make it inadmissable, but this seems like something the cops have always been able to do, and presents the defense with a lot of avenues to create reasonable doubt that it actually belongs to the accused. Edit: If the reality is that the courts will allow the police to claim that they have the DNA of the accused even though there is doubt as to its provenance then it's probably better to make non-mandated DNA collection inadmissable. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:Because it's being taken without consent. You are brought in for questioning. You are not arrested, but you don't really have a choice in the matter. As soon as you're placed in the squad car, they're now capable of swabbing the car to obtain hair or skin cells. If you come in of your own volition, and are taken to an interview room, you aren't really given the choice to not shed DNA. They don't HAVE to take it from your person or property; they can collect it just from having you comply with the required compliance with police procedure. From simply interacting with the police, you are giving up this evidence. You have no recourse to prevent the collection or cataloging of this information. And apparently, even if your DNA is not a match in that particular case, they'll keep it on file. You know, just in case.... Or am I wrong on that point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:What. You can't repeat economic experiments, and you can't repeat meteorological ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
richardfun posted:And apparently, even if your DNA is not a match in that particular case, they'll keep it on file. You know, just in case.... No, that is exactly the concern. That without laying down rules about when and how it is acceptable to sample DNA and how long they keep it on record it is a wide open invitation to mass surveillance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Admittedly, most people would argue that handing a man with severe PTSD and paranoia a loaded gun, taking him to a shooting range, and standing in front of him with your back turned is effectively suicidal. Chris Kyle was also the kind of egotistical rear end in a top hat who thought himself invincible so why would he see the risk in giving loaded guns to someone who he probably felt he could take down in a heartbeat because he's a badass and the other guy's some broken dude he's trying to help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Only if they can prove that it's your DNA. I am generally against mass collection of DNA, and would support legislation to make it inadmissable, but this seems like something the cops have always been able to do, and presents the defense with a lot of avenues to create reasonable doubt that it actually belongs to the accused. You are arguing this specific case when the challenge is on the larger legal principle regarding the situation that you say you are against. You are familiar with the saying "bad cases make bad law"? This is one of them. I'm pretty happy a rapist is behind bars. I'm not happy that the guidelines laid down open the door to massive intrusion because in this very specific scenario we can justify what was done if we squint and imagine some possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:You are brought in for questioning. You are not arrested, but you don't really have a choice in the matter. You absolutely have a choice in the matter. It's still a lousy decision, I'm not defending that. But if the police ask you in for questioning just tell them no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:You are arguing this specific case when the challenge is on the larger legal principle regarding the situation that you say you are against. You are familiar with the saying "bad cases make bad law"? This is one of them. I'm pretty happy a rapist is behind bars. I'm not happy that the guidelines laid down open the door to massive intrusion because in this very specific scenario we can justify what was done if we squint and imagine some possibilities. I guess I am overestimating the ability of defense lawyers to challenge police assertions of "we totally got your client's DNA off this chair" with "How do you know it was my client's and not some other guy's?" I really assumed that it would be hard for the prosecution to prove. Since the court case itself belies this since they are challenging its admissability and not it's veracity, I guess I'm wrong about it. So given that I'm wrong, then I agree that police should not be able to collect DNA from everybody they contact and hold it in a database forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Timby posted:He'd have a better shot at that than he would the White House, but still -- he was so disliked in Maryland at the end that even Anthony Brown backed away from him during the gubernatorial campaign last year. Eh, his numbers are coming up. Ebola scare and Brown being a historically bad candidate hurt Brown more than O'Malley, anyway. I think O'Malley is angling for a cabinet spot or somewhere cushy in the DNC. There's no real pecking order for Mikulski's spot that anyone is aware of but there are a few people I'd expect to see throw their hat in the ring, hopefully Mizeur is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
hallebarrysoetoro posted:Eh, his numbers are coming up. Ebola scare and Brown being a historically bad candidate hurt Brown more than O'Malley, anyway. I don't know, every time I hear his name brought up it's followed by serious bitching about him "even taxing the rain".
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Obviously I'm the weirdo here but I don't see why DNA would be more privileged than fingerprints or photos and am not really bothered by that decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:You absolutely have a choice in the matter. It's still a lousy decision, I'm not defending that. But if the police ask you in for questioning just tell them no. Which many, many departments will consider probable cause. Refusing to provide the police with the assistance they feel you should be providing is a great way to get done for failure to comply, or obstruction of criminal investigation. Saying "No" to the police, while 100% your constitutional right, is also one that is regularly abrogated with impunity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Obviously I'm the weirdo here but I don't see why DNA would be more privileged than fingerprints or photos and am not really bothered by that decision. DNAs really really easy to find since we shed it everywhere we go. Photos require cameras getting a clean shot while finger prints rely touching. DNA just falls off you. It'd be like you getting finger printed via door knob when some cops asked you in about your meth head neighbor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Bassetking posted:Which many, many departments will consider probable cause. Refusing to provide the police with the assistance they feel you should be providing is a great way to get done for failure to comply, or obstruction of criminal investigation. Saying "No" to the police, while 100% your constitutional right, is also one that is regularly abrogated with impunity. If we're going to assume that the police are going to violate your constitutional rights – which may be a fair assumption for many people – then the whole discussion is moot. I don't see an argument for voluntarily cooperating with them for a while before they do so, if this is the case. Until you start forcing them to do things against your will you're not building any grounds for evidence to be thrown out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
So I'm not seeing much in the way of coverage about the latest with DHS funding or the debt limit today, despite them both being on the hot seat shortly. Plenty about the fuckups leading to last weeks 1 week extension for DHS, a bunch of blather in the lead up to the SCOTUS hearing on the ACA, but not much on what is being done with DHS today or what will happen with the debt ceiling. Which is a little troubling. No one is giving these guys the hairy eyeball given how close we have come the other times?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:DNAs really really easy to find since we shed it everywhere we go. Photos require cameras getting a clean shot while finger prints rely touching. DNA just falls off you. No, it's not hard to get a picture. I know exactly how easy it'd be to collect DNA given good technology and am not bothered by it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:It'd be like you getting finger printed via door knob when some cops asked you in about your meth head neighbor. ...As others have echoed, since the fingerprint/dna is taken from a surface/room where many other people have been present, how can the prosecution possibly claim to know either is actually from the defendant without the consented print/dna? Short an actual direct sample, this sort of evidence is terrifically likely to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:43
|
|
