Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"]

And what if you were with someone else and could place you away from the crime? Seriously dude quit being so paranoid. Ragnarok1051

And what if you weren't with someone else to corroborate your alibi?

I shall point out that the "what ifs" were proposed by you. My "what if" was a counter to your "what if". You defeat your own argument.

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"]You got all that out of my one sentence? Dude seriously. dkrustyklown

Yes, I did get all of that from your one sentence. You claim that to fear governmental power is paranoia. In order to make such a claim, then you must believe that governmental abuse of power is impossible. Seeing as that you must believe abuse of power by government is impossible, then it is necessary for you to pretend that all prior governmental abuses of power never occured and are, instead, figments of my imagination.

My point is that governmental abuse of power has happened in the past. This means that it most certainly is possible. If it is possible, then being concerned about such a possibility is most certainly not paranoia. It is vigilance.

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"][QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

And what if you weren't with someone else to corroborate your alibi?

dkrustyklown

I shall point out that the "what ifs" were proposed by you. My "what if" was a counter to your "what if". You defeat your own argument.

I have this weird feeling that dkkrustyklown is wearing a tinfoil hat at the moment.

You'd obviously be breaking the law if you were gaining access to his DNA, seeing as it would be in the hands of the authorities.Bitter_Altmer

...and if I am a corrupt politican in a position to bend the "authorities" to my will, then what?

Blind obedience and loyalty to "authorities" is dangerous. Those "authorities" that you trust so freely with your liberties are people. They are no less susceptible to the vices of personal ambition or corruption than any man on the streets. The belief in the infalibility of authority opens the door to corrupton on a grand scale.

Shall I point out the continuing saga of corruption in the Maricopa County Sherif's department? Or perhaps the complicity of "authorities" in the murders of civil rights activists during the 1960's?

Atleast Canada is near by if this was to go into practice. Sorry, I see very very little benefit to this and waaaaaay too many possible problems since in a country this large with so much red tape, people fall through the cracks ALOT and this will just make it easier. It takes a special brand of lunacy to believe the government would never use your DNA for anything (the Government could use it for whatever it wants. If they wanted to make comic book clone soldiers they could. I mean, what are you going to do about it? You're a criminal! We have proof because you were once arrested, why should anyone believe you?) or that it would be impossible for criminals to get ahold of your dna and use it to frame you. If I viewed it through rose colored glasses and the idea of "No way this could ever go wrong! Theres only positives from this" maybe I'd support it. But I use logic and I am quite certain this would be used wrongly or cause an innocent to be put in jail even though they did nothing.

I voted for Obama, I have supported him and I do trust the government more so than say, big buisness. But the government doesn't want "whats best for you". It wants whats best to keep it going. The government is not altruistic and has done shady things in the past. I've supported Obama but no way even I, a far left liberal could possibly support this. I'd rather be paranoid and not give the government access to my DNA, than wear rose colored glasses and think nothing could possibly go wrong.

Yes and there's too many what ifs. Ragnarok1051

Not the least of which is the initial "what if" that you proposed.

I leave you for the night with one name to ponder: J Edgar Hoover.

Anyone remember him? Sleep well.

[QUOTE="Bitter_Altmer"]You'd obviously be breaking the law if you were gaining access to his DNA, seeing as it would be in the hands of the authorities.dkrustyklown

...and if I am a corrupt politican in a position to bend the "authorities" to my will, then what?

Blind obedience and loyalty to "authorities" is dangerous. Those "authorities" that you trust so freely with your liberties are people. They are no less susceptible to the vices of personal ambition or corruption than any man on the streets. The belief in the infalibility of authority opens the door to corrupton on a grand scale.

Shall I point out the continuing saga of corruption in the Maricopa County Sherif's department? Or perhaps the complicity of "authorities" in the murders of civil rights activists during the 1960's?

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

[QUOTE="Bitter_Altmer"]You'd obviously be breaking the law if you were gaining access to his DNA, seeing as it would be in the hands of the authorities.Bitter_Altmer

...and if I am a corrupt politican in a position to bend the "authorities" to my will, then what?

Blind obedience and loyalty to "authorities" is dangerous. Those "authorities" that you trust so freely with your liberties are people. They are no less susceptible to the vices of personal ambition or corruption than any man on the streets. The belief in the infalibility of authority opens the door to corrupton on a grand scale.

Shall I point out the continuing saga of corruption in the Maricopa County Sherif's department? Or perhaps the complicity of "authorities" in the murders of civil rights activists during the 1960's?

I suggest you simply don't trust the authorities. They are not magical altruistic beings that would never do anything wrong. I've met several corrupt cops in my short life and we've seen many corrupt politicians. Is there a better alternative? Not that I can think of. Robots obviously can't work since they would be programmed (and under command) by the same corrupted people.

And if the cops could take your dna once they arrested you, I think every police station would have your DNA in a database and on file. And having thousands of places and millions of people with access to my DNA is very unsettling.

If Obama is serious about this he should release samples of his semen to the public.

The major issue I see with this is what if someone is wrongly arrested or convicted? So now their DNA is in a database for the rest of their lives for something they didn't even do

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Until you amend the constitution to get rid of this language, the collection of DNA from persons not convicted of a crime is unconstitutional.

I do find it somewhat amusing that some of you in this thread expressing such distrust of government are the same ones I have seen in other threads expressing great trust in the government to run businesses, health care, etc etc.

But, to be fair, I also notice a few folks normally opposed to expansion of govt power taking the position "if you're innocent, you got nothing to hide".

Very interesting indeed.

Has anyone here ever been a suspect and had absolutely NOTHING to do with the crime at all? Here's the thing: if you're not a criminal you have nothing to worry about. If you're involved in a crime either as a perpetrator or victim, then the police having your DNA is a GOOD thing. I would be concerned if they just pulled in some random guy of the street who literally did nothing and had nothing to do with any crime, but was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time, but even then it comes down to how the police handle DNA and what is done with it. I mean, if someone asked for my DNA and I knew it was for nothing else other than "just in case" then I would be happy to have that on record, along with my finger prints and dental records. I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide, but if I found out they mixed up or lost my samples (which should be destroyed anyway with only the results kept on file) and my DNa was either wrongfully used or something then it's a concern.

If you're John Doe and you're not a criminal what are you worried about?

DigitalExile

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Until you amend the constitution to get rid of this language, the collection of DNA from persons not convicted of a crime is unconstitutional.

I do find it somewhat amusing that some of you in this thread expressing such distrust of government are the same ones I have seen in other threads expressing great trust in the government to run businesses, health care, etc etc.

But, to be fair, I also notice a few folks normally opposed to expansion of govt power taking the position "if you're innocent, you got nothing to hide".

Very interesting indeed.

collegeboy64

[QUOTE="Tauruslink"]I think this might actually be a good idea. It could help police catch people who commit crimes. They already take your name, address, picture, and fingerprints when they arrest you. This isn't much different. Mousetaches

Here's the real question, What DOESN'T Obama support?

Seriously, DNA Testing. I can understand if it is a convicted felon or someone on parole is suspected. But really, everyone that's a suspect?

I saw so and so walking down the street when the crime was committed 10 blocks away (DNA TEST). Oh, Guess he's not the guy :P

If Obama is serious about this he should release samples of his semen to the public.

tim22000

Here's the real question, What DOESN'T Obama support?

Snipes_2

I would presume he doesn't support not sampling DNA upon arrest, along with the negation of everything else he supports.

"tighten the grip around folks" :lol:

crazy socialist

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

Here's the real question, What DOESN'T Obama support?

GabuEx

I would presume he doesn't support not sampling DNA upon arrest, along with the negation of everything else he supports.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Until you amend the constitution to get rid of this language, the collection of DNA from persons not convicted of a crime is unconstitutional.

I do find it somewhat amusing that some of you in this thread expressing such distrust of government are the same ones I have seen in other threads expressing great trust in the government to run businesses, health care, etc etc.

But, to be fair, I also notice a few folks normally opposed to expansion of govt power taking the position "if you're innocent, you got nothing to hide".

Very interesting indeed.

Vandalvideo

My person is my physical self. Taking DNA is different than getting fingerprints. One is invasive and actually siezes something that belongs to you (you cells). The other is non-invasive.

If they take my DNA "incident to arrest" and it turns out to be false arrest (i.e. misuse of police power) you can bet I'm going to sue not only for damages, but to get back my property, i.e. my DNA they took from me.

Obama has had his supermajority and has accomplished next to nothing except more debt. To blame things on a nearly powerless Republican minority is absurd.

MarcusAntonius

My person is my physical self. Taking DNA is different than getting fingerprints. One is invasive and actually siezes something that belongs to you (you cells). The other is non-invasive.If they take my DNA "incident to arrest" and it turns out to be false arrest (i.e. misuse of police power) you can bet I'm going to sue not only for damages, but to get back my property, i.e. my DNA they took from me.collegeboy64

Don't want your DNA sampled? DON'T GET ARRESTED. the end.

You know, I fail to see anyone explain how this is some kind of invasion of privacy akin to wiretapping.PannicAtack

That's the kind of thing people might want to keep private.

"Others also worry the practice would adversely affect minorities."

How would it adversely affect minorities? Just curious.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]My person is my physical self. Taking DNA is different than getting fingerprints. One is invasive and actually siezes something that belongs to you (you cells). The other is non-invasive.If they take my DNA "incident to arrest" and it turns out to be false arrest (i.e. misuse of police power) you can bet I'm going to sue not only for damages, but to get back my property, i.e. my DNA they took from me.Vandalvideo

So if they arrest me in good faith and take the $20 out of my wallet, I can't get it back? My DNA belongs to me. Its my property. How can they sieze it upon arrest and not return it to me upon my release?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]You know, I fail to see anyone explain how this is some kind of invasion of privacy akin to wiretapping.BuryMe

That's the kind of thing people might want to keep private.

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]You know, I fail to see anyone explain how this is some kind of invasion of privacy akin to wiretapping.xTheExploited

That's the kind of thing people might want to keep private.

Don't want your DNA sampled? DON'T GET ARRESTED. the end.

tocklestein2005

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]You know, I fail to see anyone explain how this is some kind of invasion of privacy akin to wiretapping.xTheExploited

That's the kind of thing people might want to keep private.

And given the situation that they are taking the samples, I'm pretty sure the government wouldn't be looking for diseases, or telling people if they found anything. I'm just uncomfortable with that information being available. My health is none of their business. It is between me and my doctor. No one else.

So if they arrest me in good faith and take the $20 out of my wallet, I can't get it back? My DNA belongs to me. Its my property. How can they sieze it upon arrest and not return it to me upon my release?collegeboy64

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]A person's DNA can tell people a lot about you. It can potentially let the police know if you are prone to certin diseases, for xample.

That's the kind of thing people might want to keep private.

BuryMe

And given the situation that they are taking the samples, I'm pretty sure the government wouldn't be looking for diseases, or telling people if they found anything. I'm just uncomfortable with that information being available. My health is none of their business. It is between me and my doctor. No one else.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]So if they arrest me in good faith and take the $20 out of my wallet, I can't get it back? My DNA belongs to me. Its my property. How can they sieze it upon arrest and not return it to me upon my release?Vandalvideo

Gettin on the slippery slope aren't we? Couldn't you make the case that allowing police to search a private home without a warrant serves the compelling government interest of fighting crime? Or that keeping all confiscated cash, regardless of subsequent release of the person whom the cash was taken from, serves the compelling govt interest of funding the police force?

As for keeping the DNA info derived from the sample: Wouldn't that be fruit from the forbidden tree?

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

Pirate700

Gettin on the slippery slope aren't we? Couldn't you make the case that allowing police to search a private home without a warrant serves the compelling government interest of fighting crime? Or that keeping all confiscated cash, regardless of subsequent release of the person whom the cash was taken from, serves the compelling govt interest of funding the police force? As for keeping the DNA info derived from the sample: Wouldn't that be fruit from the forbidden tree?collegeboy64

proscribedVandalvideo

Honest question since I'm getting a bit confused: do you mean "prescribed"? Something that is proscribed is banned.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]proscribedGabuEx

Honest question since I'm getting a bit confused: do you mean "prescribed"? Something that is proscribed is banned.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="dercoo"]

So if a person is is taken in as a suspect, but later released (innocent) they had the right to sample his DNA for future use.

WTF!, its innocent till proven guilty.

If they are convicted sure, but just picked up...

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Why do you not want the government to have your DNA info? What are you afraid of?

PannicAtack

So if you get arrested for disturbing the peace...you think it's reasonable for the government to have your DNA? Because I find that very unreasonable.LJS9502_basic