RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

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

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 21

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

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to TricklessMagic)

Profile

Post #: 22

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

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by kdsub -- 6/3/2013 11:14:59 AM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tj444)

Profile

Post #: 23

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

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by kdsub -- 6/3/2013 11:13:37 AM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 24

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

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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 baring that I would be interested in any once fired brass(6mm labelle)

(in reply to katts3)

Profile

Post #: 25

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

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 26

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

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 27

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

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 28

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

freedomdwarf1

Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline

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

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.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 29

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

thompsonx

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to freedomdwarf1)

Profile

Post #: 30

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

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 31

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

tj444

Posts: 7574
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

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..

_____________________________

As Anderson Cooper said “If he (Trump) took a dump on his desk, you would defend it”

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 32

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

JeffBC

Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline

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..

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.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to tj444)

Profile

Post #: 33

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

FelineRanger

Posts: 658
Joined: 9/4/2012
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Bill

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 34

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

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Don't forget: Exigent Circumstances.

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Profile

Post #: 35

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

Powergamz1

Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to FelineRanger)

Profile

Post #: 36

RE: Supreme Court OKs DNA collection - 6/3/2013 2:29:29 PM

Aswad

Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.

(in reply to thompsonx)

Profile

Post #: 37

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

FatDomDaddy

Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 38

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

truckinslave

Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to Powergamz1)

Profile

Post #: 39

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

Powergamz1

Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

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.