RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

mnottertail -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:04:33 AM)

Yeah, but you always see those teabaggers legislating from the bench. 



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:05:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic

Hey, hey, invoking the spirit of the left, the government would never have any impure motives or desires to abuse a database full of everyone's DNA. That's just paranoid.


Is there any validation for this moronic bullshit?



kdsub -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:07:03 AM)

quote:

dna makes you more likely to be violent or some other criminal activity?


Will if it is in my DNA then I guess it will affect me if I know of it or not. And unless the Constitution is changed I have nothing to worry about... And perhaps I would be more watchful in my actions as well.

Butch



kdsub -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:12:01 AM)

I will give up a little well regulated privacy to save the lives of many. Just think of all the children who now suffer from genetic disease that could have been prevented or lessened with intervention if know early enough...as an example.

Butch



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:14:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: katts3

Guns what good are guns if big brother is buying up all the ammo,I have spoken on here many times in the past just how important it was to stock your ammo and learn to reload...Have you seen the lines around the block when most major sporting goods stores get their ammo shipment..Well my friends lets hope that it isn't to late for most of you...Bounty


Last time I checked federal arsenal is still selling surplus 30-06 ,7.62 ,.223,.45, and 9 mil by the case. I have not seen any lines at turners or any of the other gun store. Now should you have a line on some 220 swift at a reasonable price [:D] baring that I would be interested in any once fired brass(6mm labelle)



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:17:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

Another revolting example of SCOTUS going against the very ideals of liberty in what is supposed to be a free country.



Peace and comfort,



Michael


Does this mean that you also oppose the cops being able to photograph and fingerprint those arrested?



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:26:14 AM)

quote:

Just think of all the children who now suffer from genetic disease that could have been prevented or lessened with intervention if know early enough...as an example.


How, exactly, do we "know" that anything could have been prevented?

Oh wait I just saw the part about the "children"????what the fuck does that have to do with anything? Oh wait let me guess..."sympathy"????"empathy"?????
When one lacks logic sympathy is often sought as a substitute.
If the ama and the pharmaceutical companies want to create a data base then let them fucking do it. I think it is called research and it is tax deductable.



JeffBC -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:48:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic
Hey, hey, invoking the spirit of the left, the government would never have any impure motives or desires to abuse a database full of everyone's DNA. That's just paranoid.

Is there any validation for this moronic bullshit?


ROFL, you mean the bullshit about stupid stereotypes of the left and the right by US voters? No, there is not.

For the record, I self-identify as "left" and I, apparently, have an active imagination when it comes to ways that such data might be misused. Actually, I'm fairly certain I'd consider ANY use of such data as a misuse... including finding a legitimate criminal at a legitimate and horrific crime scene.

So someone clue me in on the SCOTUS score board above. How'd this split democrat/republican? My guess is that it's not evenly along party lines. This sort of thing transcends party. This is something both parties want.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 11:49:44 AM)

Interesting....

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
quote:

Police state?? Maybe.
But the only ones needing to fear anything of the sort are criminals and those with something to hide.


Isn't that the same argument that the cops use to to "justify" a warrantless search?

They can already do that here [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Is it possible that there might be a reason that the founders thought it necessary to require a warrant to search a persons home?"

In theory, that is also true here.
However, they ask and if you refuse you are arrested on the spot for obstructing the police.
Then they search your empty premises for which they don't need a warrant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
If an insurance co. had access to that data base might they be able to "screen" potential liabilities out?

All insurance companies do that already.
If you are a bad risk, you get your premiums hiked.
If the risk is too bad, you are refused insurance. Period.
What's worse is that they all talk to each other and corroborate info.
So you can't get away with lieing to another insurance company to get cover. lol.



thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 12:03:09 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Is it possible that there might be a reason that the founders thought it necessary to require a warrant to search a persons home?"

quote:

In theory, that is also true here.
However, they ask and if you refuse you are arrested on the spot for obstructing the police.
Then they search your empty premises for which they don't need a warrant.


That is not legal in the u.s.
That cops do it is common but a good lawyer can get the evidence supressed or have the verdict overturned on appeal on constitutional grounds.
That the cops would do all this and the person found to be not guilty the individual has virtually no recourse civilly against the cops for all it cost to defend himself.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 12:03:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I will give up a little well regulated privacy to save the lives of many. Just think of all the children who now suffer from genetic disease that could have been prevented or lessened with intervention if know early enough...as an example.

Butch


quote:

ORIGINAL Benjamin Franklin

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.



Sorry, Butch. My money is with old Ben, on this one.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



tj444 -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 12:13:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

dna makes you more likely to be violent or some other criminal activity?


Will if it is in my DNA then I guess it will affect me if I know of it or not. And unless the Constitution is changed I have nothing to worry about... And perhaps I would be more watchful in my actions as well.

Butch

ummm.. they might label you a "domestic terrorist" (the fbi did that in private correspondence to 1%ers/big biz about OWSers) and put you on a watch list? come by and spy on you.. question you, your neighbors, your friends, family, co-workers or business associates/clients, your doctors, etc..

Imo, the Constitution gets violated on a regular basis (just in the news- fbi warrantless searches for google emails/info, and Holder spying on AP & a journalist & his parents)..
but naw, ya got nothing to worry about.. [8|]



JeffBC -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 12:31:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
ummm.. they might label you a "domestic terrorist" (the fbi did that in private correspondence to 1%ers/big biz about OWSers) and put you on a watch list? come by and spy on you.. question you, your neighbors, your friends, family, co-workers or business associates/clients, your doctors, etc..

Yeah... and it's not like we've ever done anything like that in the past either. Aswad mentioned a few such figures among them Dr. Martin Luther King.

quote:

Imo, the Constitution gets violated on a regular basis (just in the news- fbi warrantless searches for google emails/info, and Holder spying on AP & a journalist & his parents).. but naw, ya got nothing to worry about.. [8|]

It routinely astonishes me to hear Americans talk about the US constitution as if it meant anything. In order for it to have any meaning the SCOTUS would need to be... you know... doing their job. You'd think Citizen's United would be enough all by itself to put paid to that line of thinking.



FelineRanger -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 12:41:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Is it possible that there might be a reason that the founders thought it necessary to require a warrant to search a persons home?"

quote:

In theory, that is also true here.
However, they ask and if you refuse you are arrested on the spot for obstructing the police.
Then they search your empty premises for which they don't need a warrant.


That is not legal in the u.s.
That cops do it is common but a good lawyer can get the evidence supressed or have the verdict overturned on appeal on constitutional grounds.
That the cops would do all this and the person found to be not guilty the individual has virtually no recourse civilly against the cops for all it cost to defend himself.


Beg to differ. Warrantless searches, seizures, even arrests are perfectly legal under Probable Cause, which means in layman's terms you have to have a strong belief that something illegal is going on (Seeing a meth lab through an open window, for example). In practice, however, Probable Cause means "whatever the hell I want it to mean," to quote one NJ cop. Probable cause evidence is also generally not suppressed, either. That whole "a good lawyer can ... " line of reasoning fails unless you're willing to put out OJ-type money. Otherwise, lawyers sit on their asses and do nothing while you twist in the wind.



DaddySatyr -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 1:17:42 PM)

Don't forget: Exigent Circumstances.



Powergamz1 -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 1:25:31 PM)

There is no requirement anywhere in the Constitution for a warrant before a search. What is required is reasonableness.

And 'reasonable' has been defined though a long series of court cases to include searches that have nothing to do with Probable Cause, such as consent, pursuant to arrest, and random check.

In any case, this SC ruling isn't about searches, the Court has just held that a cheek swab is an exemplar, no more of a search than a booking photo.


quote:

ORIGINAL: FelineRanger


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Is it possible that there might be a reason that the founders thought it necessary to require a warrant to search a persons home?"

quote:

In theory, that is also true here.
However, they ask and if you refuse you are arrested on the spot for obstructing the police.
Then they search your empty premises for which they don't need a warrant.


That is not legal in the u.s.
That cops do it is common but a good lawyer can get the evidence supressed or have the verdict overturned on appeal on constitutional grounds.
That the cops would do all this and the person found to be not guilty the individual has virtually no recourse civilly against the cops for all it cost to defend himself.


Beg to differ. Warrantless searches, seizures, even arrests are perfectly legal under Probable Cause, which means in layman's terms you have to have a strong belief that something illegal is going on (Seeing a meth lab through an open window, for example). In practice, however, Probable Cause means "whatever the hell I want it to mean," to quote one NJ cop. Probable cause evidence is also generally not suppressed, either. That whole "a good lawyer can ... " line of reasoning fails unless you're willing to put out OJ-type money. Otherwise, lawyers sit on their asses and do nothing while you twist in the wind.




Aswad -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 2:29:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

Just think of all the children who now suffer from genetic disease that could have been prevented or lessened with intervention if know early enough...as an example.



This is nonsensical. DNA fingerprinting uses noisy segments with a high rate of mutation, not segments that have a major contribution to illness, precisely because the stuff that needs to work in our genome tends to stay constant across everyone, while the stuff that's irrelevant tends to mutate wildly (and, thus, makes a good identification aid).

IWYW,
— Aswad.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 2:40:48 PM)

FR...

I have yet to make up my mind on this but Kennedy made a interesting argument equating it fingerprinting. It's faster and less invasive than fingerprinting as well.



truckinslave -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 2:50:34 PM)

A DNA database will both exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty.
It is my sincere belief that most of those here who castigate this decision actually oppose the conviction (and possible execution) of thugs.

There is only one remotely feasible problem created by such a database: its use by insurance companies as a means of determining individual premiums (and I'm not sure I'm against that either, really).
Every other fear seems constructed of pure paranoia.



Powergamz1 -> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection (6/3/2013 2:58:21 PM)

On that fear, the current HIPPA laws are only binding on medical and health care employees, not on government records.
I'd worry more about employers accessing a universal DNA database to screen out people with indications for expensive long term illnesses.


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

A DNA database will both exonerate the innocent and convict the guilty.
It is my sincere belief that most of those here who castigate this decision actually oppose the conviction (and possible execution) of thugs.

There is only one remotely feasible problem created by such a database: its use by insurance companies as a means of determining individual premiums (and I'm not sure I'm against that either, really).
Every other fear seems constructed of pure paranoia.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875