Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
sheesh!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by keigh View PostHis father's DNA made him a suspect as the crime scene DNA was a close match to the father, and but Usry's DNA proved he wasn't the man whose DNA the police were after. DNA is a marvelous thing. But Sheesh is a good comment.
The police searched the database for a close match and found it. They got a judge to issue a subpoena, which was honored. The police tested Usry's DNA and that ruled him out as a suspect.
So, it was a burden on Usry, but the DNA proved that he wasn't the man they were looking for. If he had been the man they were looking for, the DNA would have been the evidence used to convict a man who committed a crime.
Everything in this process was legitimate, so I don't understand how someone could object to it. If someone feels uneasy about their results in a public database being subject to police scrutiny, there's a simple solution. Don't put your results in a public database.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MMaddi View PostThe system worked as it should.
- The police made use of a self-serving incompetent "expert" who claimed that the match was very close. That's how the police got their warrant. In actuality, the match's common ancestor may have lived thousands of years ago.
- The police lied and tricked the man into giving a blood sample without a lawyer present (who could conceivably have challenged the warrant). Under current precedent, the police can lie and trick you into coming to the station, then lock you up and taser you in order to extract a blood sample.
You are correct, though, that law enforcement abuses such as these are not limited to DNA testing.Last edited by lgmayka; 22 October 2015, 11:10 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lgmayka View PostNo, it did not.
- The police made use of a self-serving incompetent "expert" who claimed that the match was very close. That's how the police got their warrant. In actuality, the match's common ancestor may have lived thousands of years ago.
Originally posted by lgmayka View Post- The police lied and tricked the man into giving a blood sample without a lawyer present (who could conceivably have challenged the warrant). Under current precedent, the police can lie and trick you into coming to the station, then lock you up and taser you in order to extract a blood sample.
However, I wonder how common it is for police to go to the extent of tasering someone merely to get a DNA sample. Do you have any evidence that this is a common practice?
The article you linked to as an example of tasering to obtain a blood sample reported this, "Arizona law allows police to obtain a search warrant for drawing blood from DUI suspects when they refuse the procedure. The department obtained such a warrant for Sewell.
"However, the law does not stipulate the degree of force police may use to enforce such warrants."
So, in the case you cite, they got a warrant to obtain the sample - no problem there, since they went through the necessary legal procedures. I do agree with you that tasering the person to get the sample was excessive force. Tasering was not necessary and may have led to serious damage to his health; there are cases where people with a medical condition have died after being tasered. Two or three policemen could have held down the man to get the blood sample.
Originally posted by lgmayka View PostYou are correct, though, that law enforcement abuses such as these are not limited to DNA testing.
However, my point still stands. If you have any qualms about law enforcement agencies having access to your DNA results in a public database, then don't put them in such a database.Last edited by MMaddi; 23 October 2015, 10:53 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MMaddi View PostI've bolded your statement, which exactly summarizes what went on in this case. The system worked as it should.
The system did not work as it should. Think of the DNA test this way - matching 36 of 37 markers for R1b is meaningless. It's sort of like saying the description of your car is close to the suspect - red, 4 wheels, 2 doors, Chevy. Well, what year was it made? Chevy has been around for a long while.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BBA64 View PostNice backtrack from your original quote...
The system did not work as it should. Think of the DNA test this way - matching 36 of 37 markers for R1b is meaningless. It's sort of like saying the description of your car is close to the suspect - red, 4 wheels, 2 doors, Chevy. Well, what year was it made? Chevy has been around for a long while.
Do you disagree?Last edited by MMaddi; 23 October 2015, 09:49 PM.
Comment
Comment