House votes to expand national DNA arrest database

reply to post by stumason


Illegal search and seizure. I'll try to look up the US cases if I get some time. It's questionable at least. The 4th and the 14th are what people will generally cite in arguments about DNA being taken like this.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Raustin]

reply to post by Raustin


But it wouldn't be, would it? If you're arrested, that is hardly an "illegal" serach and seizure. If arrested, then the Police usually have the right to search you.

Otherwise, what you're saying is if someone was arrested for say, Rape then the police couldn't ask for a DNA sample to compare against evidence gathered. This is obviously a silly stance to take.

If charged and convicted, the DNA should remain on file. If not charged and released, it should be destroyed.

it just seems to me that in the US it is quite common to cry "But that's unconstitutional" without any real logical thought process going into the statement.

reply to post by stumason


Just because his facts dont add up doesn't mean the legitimate concern ceases to exist.

Its that kind of logic of why America has pretty much surrendered complete control to people we dont really know, and people we really shouldn't trust. The types of people who lie and manipulate, who start out helping the public and trick themselves into believing that they are at a personable level better than the rest of us. Their status may be higher than everyone elses... but when it boils down to it they are still susceptable (sp..?) to the same influences the rest of us are.

So Again why does it matter if it is in the Constitution? A large percent of the people do not want DNA.. obviously, but I also feel it is neccessary... ther should be a compromise somewhere... like a complete scan in the database but once scanned the information is delted unless a match occurs... something like that.


edit to add:

ahhhh apparently we agree on the temporary use of DNA if it comes up negative or we dont hold them suspect any longer.



[edit on 21-5-2010 by rjmelter]

Originally posted by rjmelter
So Again why does it matter if it is in the Constitution? A large percent of the people do not want DNA.. obviously, but I also feel it is neccessary... ther should be a compromise somewhere... like a complete scan in the database but once scanned the information is delted unless a match occurs... something like that.

Exactly, that's what I said above. It's what we have here in the UK and it has helped solve numerous crimes, both new and so-called cold cases.

reply to post by stumason


I was still typing and didnt see your post. Glad that we came to the same conclusion tho, in some respects anyways.

This is going to be the future of investigations... unless human kind gets better psychologically and no longer is comitting all of these offenses against each other.

reply to post by stumason


If charged and convicted, yes the DNA should remain on file. If you READ THE ARTICLE you will see they are attempting to keep the DNA regardless of whether or not someone is convicted.

Also it is not my stance that this sort of thing necessarily goes against the constitution. I was saying that SOME see it as violating the 4th and 14th.

reply to post by Raustin


Ok, calm down..

I read the article, I was just voicing MY opinion on this whole DNA thing.

Also, I never said YOU had that stance on the constitution, I was again just offering MY opinion on what YOU said with regards to my question on the constitution.

I can honestly see both sides of the debate here. In one corner we have the violent offenders, sex offenders, etc. that I believe should have DNA taken from them and held indefinitely (if convicted). In the other corner, we have the fear that someone getting caught for possession (only personal amount of usage) would instantly have their DNA put on file (and not deleted) for the rest of their lives'.

We have violent vs. non-violent.

We have Pro-DNA vs. Anti-DNA.


My opinion: Do you honestly think that the Feds would "delete" these records after collecting them in the system? If the Buffalo City Police Department can't even figure out how to wipe a hard drive on a copy machine (among other departments in the country), what makes you think that they (the Feds) would delete DNA evidence and structure if they know full well that they have it in their possession? I honestly think some posters have too much faith in the Feds, but I respect the fact that we do need a more comprehensive DNA database for violent offenders. I for one wouldn't want to have my DNA taken for a warrant for failure to pay parking tickets or some stupid thing like that, and because it seems like this bill is just vague enough, that may actually happen that way. I personally believe that this bill could just be another "Big Brother Scare Tactic" to continue to subdue the masses, always worrying about something or other. What if it happens that I am smoking in my car, throw the butt out my window, and it happens to be near a future crime scene (within a few hours) with no other evidence other than my cigarette butt? People have been convicted with less evidence before. I wouldn't want my DNA to be the "smoking gun" in a case that I had nothing to do with. Of course this is a very extreme scenario, but I think you all get the picture. With the amount of dirty cops, dirty Feds, and dirty government (yes they exist, so please save me the lecture about them not existing), I would be very weary about my DNA being on file, especially if they "need" a perp in order to "solve the case."

I can see a case going down where there is a national Amber Alert for a missing young child, or something of the sorts. They happen to find semen, or hair, or whatever on the body (once they find said child). Turns out the DNA from said sample "supposedly" belongs to a guy who was arrested for possession for personal use and had DNA taken from him (I'm using the possession thing because I think many of those charges are bogus...historically speaking, many repeat "drug offenders" are non-violent that only have enough for a personal amount of use.....but that's for a different forum for a different day), and WOW! the Feds save the day because of this new law that was put into place regarding DNA collection.

I understand I'm starting to spin the story a bit, so no need for the knee-jerkers out there to get on my case about it. I'm just trying to show the extremes of what this may mean as far as law enforcement goes.

Anyway, just my $.02


Peace be with you.

-truthseeker


edit to clarify a paragraph.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by truthseeker1984]

reply to post by stumason


Sorry, I don't know why I'm grumpy. I appreciate your opinion. I thought that you were referring to me as you responded to a specific post of mine. I'll just open a beer now.

reply to post by Raustin


No problem

I can be a grumpy git at times too

reply to post by rjmelter


I am aware of how our court system works, I'm also aware of how the appeals system works. I don't remember questioning the workings of our court system, so I'm confused as to why you feel to need to attempt to explain it.

Yes people can sue for many things, but I asked you too provide links to cases that back up your claim of the win/win situations where people that have been falsely arrested have made a lot of money off of it.

Please spare me the, if you're innocent then you have nothing to hide, arguement. If I'm innocent they have no need for my DNA, nor do they have a right to it. It has nothing to do with hiding anything, it has to do with the fact that my DNA is just that, MINE, it's part of my body, it belongs to me.

If they are proven innocent should they delete the sample from the database?? NOPE. Why? Because people that get "assaulted" by the courts hold grudges and may commit a crime afterwards to get back at "the man" (the government).

Oh I see innocent law abiding people will suddenly turn into criminals because they were falsely arrested That is just nonsense. "The man" I think someone's been watching too many movies from the 70's.

There may be those out there that are against this because they fear it will be used for genocide, but that's not the case with me.

The harm done by having idle DNA samples sitting in databases somewhere is that innocent people are being treated as if they were guilty on the off chance that they may commit a crime. Coupled with the fact that those that will have access to that DNA are not above corruption. We do not have a corruption free judicial system, nor do we have corruption free LEOs, nor a corruption free government, so no this DNA harvesting is not acceptable.

The screening process for law enforcement is much better, yeah you keep tellin yourself that.

I don't play word games, I said what I meant and I said it clearly.

You should know that if someone is found innocent thet local government will be forced to pay you (and they always do) for false imprisonment and for causing psychological harm.

You keep making that claim, like I said before provide the links to back up your claims.

There's no power trip here, I have no need to have any power over you.

reply to post by chise61


Use your own post as an example

She is suing for 15 million dollars for being denied phone calls and good food. And for having to knock on the door when she wanted to use the bathroom.

First read I thought it was her that was going to get the 15 million but its going to be 16.5 and it is going to split up between a couple thousand people. Ok so they get 2-3,000 each... but when they have to pay their taxes it will have done nothing because they will have to pay it back at the end of the year when the taxpayers pay back the money for their corrupt government.

You are right its not a win win for her.

While we argue over this stupid little word game thing and technicalities... our rights and freedoms are being stripped and torn away from us. Its amazing to me how Americans such as ourselves, concern ourselves by talking about things to each other (and it will never make a difference... NEVER) and in the meantime nothing is happening because the only people talking about it is each other and those officials appointed above us are sitting in their high chairs looking down at us and laughing. If you really want to make a difference contact your mayor, set up an appointment and ask him what you can do to make a difference in your community. Id be willing to bet you that ya wouldn't do it. Because its easier to sit behind a monitor and prove how intellectual you are, rather than it is to actually step outside and try to make a real difference.

I hate dirty cops such as the ones in your article. But the ones in this Article are not dirty cops. The woman was asking to be shot, they followed their standard procedures. LEO's do not stand by and do nothing while 2 guns are being pointed at them. THUS is why I graduate in June with my Degree in Criminal Justice... because I dont like dirty cops and I plan on making a difference in other peoples lives rather than just telling other people I dont like it, I will do what I can to make it a reality. That one thing wrong with ATS'rs they are all talk and dont take action.

Out of all the conversations and threads I've seen on ATS, some of us could have made a real difference in this world... but we spend our lives doing petty jobs and talking amongst ourselves, never taking real action. If thats you and it makes you happy keep doing it. But I'm not going to waste my time saying that you are arguing over technicalities (which are probably legitimate because some of the words I use are not always the correct ones to use). BUT YOU ARE playing word games. Aruging over techincal terms. You should try to be a lawyer, so you could make the big money too. Make a real difference hunh

[edit on 22-5-2010 by rjmelter]

reply to post by rjmelter


My thread was about a woman that started a class action lawsuit against the CPD because of their poor treatment of people in their custody, not for being falsely arrested. That money will be split up between more than a couple of thousand people, there are 12,000 people in the first group alone. There are three groups the 1st will receive up to $3,000 each, the second up to $2,000 and the last up to $90. More people may still be added to the lawsuit which will then lower the amount that each person receives.

I've asked you twice now to back up your claims that people that are falsely arrested make lots of money off of it. Since you haven't, I can only believe that your claims are unfounded.

Yes our rights and freedoms are being stripped from us, and this DNA law that you advocate is just another example of that fact.

Talking about it can make a difference by making others aware of is really happening in this country.

As far as talking to my mayor, not gonna happen as he is the biggest part of the problem here. He is a staunch advocate of taking people's rights and freedoms away. As is shown by our gun laws and our excessive surveillance of citizens.

Id be willing to bet you that ya wouldn't do it. Because its easier to sit behind a monitor and prove how intellectual you are, rather than it is to actually step outside and try to make a real difference.

If you want to debate the issue at hand with me that's fine, but leave the ad hominem attacks out of it, they have no place here.

I hate dirty cops such as the ones in your article. But the ones in this Article are not dirty cops. The woman was asking to be shot, they followed their standard procedures. LEO's do not stand by and do nothing while 2 guns are being pointed at them.

Could you provide a link to the article you are referring to as I have no idea what you are talking about.

That one thing wrong with ATS'rs they are all talk and dont take action.

That is simply conjecture on your part. You do not know this to be a fact.

Out of all the conversations and threads I've seen on ATS, some of us could have made a real difference in this world... but we spend our lives doing petty jobs and talking amongst ourselves, never taking real action. If thats you and it makes you happy keep doing it. But I'm not going to waste my time saying that you are arguing over technicalities (which are probably legitimate because some of the words I use are not always the correct ones to use). BUT YOU ARE playing word games. Aruging over techincal terms. You should try to be a lawyer, so you could make the big money too. Make a real difference hunh

This is the second time that you have accused me of playing word games. Please explain to me how I am doing that. Quote the sections of my posts where I am playing word games.

How do you know that I am not already an attorney

I've had plenty of people suggest that I should be a lawyer due to my tenacity.

Please quote where I have said anything about making a real difference in this thread.

Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by rjmelter

 

I've had plenty of people suggest that I should be a lawyer due to my tenacity.

Please quote where I have said anything about making a real difference in this thread.

•tenacious - dogged: stubbornly unyielding; "dogged persistence"; "dour determination"; "the most vocal and pertinacious of all the critics"; "a mind not gifted to discover truth but tenacious to hold it"- T.S.Eliot; "men tenacious of opinion"

•tenacious - clinging to an object or surface; adhesive; unwilling to yield from a point of view etc; dogged; holding together; cohesive; having a good memory; retentive

Exactly, you are unwilling to be moved from a single point.

And I never said you said you were going to make difference in this world, it doesnt fit your personality profile

AND for the article i forgot to link to......

As far as talking to my mayor, not gonna happen as he is the biggest part of the problem here. He is a staunch advocate of taking people's rights and freedoms away. As is shown by our gun laws and our excessive surveillance of citizens.

"That is simply conjecture on your part. You do not know this to be a fact."

Evidence?

I've asked you twice now to back up your claims that people that are falsely arrested make lots of money off of it. Since you haven't, I can only believe that your claims are unfounded.

If this is how you deal with facts, instead of actually using logic and reading articles posted... then *** *** While interning I was privledged to be told about some situations where people in the jail in that county did get paid for abuses, and the county already takes funds from tax dollars in each yearly tax to pay for such situations... but it didnt get in the papers for political reasons... thus is why I am not sending these links that you request (personally i dont know why you think your so special to deserve the privledges of my time . ) We all know how our government works... and how corrupt it is... for your above quote... how could you believe anything on ATS then?? BUT I did just back up one of my claims with facts... but given your needy nature, do you want documents to back up conversations that werent recorded or documented?? If you are a lawyer you would know its pretty impossible to do such... and considering this isnt a news agency but only a mere website would you really feel it warranted my time and effort again to prove something that people already know a lot about?

WHEN COPS ARE CAUGHT, THE CITY WILL PAY... its that simple

and as far as win win... if any of them make a profit off of the situation that gets the corrupt guys fired it is a win win because they are accomplsihing something by getting rid of these people. AND GENERALLY when a corrupt situation occurs people ONLY THEN create policys against it.

AND WHEN IT COMES TO WORD GAMES??

If they are proven innocent should they delete the sample from the database?? NOPE. Why? Because people that get "assaulted" by the courts hold grudges and may commit a crime afterwards to get back at "the man" (the government).

-- WHAT I SAID--



Oh I see innocent law abiding people will suddenly turn into criminals because they were falsely arrested That is just nonsense. "The man" I think someone's been watching too many movies from the 70's.

--WHAT YOU SAID--

HERE is a website which speaks of revenge on the justice system... and another, and another



At what point did I say that they would SUDDENLY turn into criminals because they were falsely arrested. I said they MAY, and may mean there is the possibility that they wont... you twisted it to say that I was saying something that I was not. Had I said it the way you are having others beleive I was saying it... it would be nonsense... YOU twisting my words aka playing word games.... is nonsense. I'm only 23 years old... I dont watch movies before my birthday

I hope your intentions are not to derail the thread... If you are a lawyer leave the belittling in the courtroom... ats is about seeking truth, not dominance.. and yes you are trying to get power, you try to discredit me in every way... at what point have you had anything positive to say about any of my posts? After someone belittles someone then they take their place above them... a symbolic and psychological struggle for power... is it not?


[edit on 22-5-2010 by rjmelter]

reply to post by rjmelter


I know what the word means or else I wouldn't have used it

And yes I am tenacious, like a dog with a bone who refuses to give it up unless offered a better bone

And I never said you said you were going to make difference in this world, it doesnt fit your personality profile

And again instead of debating you choose to go with the ad hominem attacks.

So i see by your claim that you know what my personality type is you must also be a psycology major, so go ahead psych major please do tell me what my personality type is, I'll be more than glad to truthfully tell you if you're correct.

AND for the article i forgot to link to......

Ok I've read it. I still don't understand why you brought it up in the first place as it does not pertain to this thread at all.

"That is simply conjecture on your part. You do not know this to be a fact."

Evidence?

Here ya go......

His inane stance on gun laws......

"It's been very effective," Daley said, picking up a gun from the dozens displayed on a nearby table. "If I put this up your butt, you'll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know."

www.examiner.com...

Mayor Richard Daley today rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the city's gun ban, but said that he will be ready to act quickly to put in place restrictions on gun ownership if it does.

newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...

www.nbcchicago.com...

www.examiner.com...

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (D) is showing contempt for his own country’s and state’s institutions, by seeking a foreign entity to enforce his anti-gun agenda against the American people.

This week, Daley called for “redress against the gun industry” in the World Court, in The Hague, Netherlands. Forgetting or not caring who his constituents are

www.opposingviews.com...



Daley's big brother hunger for surveillance cameras.....


justgetthere.us...

www.nytimes.com...

Even London – widely considered the world’s most closely watched city with an estimated 500,000 cameras – doesn’t incorporate private cameras in its system as Chicago does.

www.nwherald.com...

www.housingwatch.com...

There's the evidence to back up my claims.

If this is how you deal with facts, instead of actually using logic and reading articles posted...

You haven't posted any articles to back up your claim.

While interning I was privledged to be told about some situations where people in the jail in that county did get paid for abuses, and the county already takes funds from tax dollars in each yearly tax to pay for such situations... but it didnt get in the papers for political reasons... thus is why I am not sending these links that you request

Then you have no proof of your claims, you merely have hearsay.

personally i dont know why you think your so special to deserve the privledges of my time

I don't, however when you make a claim about something you should be willing and able to back it up. At least that's the way it works around here, you've been a member long enough to know that.

how could you believe anything on ATS then??

Because most credible members here provide evidence of what they claim.

BUT I did just back up one of my claims with facts... but given your needy nature, do you want documents to back up conversations that werent recorded or documented??

No, you provided hearsay. Again with the ad hominem attacks instead of actual debates.

At what point did I say that they would SUDDENLY turn into criminals because they were falsely arrested. I said they MAY, and may mean there is the possibility that they wont... you twisted it to say that I was saying something that I was not.

You said that was the reason that they should keep an innocent person's DNA on file, which is assuming that they will retaliate. See no word games, don't try to say you meant something different than what you said.

I am in no way derailing the thread. I am debating claims that you made pertaining to this thread. If the OP feels that I am guilty of derailing their thread they will say something and I will cease my debate with you.

you try to discredit me in every way

Discrediting someone is not attempting to gain power, it is simply trying to prove their claims to be false.

at what point have you had anything positive to say about any of my posts?

Am I supposed to ? This isn't a popularity contest. I can say the same about you.

I haven't belittled you at all. If you feel that I have then perhaps you perceived something that I said in a matter that it wasn't meant.


My guess is that you're majoring in criminal justice so you can become a police officer, I could be wrong.


I'm done attempting to discuss the issue with you, as it is clear by all of your personal attacks that you are not capable of having a mature debate.

All bolding is mine.



[edit on 5/23/2010 by chise61]

reply to post by chise61


wow, such a waste of talent.

second line

back on topic plz

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bubbabuddha

 

I can't see in there the part where they mention that taking DNA samples from arrested people is not allowed..

In case I missed it, could you elaborate?

From the Constitution Bill of Rights:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons" Your DNA is In Your Person.

They cannot take it if you haven't commited a crime. But they Do it anyway.

Back in 1913 on December 24 the Constitution finally died.

December 25 1913 There should have been blood spilled in the streets of DC.

Amerikans wake up! There is Tyranny. What did Jefferson say about Tyrants?

The tree needs to be watered be for it dies!

In the Uk dna evidence is kept , regardless of if found guilty of a crime , dna taken on arrest and kept on file( or in the sandwich fridge!!)

news.bbc.co.uk...

A lot of people on here saying they have "never" committed a crime ,Is that really true ,you have never , ever committed ANY crime?

I am fairly sure a lot of folk have commited crime but never had there dna taken .....lol

Some criminals have been caught when there relatives dna has been checked


www.mirror.co.uk...


I cannot say I wholeheartedly agree with the keeping of dna evidence without a conviction, my dna is on file , when i was arrested on suspicion of a driving offence , one which was found to be false almost straight away , however my dna was still kept,rankles with me ....BUT , however ,I cannot deny the system has helped catch some really evil bastards as well..........who probably felt they had got away with it after so many years...

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by bubbabuddha

 

I can't see in there the part where they mention that taking DNA samples from arrested people is not allowed..

In case I missed it, could you elaborate?

From the Constitution Bill of Rights:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons" Your DNA is In Your Person.

They cannot take it if you haven't commited a crime. But they Do it anyway.

Back in 1913 on December 24 the Constitution finally died.

December 25 1913 There should have been blood spilled in the streets of DC.






Amerikans wake up! There is Tyranny. What did Jefferson say about Tyrants?

The tree needs to be watered be for it dies!

Surely they CAN take it if you haven't committed a crime "upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation" eg you can be arrested on suspicion of a crime and dna taken......with reasonable cause....by the appropriate enforcing officer whether that be police or or warranted officer of the law or government